HelixDab2

Ooooo! Can I play?

Let's say that you have a pro-genocide Republican, a pro-genocide Democrat, and an anti-genocide 3rd party candidate, but the anti-genocide candidate also wants to give all school children machine guns and grenades, and require cars to intentionally run down pedestrians?

Or or or let's say that the anti-genocide candidate's campaign is so bad that her own party is telling her drop out? .

Most people in the military do a basic qualification that is pretty easy to pass (23/49 targets, at ranges from 25 to 300m); these aren't head shots, these are just on the target. Once you've done that, and graduated from basic, depending on your specialty, you may rarely touch a rifle. Lots of former military people think that they're good, just because they managed a single qualification, and that they know a lot about guns, but it's often just fudd-lore. Spec ops guys and Marines tend to be more proficient overall, because they spend more time practicing. (TBH, a lot of the spec ops are very mediocre as far as competitive shooting goes, but they have a lot of other skills that are relevant to the military, and tend to refuse to give up.) Cops are often even worse; their qualifications are at short distances, with very lenient time standards.

Bear in mind that the kill-to-bullet ratio in Afghanistan was about 1:300,000; most shooting in the modern military is suppressive, rather than directed at a specific target.

Compare that to someone that's a USPSA B class shooter, or someone that regularly shoots PCSL 2 gun matches; they will tend to outshoot a lot of retired military, because they tend to practice, and practice on a shot timer, a lot.

Where o where is UniversalMonk when you want to shove something in his smarmy, trollish face...?

Without claiming outright magic [...]

...We're still talking about zombies, right? Animated corpses that have an overwhelming need to consume human flesh, and can only be killed with overwhelming brain damage? I'm pretty sure that's the definition of magic right there. If you're talking about something like the cordyceps fungi--which, to infect humans, would still need some kind of magical power--you still have a very, very finite limit on how long a 'human' will survive (about four weeks without food, give or take), so you should be able to just wait them out, rather than needing to proactively kill them.

That zombie horde will be a lot less dangerous and easy to clean up once it’s crawling on the ground with all the speed of a toddler.

Less dangerous, yes. Not not dangerous, depending on which version of zombies you're talking about specifically.

You haven't shot with people that were in the military, have you? :P

I thought that they still used them for destroying some munitions? Like, those burn pits in Iraq that caused so many cases of cancer? IDK.

You can quite legally buy them in the US though. They're pricey, but, hey, you never know, right?

You'd still need to hit each zombie individually though.

Kinda hard to walk with one leg

Zombies can and do drag themselves, or even worm their way across fields. Until the brain is destroyed, they're a threat.

25mm chain gun is probably going to mist a few bodies.

Sure, but, again, unless you hit the head, they're still a threat. And meanwhile, you've blown through a thousand rounds of ammo.

Artillery is an area denial weapon.

You can only deny area when people aren't willing to charge into it. Zombies aren't doing massed charges though; each and every zombie is Leroy Jenkins, acting entirely independently, and with zero foresight.

IMO, the most effective method weapon would be a steam roller, as long as all the mechanical parts and the operator cockpit were completely covered so that a zombie couldn't damage anything. Like, say, some of the mine removal vehicles. Moving around is going to attract the zombies, and then running them over would eliminate them.

Conventional infantry tactics don't really work against zombies. For instance, suppressing fire; you can't suppress zombies, because they don't care if they get shot, and it only matters if they get shot in the head. You can't inflict any amount of damage that's going to force a retreat. Artillery and bombs are only going to effect them if they're in the direct blast zone; shrapnel still has to penetrate the brain.

Your best bets are likely going to be napalm and flame throwers. I'm not sure how many napalm bombs the US military has, but I'm pretty sure that they don't have tons of flamethrowers.

You shouldn't need to. .300 Win mag is long action, so you're going to be using a bolt action rifle. There's not going to be too many contexts where you're going to want to swap out the scope for anything other than fairly long range.

Why would you us a bow? Range is poor, and lethality is also low, esp. with the access the the ultra-wealthy have to medicine. When you hunt deer with a bow, you can usually expect to have to follow a blood trail, as it's rarely an instant drop.

Use a .300 Winchester magnum from 1000 yards; at that distance, you still have about 850 foot-pounds of energy, which is roughly double a 9mm at point black range. With the right ammo, that's more than enough to get the job done. You probably want a combined mechanical and ammunition accuracy of about .5 MOA range though, so that you have deviation of less than 6" at that range. It's a challenging shot, but it's definitely doable if you know your holds and can call the wind.

Republicans need young men to turn out; from what I can see, they are trending conservative. They don't want young women to turn out, because they are trending overwhelmingly liberal.