In a zombie apocalpyse

[Coidzor]

I wouldnt exactly call "so the zombies dont eat me" cavalier. Its more of a Donner party moment.

Yeah, sure, if it's actually an "or the zombies would eat me" situation. Which is going to be damned far-fetched for a situation where you couldn't just get away without shooting the other person.

LOL well knowing that it wont be in the leg now will it? See, shoulda kept that to yourself huh?

Shooting someone else that's armed just in the leg is a horrible idea. Then again, so is encouraging your allies to view you as expendable by killing one of them. Likely needlessly because you panicked and needed to try to ensure you could run away from the slowly shambling zombies.

I would say zombie apocalypse certainly qualifies as anarchy so basic human nature is that the strong MUST rule in order to set the stage for better styles later on.

One, what do you do after the zombies all start to fall apart? You can't stay sane and believe that right from the get-go that the zombies are the kind that will never, ever break down.

Two, as soon as you actually have a group of survivors you're not in an anarchy, you're in what is roughly analogous to a tribal structure.

[SaintRidley]

What makes you so sure its unnecessary? If we're getting a chance to restart civilization here why not make people earn their place in our brave new world?

You sure do a wonderful job making people earn their place by killing them before giving them the opportunity to do so.

[Ricky S]

At 6ft1 190lbs I will hopefully be the guy caving in zombie heads with any sort of blunt item I can find lying around. When not caving in zombie heads I will be... err... shooting them as well?

When I am not killing zombies I will provide security and law enforcment.

[noparlpf]

...you guys are putting quite some thought into this.

...This is a basically a D&D and gaming forum. We're all geeks. What do you think we do when we're not gaming?

[Solaris]

...This is a basically a D&D and gaming forum. We're all geeks. What do you think we do when we're not gaming?

It's pretty much that or try to take over the world, and you can only do that so many times before the FBI agents just start showing up at your house any time something screwy happens.

[Traab]

It's pretty much that or try to take over the world, and you can only do that so many times before the FBI agents just start showing up at your house any time something screwy happens.

God thats annoying, Every time they show up I have to deactivate my land mines so they dont blow themselves up. The ATF have been on my ass for years now since the girl scout incident so I have to be careful. Im just lucky the judge accepted my defense. "&^% tried to keep my thin mints your honor. What else could I do?"

[Tyndmyr]

The difference between my BCT rifle and the brand-spanky-new, I was the first one to ever fire it M4 was amazing.
I don't consider BRM to be an accurate gauge of anything except your ability to shoot pop-up targets from positions that I might smack you for using in an engagement. Prone has its uses, kneeling is good, but they should train to shoot from the standing and on the run.

Agreed. The basic training guns were...pretty terrible. Still functional, but had clearly seen a ludicrous amount of use. I'm not terribly worried about my AR dying on me. If I've fired it enough to literally wear it out, I should have come across at least some other firearm in the meantime(leaving aside my target guns).

Me. My idea of 'calmed down' is 'zombies are not actively trying to eat me right now'. Why wait for it to blow over if it might never blow over without an agency to engage it? What if everyone's waiting for that agency to come save them? Someone needs to be that agency - why not me and my team?

Precisely. The "run and hide" attitude fixes nothing. I would invariably end up sanitizing areas and rebuilding society.

You're not that good.

No, seriously. Put yourself in the position of someone who else in that group. If it were me, and you decided to shoot someone to feed him to the zombies so we could run away, I'd install a sunroof in your skull as soon as the bullet left your weapon. If you shot me, then one of my buddies would shoot you. You just proved yourself a greater threat than the zombies themselves. There is no virtue, no skill which can outweigh such a risk.

Dude, you're acting out every zombie movie ever. Stop trying to prove them right!

I would agree. Anyone who demonstrates his willingness to off friendlies for personal gain...he's just become a horrible liability that nobody trusts. Nobody wants that amoral guy in their group, because nobody wants to be the next one he sacrifices so he can live.

[Murska]

There's five million people in this nation. If we assume that the most heavily-populated areas are mostly zombified right at the start, that leaves a few hundred thousand people alive to realize there are zombies and to start fleeing. Most of these would probably head for the sea, or follow roads north. Many more would seek their own cabins and plots of land to live on. It's a long trip north with plenty of dangers. I'm not saying it isn't possible for someone to end up finding me, but I find it a bit unlikely - there's a lot of land for a few hundred thousand people to disperse into. Especially since this person would also have to have the knowledge, skill and tools to build a watercraft to land on and search a small island. (Who ordinary civilian is going to carry a bunch of sandbags into a deep forest and have the knowledge to build a raft that can't be shot up out of them?)

I'm not saying I'd be in an unassailable position, just that it is unlikely for anyone to end up both wanting to assault it and succeeding.

Disease and injury are the worst risks when alone, and I'll try to minimize those by packing medicine and supplies and being careful. If I end up getting unlucky, then I'll die. But I'm trying to make this plan based on what's available.

I'd be more safe if I had a fortress, a set of MBTs, motion sensors, automated turrets, a bunch of trustworthy friends, endless supply of food and water and everything else necessary and some sort of an airborne supervirus that only targets zombies and has 100% kill rate on them. But I don't have any of those things, and I'm not going to actually spend money or effort on preparing for a zombie apocalypse, just idle thought while bored.

[Hiro Protagonest]

LOL well knowing that it wont be in the leg now will it? See, shoulda kept that to yourself huh?

If you know my RL identity and the ties to this account, then I know yours as well, and will shoot you first.

[WyvernLord]

I would agree. Anyone who demonstrates his willingness to off friendlies for personal gain...he's just become a horrible liability that nobody trusts. Nobody wants that amoral guy in their group, because nobody wants to be the next one he sacrifices so he can live.

My two cents but if you shoot a guy when we're running, if you were in my group depending on what I'm doing at the time I'd either shoot you or try to kick you out of the group later. Unless I die trying to save the guy you shot.

[boredgremlin]

I'll second that opinion. There are several people that I am an acquaintance of in RL whom I would shoot on sight if a zombie apocalypse were to occur, simply because I know exactly how ruthless they are, and exactly how bad that would magnify in such a situation, and I know the moment my back was turned, they would kill me if it benefited them in even such a small way as to give them a bit more ammo, which of course means I'd be dead the moment I saw them and turned around.

If I were to harbor such intentions as yours, I would definitely not advise broadcasting them what-so-ever, or you'll end up dead pretty quickly at the hands of your survival group at large. No-one likes a Shane, not really(tenth of an internet to first people to get that reference).

you know he's actually one of the more popular characters right? besides in a real situation just like that people would still keep him around for the same reason they do on the show. He's useful. And some people agree with the ruthlessness.

[noparlpf]

Precisely. The "run and hide" attitude fixes nothing. I would invariably end up sanitizing areas and rebuilding society.

I disagree. Depending on the type of zombie, it could. "The Zombie Survival Guide" type will decay over time. Give it a month, they'll hardly be moving anymore due to decay and muscle degradation. (I see no point in discussing magical animation, which might keep them moving even as skeletons, because magic isn't a real thing in real life. Though I suppose the "Zombie Survival Guide" virus was pretty implausible anyway.) On the other hand, if they're "I am Legend" type "zombies", then maybe sanitation would be the way to go. (Airborne zombie-viruses that animals can catch too kind of suck, though. That's like, a worst-case scenario.)

[Hiro Protagonest]

you know he's actually one of the more popular characters right?

Wait what? Who? What show? I never heard any books or movies mentioned.

[boredgremlin]

zombies are outside of the society line..they're a predator plague, not part of society..what you and your fellow survivors do is what constitutes society.. if your path of choice is to start with despotism, I doubt you'll ever progress much further than that, at least in your lifetime.. there's a difference between being practical and being a despot just as there is between doing science and dabbling in eugenics nazi style.

See in this sort of situation though there is no difference between practicality and despotism.

You dont have time sit around and figure out whose "worthy" and argue about it with the people who arent. That sort of indecision gets you all killed in an emergency. So a republic is out.

You certainly cant wait to have an election or take a vote on major decision. Most people are idiots anyway and again you dont have time for all the discussion and bickering that comes from that sort of thing. So democracy is out.

In certain situations i suppose you might get a theocracy. But those situations arising from people in a western society seem few and far between. so thats out.

Obviously monarchy which is just another form of despotism anyway is out of the picture, at least short term.

So leaves you with pure anarchy where everyone just does their own and has to sit and negotiate services for any sort of teamwork. Which is a recipe for complete disaster for everyone.

Or despotism where one person whose strong enough and dangerous enough to keep everyone alive during the emergency takes over and enforces their decisions through whatever means necessary. Probably along with a smaller group of armed and like minded people.

The skills necessary to survive an apocalypse of any sort and build a new society are very different then the skills necessary to maintain that society in a less disastrous time after its been built.

Which is why our intrepid movie hero always comes along and kills the bad guy POST apocalypse. At that point its republic time and former strongmen rarely play nice in that environment although Rome proved it can be done.

[Taffimai]

For a bunch of people who actually put thought into what they would do in case of a zombie apocalypse, it strikes me as odd that nobody has said: "I wait it out in my nuclear bomb shelter." If I weren't renting, I would've dug mine already.

[boredgremlin]

Wait what? Who? What show? I never heard any books or movies mentioned.

Its from the walking dead on AMC.

[SamBurke]

Incidentally, I will be that fellow kicking in doors and clearing the zombies out room to room.

I'm aware it's not the best of jobs. However, it might be the most awesome.

Let's kill them together, bro.

I'd also be involved in stirring motivation and keeping morale up (through my idiocy and amusing *erm* antics...)

Also, I'd be the one tasked with tracking down Mormons. Those people are PREPARED for the apocalypse.

[noparlpf]

Wait what? Who? What show? I never heard any books or movies mentioned.

Starwulf (I think it was) mentioned a "Shane". I missed the reference, but I knew it was there.

For a bunch of people who actually put thought into what they would do in case of a zombie apocalypse, it strikes me as odd that nobody has said: "I wait it out in my nuclear bomb shelter." If I weren't renting, I would've dug mine already.

I'm seventeen. My mum would kill me if I tried to make one.
Though if the apocalypse came while I was at school, I could hide out in the tunnels under the school. I know where one of the boarded-up trapdoors is, and I have my ratchet here with me. If only I had my crowbar. I miss it. ;-;

Its from the walking dead on AMC.

Oh. Well, looks like you just got 0.1 internets. Congrats!

[boredgremlin]

You sure do a wonderful job making people earn their place by killing them before giving them the opportunity to do so.

If we're both running away and not going to make it together then all its really about then is him or me. And I am not the self sacrificing type. Leaving someone else as zombie chow might not distract them all but even so it might distract ENOUGH to vastly improve my situation.

Besides, I'm sure its his fault the damn zombies are after us anyway so its only fair.

[noparlpf]

I'd hate to see how I'd react in a real zombie chase, because zombies are one of my greatest fears, but I'm Chaotic Good. Anybody I like/trust enough to stick with at the end of the world, I'd almost definitely be willing to give my life to protect. If it comes down to their life or mine, and it doesn't look like they can get away, I'd stop and fight the zombies off to let them get away.

[SaintRidley]

If we're both running away and not going to make it together then all its really about then is him or me. And I am not the self sacrificing type. Leaving someone else as zombie chow might not distract them all but even so it might distract ENOUGH to vastly improve my situation.

Besides, I'm sure its his fault the damn zombies are after us anyway so its only fair.

You missed the part where I said that in response to your idea of "Take over a prison, summary execution of all inmates, begin fortification."


And yep, never your fault. At the rate you keep talking, you'd be lucky to find a group that would let you survive with them. Shoot first, never ask questions, and shoot anyone who does is a surefire successful survival strategy.

[boredgremlin]

No, seriously. Put yourself in the position of someone who else in that group. If it were me, and you decided to shoot someone to feed him to the zombies so we could run away, I'd install a sunroof in your skull as soon as the bullet left your weapon. If you shot me, then one of my buddies would shoot you. You just proved yourself a greater threat than the zombies themselves. There is no virtue, no skill which can outweigh such a risk.

See and if I were sitting somewhere watching you and one other guy through binoculars running away from zombies and you both get caught and eaten because you were too stuck in a different moral code to survive then i would chuckle at your foolishness, wait for the zombies to finish eating and then go loot your corpses because your high intentions got you killed.

Assuming theres others counting on you back in camp though (wife, kids,etc) i would make up a better story about how you got killed then "he was an idiot who wasnt fast enough". Thats probably the least kindness I can give them considering they are now without a defender or provider in an apocalypse. But hey, you did the right thing........

... So basically, you'd fatally shoot your 'friend' for a passing, if any, advantage? This seems like a good idea? What's wrong with you?
What happens when the zombies catch up with you? What happens if you break a leg and there's nobody around to help you, but zombies are closing in because you just shot your only comrade?

1. Who says we're friends? Theres a good chance its just some person that I was thrown together with by random chance. Who may or may not be just another mouth to feed. That sort of thing happens in every emergency.

2. Surviving is hardly "any advantage" it is in fact the ONLY advantage that matters. Where there is life, there is hope. When your zombie chow cause tubs back there slowed you down the only hope you have left is the zombie craps you out somewhere nice. (Do zombies crap? Anyway neither here nor there i suppose. )

3. If after my comrade is dead they manage to catch me anyway. Well then ****, that sucks. But I'm chow either way. At least i friggin tried to survive.

If we were in a situation where the two of could have fought them off then clearly we would have done so and not been in this situation to start with. If we're running for our lives then having that other guy around wasnt going to help me if they caught me anyway so i really dont see your point there. Are you trying to say its better to die together? Cause honestly i would rather not die at all thanx. Better to live in infamy then die with honor and all that.

[boredgremlin]

You missed the part where I said that in response to your idea of "Take over a prison, summary execution of all inmates, begin fortification."

And how exactly would YOU deal with thousands of maximum security inmates?

A.Turn them loose and hope they dont realize its a damn fortress and come back?

B. Turn them loose and try to co-exist with thousands of violent offenders who outnumber you at least 10-1?

C. Leave them in their cells to starve to death? Thats hardly a nice thing to do.

D. Leave them in their cells but feed them as usual rapidly depleting your resources and having to make a decision between A,B and C sooner or later anyway but now your doing it without any food left?

These guys arent Joe who dodged his taxes or Bob the guy who writes bad checks. This is a maximum security facility. These are rapists, murderers, arsonists, hard core gang bangers. Straight up, committed, evil mother****ers.

So what would YOU do with them?

[noparlpf]

See and if I were sitting somewhere watching you and one other guy through binoculars running away from zombies and you both get caught and eaten because you were too stuck in a different moral code to survive then i would chuckle at your foolishness, wait for the zombies to finish eating and then go loot your corpses because your high intentions got you killed.

Assuming theres others counting on you back in camp though (wife, kids,etc) i would make up a better story about how you got killed then "he was an idiot who wasnt fast enough". Thats probably the least kindness I can give them considering they are now without a defender or provider in an apocalypse. But hey, you did the right thing........





1. Who says we're friends? Theres a good chance its just some person that I was thrown together with by random chance. Who may or may not be just another mouth to feed. That sort of thing happens in every emergency.

2. Surviving is hardly "any advantage" it is in fact the ONLY advantage that matters. Where there is life, there is hope. When your zombie chow cause tubs back there slowed you down the only hope you have left is the zombie craps you out somewhere nice. (Do zombies crap? Anyway neither here nor there i suppose. )

3. If after my comrade is dead they manage to catch me anyway. Well then ****, that sucks. But I'm chow either way. At least i friggin tried to survive.

If we were in a situation where the two of could have fought them off then clearly we would have done so and not been in this situation to start with. If we're running for our lives then having that other guy around wasnt going to help me if they caught me anyway so i really dont see your point there. Are you trying to say its better to die together? Cause honestly i would rather not die at all thanx. Better to live in infamy then die with honor and all that.

Wow. Okay, if they're slower than you and you really don't give a **** about them, there's still no reason to shoot them. Looking at it from a purely practical perspective for a minute, guy who's slower than you but can keep running for a while > guy who's dead and eaten already. Even if he gets caught eventually, that's just that much longer his life served the purpose of your continued survival.
Now we get to morality: I personally wouldn't be around people I didn't care about or at least trust, and the right thing to do when you trust somebody is to be trustworthy in return. Even if you stick to Neutral and just keep running, letting the other guy get caught at his own pace, you're at least not going to Evil and shooting him senselessly.


Edit:

And how exactly would YOU deal with thousands of maximum security inmates?

A.Turn them loose and hope they dont realize its a damn fortress and come back?

B. Turn them loose and try to co-exist with thousands of violent offenders who outnumber you at least 10-1?

C. Leave them in their cells to starve to death? Thats hardly a nice thing to do.

D. Leave them in their cells but feed them as usual rapidly depleting your resources and having to make a decision between A,B and C sooner or later anyway but now your doing it without any food left?

These guys arent Joe who dodged his taxes or Bob the guy who writes bad checks. This is a maximum security facility. These are rapists, murderers, arsonists, hard core gang bangers. Straight up, committed, evil mother****ers.

So what would YOU do with them?

Dude, double-posting is against forum rules. If you think of more to write after you post, you can hit the little "Edit" button next to where it says "Quote".

[Cobra_Ikari]

Situations like this make me wonder what it is exactly people find so important in surviving. If you look forward to the apocalypse so you can sacrifice all morality in the name of your own survival...I mean, why the hell do you want to live anymore?

[noparlpf]

Situations like this make me wonder what it is exactly people find so important in surviving. If you look forward to the apocalypse so you can sacrifice all morality in the name of your own survival...I mean, why the hell do you want to live anymore?

I don't know. Personally I feel the need for "something to live for". That's people who are important to me, I guess, or some other important responsibility, maybe. I might not sacrifice myself for a stranger, but I'd try to help a stranger if I considered my own chances of survival to be at least one in three, and I'd help a close friend even if my own chances of survival were zero.
For me, the apocalypse is more of a fear than something to look forward to for opportunities. The zombie apocalypse especially, because one of my greatest fears is the undead (though I might be able to manage skeletons; they're pretty clean).

[Tyndmyr]

you know he's actually one of the more popular characters right? besides in a real situation just like that people would still keep him around for the same reason they do on the show. He's useful. And some people agree with the ruthlessness.

Well, his competition includes people like T-dawg, who manages to actually achieve like a spoken line every third episode.

Most of those people I would utterly refuse to group with in real life. There is no usefulness that excuses "violent, willing to kill me".

You missed the part where I said that in response to your idea of "Take over a prison, summary execution of all inmates, begin fortification."


And yep, never your fault. At the rate you keep talking, you'd be lucky to find a group that would let you survive with them. Shoot first, never ask questions, and shoot anyone who does is a surefire successful survival strategy.

I would not consider mass executions a viable or moral strategy. It is possible that some people imprisoned are too violent/dangerous to rejoin society, yes...but not everyone is in jail for those reasons. I'd probably pull up what records I could find, and have a brief chat with each of them before deciding what to do. I feel like offering them freedom to go out and fight the zombies is a good starting point. Even for the worst person, it's a chance to sort of redeem themselves.

[boredgremlin]

Wow. Okay, if they're slower than you and you really don't give a **** about them, there's still no reason to shoot them. Looking at it from a purely practical perspective for a minute, guy who's slower than you but can keep running for a while > guy who's dead and eaten already.

What your not taking into account is that the slow guy ALSO has a gun. And he's slower then me. So he has a very, very good reason to shoot ME and leave me so that he can get away. AND he's behind me so i probably wont see it coming.

I might be able to get away on my own and I'm still thinking of offing him. If he's back there as impending zombie chow you can bet your butt that the same thought is at least going through his head too.

And since i don't particularly know or trust him I'm certainly not going to just hope he doesn't put one in MY back so that he can get away. Better to seize the initiative and be wrong then be the one sitting on the ground with my knee blown off and a horde of zombies coming.

Now we get to morality: I personally wouldn't be around people I didn't care about or at least trust, and the right thing to do when you trust somebody is to be trustworthy in return. Even if you stick to Neutral and just keep running, letting the other guy get caught at his own pace, you're at least not going to Evil and shooting him senselessly.

You probably dont have a choice who your around. Look at earthquakes and tsunami's or war dispossessed in the real world for example. completely random groups are forced to form by situational pressures where people try to survive by combining numbers and skills.

Sure some people will go off alone, but most people are going to get stuck with a group that they probably had little say in how it formed. And in that case you make do with what you have.

"giving up morality"

Is a laughable concept. Morality is a human construct designed to reinforce the laws of a given society. No more and no less. Its changed so much over the centuries that assuming any sort of objective morality is just silly.

Heres my zompocalypse morality. I have a wife and 4 kids. 3 of them under 5 years old, including an infant. They need a safe place to be away from zombies, food and medicine.

To get those things they need me to survive to protect them and scavenge up the stuff that they need.

Is it moral for me to put the life of Johny the chain smoker who cant out run a zombie ahead of the life of my infant and wife?

No it is not. Not only is johny unlikely to care for them if he's the one who happens to come back instead of me but he's less capable of it even if he does try. Which is why his wheezy ass was behind me in this scenario to start with. Because lets be honest here. Sooner or later Johny is zombie food anyway.

In this scenario the "morality" of an ordered society where you have a duty to law, order and some vague, ill-defined sense of right and wrong must give way to the "morality" of the hunter gatherer where you have a duty to yourself and your family first your small group second and everyone else a very distant third. Where your "duty" as a man is not to law and order or doing the right thing but to acquiring and protecting resources.

The people who can accept that reality the fastest and adjust accordingly are the people who will survive. Because as much as we can compare human reaction to massive disaster like war or natural disasters to how we might act in a zompocalypse there is one very important difference. It doesnt get better in zombie land.

Fire and EMS arent coming to fix the stuff.
The red cross is not coming with food and medicine
The police will not be there to protect you
The soldiers will not be there to protect and shelter you
The grocery stores and hospitals are not being re-supplied

Stuff is not getting better anytime soon. Probably not for years and years if ever. And that is the reality you would have to adjust to. Your not surviving for a while, your not surviving until help comes. Your just surviving.

Dude, double-posting is against forum rules. If you think of more to write after you post, you can hit the little "Edit" button next to where it says "Quote".

Responding to 2 different people isnt double posting. With that sort of spot skill I'm not too worried about you being able to scavenge enough to survive zompocalypse anyway.

[Taffimai]

Ok, so I'm part of the same group you and your family are in. Wheezy and you are away looking for supplies. We get overrun by zombies, no chance to fight them off. In your frame of mind, it is entirely ok if I decide to pull the two kids who can't keep up and won't be carried by your wife away from her and throw them towards the zombies to slow them down.

At the very least, shoot wheezy in the chest, or the head if you're such a good shot that you think you can hit a knee. Shot in the head >> Torn to pieces alive.

[dehro]

nobody has said: "I wait it out in my nuclear bomb shelter." If I weren't renting, I would've dug mine already.

I don't have one, or the resources to dig one. there aren't that many nuclear bomb shelters in countries that didn't spend 30 years pointing nuclear bombs at one another.

Spoiler

Show

See in this sort of situation though there is no difference between practicality and despotism.

You dont have time sit around and figure out whose "worthy" and argue about it with the people who arent. That sort of indecision gets you all killed in an emergency. So a republic is out.

You certainly cant wait to have an election or take a vote on major decision. Most people are idiots anyway and again you dont have time for all the discussion and bickering that comes from that sort of thing. So democracy is out.

In certain situations i suppose you might get a theocracy. But those situations arising from people in a western society seem few and far between. so thats out.

Obviously monarchy which is just another form of despotism anyway is out of the picture, at least short term.

So leaves you with pure anarchy where everyone just does their own and has to sit and negotiate services for any sort of teamwork. Which is a recipe for complete disaster for everyone.

Or despotism where one person whose strong enough and dangerous enough to keep everyone alive during the emergency takes over and enforces their decisions through whatever means necessary. Probably along with a smaller group of armed and like minded people.

The skills necessary to survive an apocalypse of any sort and build a new society are very different then the skills necessary to maintain that society in a less disastrous time after its been built.

Which is why our intrepid movie hero always comes along and kills the bad guy POST apocalypse. At that point its republic time and former strongmen rarely play nice in that environment although Rome proved it can be done.

the difference between despotism and practicality is that you, the despot, would kill me to give yourself more of a chance, I, the practical guy who has at least a pretention to a moral code, would kill you on account of the fact you're a dangerous liability, not above shooting people in the back at the first instance where you think you're in danger or you just panic, and that would be dangerous to the collective...because the premise is not "what do you do as a single individual"..but "what is your role in a group" it may seem stupid to you, or even not much of a difference, but I still feel entitled to the moral high-ground, without it being a one way ticket to the belly of a zombie.
I would think that the reminder of the group would agree with my practical decision, yet disagree (in the form of bullets) with your despotic action

And how exactly would YOU deal with thousands of maximum security inmates?

E. by not going there.. it's a strategy that brings up more issues than benefits to begin with, both practical and moral
how do you plan to kill off several thousand individuals without the majority of them doing all they can to stop you from doing so? those places are built to be manned by dozens if not hunderds of people.. you and your couple of friends wouldn't be able to contemporarily contain the inmates and kill them off... all it takes is a dozen of them getting out of their cells and suddenly you have to worry about the zombies outside and the enemy inside.. and that's assuming that indeed your know how to operate all the security equipment.. and that food rations, your electricity supply, your fresh water, your health kits and what have you, last longer than the zombies outside. if they don't, all you've succeeded doing is delaying the inevitable at the gratuitous expense of thousands of people...because you'll have to head out.

quite simply, since we're talking about a group here.. the first time you kill off one of the group, just about anyone of the others will put a hole in your skull the first time you fall asleep.