• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Warning shot to World of Warcraft players (a.k.a. How tough is YOUR drywall?)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#61
Bolt said:
Guys, are those break-ins really happen THAT often? I mean, while i was reading your posts, i've got the impression that every day your neighbourhood has 1-3 breaks-ins..
I think the best way to protect your home is to not have 0.5 cm thick glass doors, that can be smashed even by a kid. This goes to walls as well: when you hit a wall with your leg and make a hole in there - something is wrong.
Click to expand...

No they don't.

Do you wear a seatbelt when you're in a car? How many accidents have you been in?

13 years of driving here, always wear my seatbelt, my car's got airbags, crumple zones and scads of other safety features... I've never been in an accident, though.

My wife and I keep extra money saved up "just in case." In case of what? In case we need it, for whatever reason. (Plus, living paycheck to paycheck sucks.)

Just because it probably won't happen isn't a reason not to plan for it.

Also, the area I'm in will be hit by a major earthquake again at some point. It's happened before, when I didn't live here. Things can get chaotic. People who don't plan ahead and store up water and food MAY end up coming after the water and food of those who bothered to store it. Yep, sounds pretty apocalyptic, I know... but it happens. Just look at the craziness in New Orleans right after Katrina. I count my guns as part of my Earthquake Kit.
 
Upvote 0
#62
I'm glad I live in the hills of West Virginia where everyone is friendly. The people that live closet to me are my grandma (I'm living at home, I just graduated yesterday) and our neighbors are our best friends. If someone broke into my house I would be beyond shocked. Also around here people don't tend to break into other peoples houses because they know almost everyone in the area has weapons. It isn't a hit or miss chance like it would be in cities. Burglars in larger areas can break into houses that are unprotected, but occasionaly they are protected. Around here almost ALL are protected. I would actually feel very comfortable to leave my front door open at night (leave the storm door closed so animals don't get in). If you guys are really worried about being robbed you should move to West Virginia.

p.s. Robbers stay away, cuzz we will kill you and throw you into the pond or into the woods where NO ONE will EVER find you.
 
Upvote 0
#66
breadtruck said:
Wow...

If it was me, after I finished crapping my pants I'd shove the dirty mess down my neighbors throat.
Click to expand...


Ewwww!


And Strother, hell yeah it would be awesome. Good luck with that if you decide to ever pick it up. Just a warning, though, the katana itself can be pretty expensive, though you'll only use a bokken for the first while. I was looking at doing Kendo a while back but there weren't any classes available close enough to make it feasible to go to every week, or even bi-weekly :(
 
Upvote 0
#67
DingBat said:
Much as I myself don't see the need to store an arsenal in your home, I have to object to this.

The indigenous peoples of north america weren't destroyed by the gun. They were destroyed by the fact that they had what amounted to essentially a stone age civilization when it came into contact with a pre-industrial civilization. I have deep sympathies, but the simple fact is that kind of difference isn't good, even when both sides have the best of intentions.
Click to expand...
It would take a 500 page book just to begin to explain how wrong in everyway that statement is.

A)
The Victorian system of categorizing civilization doesn't apply to the Americas for numerous reasons.

B)
The American civilizations where in size and complexity on par or superior to the size and complexity of European civilizations invading them.

C)
The were no good intentions of any kind on the European side. This is not a disputed fact. There was no "discovering" or "adventuring" done by frontiersmen of the conquest of the Americas. Later generations would only recognize the one of the largest genocides in history.

D)
When the Europeans weren't raping and pillaging, they were spreading a plague of smallpox killing 90% of the population often before even encountering them.

Anyone who tries to contest these facts doesn't know what they are talking about.

Recommended reading

Stolen Continents
Guns, Germs Steel

as a studying anthropologist your post offends me deeply.
 
Upvote 0
#68
I take issue with much of point C, at least in the way you have written it. I could of course be misunderstanding you. I also have no clue what you're on about in point A, to be perfectly honest with you.



If you actually read some of the early Virginian and New England Puritan texts, you'll find that several of these authors (who were often local authorities) embraced native cultures and had no plan for genocide or forceful expansion. There were even efforts made to BUY the land that the initial settlers were living on in some alcoves during European settlement of North America. I have studied texts wherein these supposedly 'universally evil intentioned' settlers actually made efforts to catalog native customs and languages for the purposes of educating others and preserving their cultures out of interest. Its not to say that this tolerance was a universal theme with colonizers, but it does fly in the face of your statement that "THIS FACT IS UNDISPUTED." Always be careful with dealing with 'always' and 'never' type arguments - I could point you to some extremely boring but occasionally enlightening volumes from this time period if you want to read for yourself. I agree that the ultimate intentions were most certainly not friendly to native populations, but I do take issue with the way you've planted your feet on this point.

As for the statement that there was no "exploring" or "adventuring" done by frontiersmen....friend, what are you talking about? What about everyone from Lewis & Clark to the Spaniards searching for El Dorado to the famous and not so famous 'mountain men', trappers, and guides who provided valuable information on the western U.S. - men who were generally more at home with natives and their cultures than with their own? I, and most anybody with a basic background in U.S. history could contest your point all day long and produce documented evidence to back it up. I think perhaps you meant something other than what you wrote, and I dont mean this to be a flame.

In any case, I largely agree with what your post had to say. But you might want to choose your wording a little better in the future - claiming that your argument is un-contestable and that arguing it proves ignorance is just an invitation for people to contest and argue. ;)
 
Upvote 0
#70
Moz said:
It would take a 500 page book just to begin to explain how wrong in everyway that statement is.

A)
The Victorian system of categorizing civilization doesn't apply to the Americas for numerous reasons.

B)
The American civilizations where in size and complexity on par or superior to the size and complexity of European civilizations invading them.

C)
The were no good intentions of any kind on the European side. This is not a disputed fact. There was no "discovering" or "adventuring" done by frontiersmen of the conquest of the Americas. Later generations would only recognize the one of the largest genocides in history.

D)
When the Europeans weren't raping and pillaging, they were spreading a plague of smallpox killing 90% of the population often before even encountering them.

Anyone who tries to contest these facts doesn't know what they are talking about.

Recommended reading

Stolen Continents
Guns, Germs Steel

as a studying anthropologist your post offends me deeply.
Click to expand...

I'm not often tempted to be rude to a community member, but your post may be the exception.

I don't particularly care what it is you're studying, I can read books too.

I am fully aware of the accomplishments of the central american civilizations. It is also true that they were in a long slump when contact was made with the europeans. The north american aboriginal civilizations can, in fact, be described as near stone age as many tribes where still nomadic in nature with very little agriculture in use (note the qualifier).

You also made a reading error in your point C. What I said was this "but the simple fact is that kind of difference isn't good, even when both sides have the best of intentions". Can you spot your error? You might want to avoid letting emotion get the better of your reading comprehension skills in the future.

I'm not sure I want to even address your point D, as it's irrelevant to my point. Suffering from disease was inevitable to the aboriginal cultures of north america for the simple fact that they hadn't been exposed to european plagues or illnesses.

But since you had a lot of trouble reading my post, I'll restate it in more simple terms: when a culture meets a more advanced culture, bad things happen (intentionally, or unintentionally). Guns were just a side issue (you remember that the original discussion was about the impact of guns).

All in all, your post stinks of political correctness. I don't mean your facts are wrong. I mean that you present them like some first year college student who's discovered a cause. I'm prepared to learn. The next time you encounter facts you don't agree with, then state why you don't agree with them and provide facts. The events we're discussing are almost 500 years past. You should be able to talk about them without "offense".

Above all, learn to control that "offense" gland or the first redneck you encounter will make your life uncomfortable.
 
Upvote 0
#71
DingBat said:
But since you had a lot of trouble reading my post, I'll restate it in more simple terms: when a culture meets a more advanced culture, bad things happen (intentionally, or unintentionally). Guns were just a side issue (you remember that the original discussion was about the impact of guns).
Click to expand...


IIRC, Cortez's crew cleaned house not because of firearms, but because of their steel armor and swords.

And you're right: any time two civilizations meet, the less-advanced one is in BIG trouble, no matter what the circumstances. The greater the differences, the more trouble there is.
 
Upvote 0
#72
From the 15 to 16 century the main motivating factor for the Spaniards invasion was for the collection of gold and other resources.

The near Stone Age is also an incorrect assumption, things like bronze had been discovered but found little use it the technology of most civilizations. The Mayans were technically in the Stone Age but have a written language and advanced mathematics beyond there European counterparts. The Victorian system of gauging civilizations based on the level of metallurgy only doesn't follow the same linear pattern in the Americas. The plough and the wheel,; other favourite epitomes of human progress never occurred in the Americans for the simple lack of horses or oxes. The nomadic hunter tribes were a small minority, with most living in villages, towns and cities centuries before Columbus.

No agriculture? I find that extremely unlikely. Much of the open plains of the North Americas which were seen as a gift to the pilgrims were past farmlands used by the now extinct native nations. Central and south America supported massive empires and city states which were mainly supported by agriculture.


The Incas were an empire reacted as north as Ecuador and as far south as Chile with over 15 million people and a road system more complicated than the Romans and an system of storing and redistributing of resources equally across the empire. The Iroquois Five (six) Nations were an established union spreading across the north eastern united states.
Not some nomadic hunter tribes

"Superior Civilization" the truth is our civilizations were equal but different. The Americans where on the most part a socially driven advancement while the Spanish had just come out of a long war with the moors and much of Europe coming out of the dark ages. The upper hand was given because of the horrible effects of disease which was usually most devastating to the leaders often greeting the Europeans or the messengers travelling back to meet the leaders. If you want to compare ships and steel, the Europeans are the clear winners, if you want to compare math, science and medicine, the Americans on the most part are the clear winners.

I'm refering most to the drivers in the new world.
Cortez, Pedro, Pizarro, Soto... nasty bastards. Who would then be followed by true explorers and adventurers

This is not a simple discussion that can be explained in ~300 words, that's why we're not going to understand eachother anyway. so lets drop it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#73
Moz said:
From the 15 to 16 century the main motivating factor for the Spaniards invasion was for the collection of gold and other resources.
Click to expand...

Which they didn't know was there until they actually arrived. Their primary motivation, as I understand it, was to find shorter routes to the far east.

I'm refering most to the drivers in the new world.
Cortez, Pedro, Pizarro, Soto... nasty bastards. Who would then be followed by true explorers and adventurers
Click to expand...

If Cortez, Pedro, Pizarro, Soto, et al were saints, do you think it would have changed the outcome significantly? I don't. That was my point.

If nations like Japan, China, and India could suffer significantly by contact with our supposedly barely advanced ancestors, it would be difficult to expect more from the north american natives.

This is not a simple discussion that can be explained in ~300 words, that's why we're not going to understand eachother anyway. so lets drop it.
Click to expand...

I understand you just fine. It's you that presumed to misunderstand me. Perhaps if you had been less interested in aligning others with your world view and instead been a little more willing to try to find meaning we might have had an interesting conversation.

Too bad.
 
Upvote 0
#74
[5.SS]Strother said:
I'm glad I live in the hills of West Virginia where everyone is friendly. The people that live closet to me are my grandma (I'm living at home, I just graduated yesterday) and our neighbors are our best friends. If someone broke into my house I would be beyond shocked. Also around here people don't tend to break into other peoples houses because they know almost everyone in the area has weapons. It isn't a hit or miss chance like it would be in cities. Burglars in larger areas can break into houses that are unprotected, but occasionaly they are protected. Around here almost ALL are protected. I would actually feel very comfortable to leave my front door open at night (leave the storm door closed so animals don't get in). If you guys are really worried about being robbed you should move to West Virginia.

p.s. Robbers stay away, cuzz we will kill you and throw you into the pond or into the woods where NO ONE will EVER find you.
Click to expand...


Ah... I can hear the duelling banjos already ;)
 
Upvote 0
#77
The very reason I'm for gun control, and why the 2nd amendment is a steaming pile of bull. Owning guns should be a privilege, not a right.

Obviously this guy was a complete ****ing moron, for breaking about every rule of safe gun handling, but what really - if not amuses - scares me, is that he actually got access to such weaponry.

Now, I'm not anti-gun. Hell, I'm a gun owner myself. I also understand if someone wants to own weapons of caliber utterly useless for anything, like .50AE. Shooting is a hobby like anything else.

However, the very basic idea of owning guns for self protection is completely wrong. Why the American culture is so violent, I'd say eventually comes down to the every man's right to own guns for self protection and the attitude caused by it. Not so much the number of firearms.
 
Upvote 0
#80
American culture isn't actually all that violent.. And I disagree that gun ownership makes it any more so.

This nitwit is definitely in the minority of gun owners. Anybody who owns a Desert Eagle .50 must be a little *wooooo* in the brain. The only reason to buy one is for the "bling" factor... Just the kind of idiot to pose in the mirror with a gun.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu