The †roll Cave ®™

There actually is a lot of evidence of a massive flood that occurred before the first civilizations started popping up. On mount Arat in Turkey (around the place the ark was rumored to be) They found a massive wooden structure in the ice that some of the wood carbon dates to 6000 years old. Animal shit was also found from species of animals that were not native to that location. But the turkish government refused to let further investigation to be done.

dont tell me you believe in the man on the clouds ?

i wouldnt want to deploy Richard Dawkins on your arse

RACISTS ! video not available in my country

boom finally finished the total war Attila campaign …maybe ill go talk to the girlfriend now …actually fuck that lets start another campaign

KCD motion capture

Star Citizen motion capture

I fail to see the guy’s first move. It seems that the guy in the suit attacked the other guy who was verbal because he didn’t like him staring at him, am I right? It also seems that it started with some old prick telling the man he shouldn’t smoke, while clearly, the camera shows he wasn’t smoking on bus.

It almost seems like some two privileged assholes made up a situation in which they felt justified for beating the man.

i couldnt see him smoking either but nothing warms my heart more than a benefit scrounging scum bag being put on his arse by someone who works hard all week for his taxes to be wasted on someone who has no intention of ever working a day in their life

Yeah i do but i was talking about evidence of a flood that occurred.

Is it as horrendous as Rome 2?

Since we’re talking about fighting vidoes

And how exactly do you know the person who gets provoked and then beaten on the bus is not working while the one in suit works hard? Prejudice much?

ohh come on look at him , i guess you have to live here to see it
but they come with that certain look that when you see it . you know he is living off the state .
you must have people like that where you live that at once glance you just know .

love that video haha

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:965, topic:21032”]
Is it as horrendous as Rome 2?
[/quote] its actually everything rome 2 should of been . my only faults are
-mid campaign the entire of central europe has been destroyed like not a single city left just burnt and not a single faction makes any effort to re-colonise the deserted and burnt cities . so that needs fixing

  • also the lack of nation variety sucks . I like to start with one province or a single region and build up . i dont want to start with an already established nation so thats the romans and Persians gone for me . leaving . the saxons , franks and the Vikings but they are all next to eachother so i dont really want to start in the exact same area again .
    other than that you have the hordes but they all seem to be basically the same with different names .

so it is a great game but they need to do an update so the AI capture and colonise and add some more factions

PS. family tree is near enough perfect

OK, so a few points about the video. The guy is funny, but it is far from the best anti-gun funny I’ve heard so far.

Before I get to details, let me make two observations. First of all, I come from the Czech Republic and I am content with the Czech system. That means obligatory licensing on par with driving license. Car may be as deadly as AR 15. I don’t want neither in hands of people who can’t learn a few simple things to pass a theoretical test and can’t get proficient enough to drive around safely/hit the target. At the same time I see no reason why law abiding citizens of a democratic republic should not be able to have as many guns and ammo as they want, or carry guns for self-defense, or be told which gun is suitable for what purpose or whatever similar bullshit. We get the license and can have whatever we want (including full-autos, albeit the permit for that is harder to get), can carry them and use them for self-defense. Crime rates are very low and gun homicide by a legally owned firearm is so low that the police stopped making statistics about it back in 2007 (2 murders with legally owned gun that year). In my opinion, perfect system. And considering that gun owners in the Czech Republic are not calling for easing it and we don’t really have ANY vocal anti-gunners in the country, I think that we found the perfect middle ground.

This Australian funny guy however represents the essence of the US anti-gunner movement. And he represents the main reason why the US anti-gunner will never achieve any minimum level of meaningful gun control like the Czechs have. That is, for them it is a question of all-or-nothing. His opening thesis is that Australia got rid of all guns and it is that much better for it. I don’t know if it is better or not, the homicide rate drop was happening there on about the same scale since 1950s and it is still higher than in the Czech Republic or Switzerland - both with easy access to firearms. The main difference is that while in Australia bad guys will get their hands on weapons (or knives if those are out of reach) and law abiding citizens are left defenseless, I can walk armed anywhere in my country (apart from courthouses - at those I can leave the guns with security staff upon entering). I can take my stand against anyone threatening my health or life, or any of my loved ones’ … and I can do so in the most effective way.

I wouldn’t want to live in a country which treats every single of its citizens as incapable, potential psychopath or murderer (because these is the reasoning by extreme gun control in countries like UK or Australia). So if anyone puts it as all-or-nothing question, my answer is ALL. And all the way. If it would be all-or-nothing question in the Czech Republic, I am 100% sure it would be answered with all. We were occupied 2x in past century by germans and russians. Both started with gun control. Both ended up with mountains of corpses. Lack of firearms was the main issue that resistance movement was facing. Then we got freedom in 1990s. Unemployment rose and so did crime rate - to levels that UK has now. It became clear that decent people need effective defense against thugs and we ended up with the best gun laws in Europe (but still a bit more restrictive than we had before the nazi occupation).

So, now, to you Australian funny guy.

  1. What is that bullshit “I believe about your right to have guns” at the beginning about? He clearly doesn’t. He is a lier.

  2. Followed by “I don’t like guns”. So what.

  3. “Biggest massacre.” As I pointed out about, he didn’t take time to do basic research for his speech. He is just making things up. Of course pointing out to Breivik (or others) who conducted massacre (1) in a country with rather strict gun control and (2) did not change its level of gun control afterwards would make most of his speech pointless.

  4. “There was massacre so we banned guns in Australia.” The largest mass murder in Czech Republic was committed with a car by a psychopathic woman who drove it into a crowd of people with direct intent to kill as many as possible. Using this logic, Czech Republic should ban cars.

The largest massacres in China in modern history were committed by kitchen knifes (like the Kunming attack). Using this logic, China should ban kitchen knives. Also, last school attack in my country was committed with a kitchen knife. Should we ban the damn kitchen knives?

The last mass murder in my country was committed by an American with a knife, axe, bar stool. Now help me, because I am not entirely sure how his logic works: should we ban knifes, axes, bar stools or should we ban Americans?

When a driver hits and kills a pedestrian, do you blame a driver, or do you blame the car?

  1. “There wasn’t a massacre in Australia since.” What about the hostage situation in Sydney last year? If the perp went to commit a massacre with the illegal firearm instead of taking hostages, what exactly would it say about the gun control? He merely chose not to commit a massacre (by entering a school for example), the gun control didn’t effectively prevent him from doing it. Meanwhile none of the law abiding citizens in the cafe could defend themselves. There are situations where armed civilian can’t do much, but in this hostage situation, taking the perp down by armed civilian would be easy (like in the video below). In my eyes, gun control killed the two victims as same as the perpetrator did.
  1. Sandy Hook - one in many cases that shows the failure of US healthcare for mentally insane persons. Sad story with idiotic mother making firearms accessible to insane son. Now, if the perpetrator chose to take a car (SUV) and intentionally run over the class with children outside on a pathwalk, would he (you) argue for banning cars? Mind you, shooting so many people is quite exhausting compared to running them over with a car.

Last school stabbing in my country was done by a mentally insane person. Now, we don’t blame neither her nor the knife. But the judge who let her out of metal institution is facing disciplinary action and we are changing laws regarding the oversight of potentially dangerous mentally sick patients. Gun/knife control clearly is not the answer when the issue is mental illness.

  1. “I need it for protection”. In US, there are up to 2,5 million of legitimate defensive gun uses a year. Meanwhile in 91% of cases of firearm homicide, perp and victim are both gang related. We don’t have any reliable statistics on that in my country, but I would say that the DGUs are in hundreds, if not thousands. In most cases A) showing the gun is enough and B) the persons who do so are in imminent danger to their health and life. What he is advocating for, is making all this people easy prey to any sociopath. What that ends up with is a population that is scared into imbecility by the possibility of being crime victim, like this Australian video shows.

No, long stabby thing is not enough for an average person to defend themselves, be it on the street or during home invasion. 9mm is.

  1. “Assault rifles are not good for protection”. Funny, Czech Ministry of Interior explicitly lists semi-automatic rifles as something that may be necessary for protection especially in case of households that are in remote places. Yeah, the funny man lives in the city, he can afford to pay premium to be in a neighborhood with low crime rate, and he simply can’t imagine situation when someone lives 30-90 minutes away from any possible police intervention and may face multiple home invaders, some of them armed. I am sure that people living in the Australian wilderness laugh very much to this video.

Charlie Hebdo attack - typical situation when such a weapon would be necessary for protection. If my office had only 10% of probability of such an attack as CB had, I am sure that 60-80% of staff would have pistols and we would have also a couple of SBRs on spot (semi-auto vz.58s, AR 15s and CZ Scorpions EVO 3s which are really common among gun owners here). FYI, Charlie Hebdo chief editor was a sport shooter, owned guns, but couldn’t carry them for self defense. His carry permit application was denied. In my opinion, French government is as responsible for his death as the terrorists are.

  1. “You are more likely to use the gun on yourself.” Well, so what. I strongly believe in my right to do as I choose with my life. If my country doesn’t let me do euthanasia by the time I may need (if I need it), I will either go to Switzerland to have it done (as quite a few Czechs do) or shoot my brain out. That is entirely my own choice and government has no place to take my gun away and force me to die in the excruciatingly painful hanging.

BTW, one of leading ways of suicide in the Czech Republic is jumping under the train. Should we ban trains?

  1. “if someone comes to your house with machette and I don’t have gun” It is your choice whether you have it accessible or not. If your home setting is done in a way that makes it easier for a machette wielding person to get inside than it gets you to get your gun, then you deserve a Darwin award. The only way anyone can get to my flat faster than I could get to my gun is a SWAT team getting on ropes through the window (the front door is reinforced and would take them quite a long time, not to mention how much effort a single perp would have to make to break it).

  2. “Nobody cares about home security” Please watch the video above of the sorry Australians being scared of home invasion and readying themselves with absolutely inefficient tools for it.

  3. “Most people who break into your house just want your TV.” Well, that is absolutely not true. If they break in knowing you are inside, they want to do you harm. If they break in and find you there and don’t start running away, it means that they want to make sure you will not identify them to authorities. It is anyone’s guess how they will ensure it.

Also, if you believe it is better to put your trust in hands of someone who is already breaking law by getting unlawfully into your house rather than having a real chance to be ready for the worst, then you do deserve a Darwin award.

FYI last year, there was a string of stabbings in Prague. They were horrific in that the perpetrator (Romanian) first asked for money (notebook, wedding rings …) and stabbed the victims AFTER they gave him everything they had. Please go tell them (fortunately all survived, although by a very slim margin) how it is better to do what a criminal wants rather than fight back.

  1. Kids/guns - it is every gun owner’s responsibility to teach children gun safety. If you get to the point where you can’t trust your kids will to be responsible around guns, there are other quick-access safe solutions. Like the one this lady in the video uses (quick open subject to fingerprints recognition, also sold in the Czech Republic).

I am sorry, but I am not even 5 minutes in and I think it is clear that this guy is talking utter bullshit. I get it, some people are anti-gun. They have their reasons for it. Fine, I don’t care. But don’t tell me their reasons are better, because clearly, they are not.

  1. One last point. Fully-automatic illegal Kalaschnikov apparently costs €1000 on the main train station in Brussels and you can get one very easily. Any Czech without history of mental illness and with clean criminal history who goes through a licensing process can get a semiautomatic VZ.58 legally for €250 (Kalaschnikovs and their versions are not that popular in my country so I don’t know what they cost).

Please don’t tell me that I would be safer in a world where every other criminal can get their hands on fully automatic firearms (mind you, the Paris attackers used a CONSUMER LOAN to fund theirs) while law abiding citizens are reduced to have a “long, stabby thingy” like those in the Australian video above.

on home invasion , you have said before on here you keep you weapons in a safe , therefore as he states they’re basically useless if someone was to take you off guard as would be the case 9/10 times .

Now i quite like the czech system . i have nothing against it because i feel your government check who has access well enough so that only law abiding citizens get hold of guns . my issue is with the US style where it creates a situation that any nut job can get hold of a fully automatic weapon . i thinks thats just plain stupid. as we see with the amount of massacres they have . so i personally think they would benefit from a system like yours .

personally i wouldnt want to live in a society where everyone carries a gun . the constant fear of a simple punch up becoming a full on firefight .
Now my main issue however with civilians owning a gun is the lack of training of when to kill and when not to kill , from the point of using it to scare off opponents to killing the opponent .

i would take the assumption you have never used your firearms on a human target before . Where as i have, as i have stated many times before i was a marksmen meaning i often used a sniper rifle to support my colleagues . as much as i may joke about on here about this or that on the subject of killing anyone or whatever i fully understand from experience the sheer weight making such a decision carries . To take someones life is a HUGE deal and the way you and @SirWarriant often talk about how you would have no problem shooting anyone who broke into your homes demonstrates to me every reason why civilians shouldnt be carrying guns on the street . you almost echo many young soldiers who join up to kill as many of them "rag heads as possible " ill make no bones about it i was the exact same , that was until my second tour when i was spotting for my partner who had the rifle from the roof top of our compound we spotted an individual with a weapon who proceeded as was almost daily to take a number of shots in our general direction just so we knew they were still kicking . however this particular morning my colleague hit him and he went to the floor . but what happened afterwards resulting in my collogue and friend quitting the army and has bothered him hugely since . a much much older man ran over to him and appeared to basically cry of this man body for close to an hour before our patrol reach them to deal with the body .
what we didnt know was this young boy was only 16 and the taliban had basically threatened him and his family and told him they would give him $10 a day if he went out and shot at us each day , which he did .
so the purpose of sharing that with you is by no means to show off or brag but to try and put to you exactly what the consequences of using your weapon can have , when you take that shot you simply dont know the circumstances to what has driven that person to committing the crime .
so i dont think civilians are trainied enough to make the distinction between a life and death situation and a simple robbery
i hold my opinion based on my life experiences not because of any media bullshit or anything else

I am not aware of saying that. Please quote me on it. There might be misunderstanding. My guns are always locked when I am not at home. I don’t have them just lying around. But most of the time, I have one pistol by me. That means that most of the time, I have 14+1 rounds on tap, either carrying on me outside home or very near inside home. Sometimes I have only 6+1 outside, but when inside, that one is immediately locked and changed for the larger gun for obvious reason. I don’t carry everyday and those days I sometimes don’t bother to unlock the gun after homecoming. But when I don’t have gun, I always have a pepper spray and telescopic baton. And when home, as I said, I can unlock and lock and unlock my gun probably 6 times before anybody gets even close to destroying my front door (the company that sells them actually tests them against police SWAT teams).

Even despite that it would be easy to catch me off guard inside. But you would have to get in first. By the moment anyone would get in, I would have my guard very much on. And gun in hand.

Most Czechs don’t carry. Most Czechs don’t keep guns easily accessible at home. Most Czechs actually don’t even bother to get a license and guns, because as I said, the country is very safe (much safer than UK, and Prague being safety heaven compared to London). But the point is that they have the choice to decide for themselves. Having the choice is the key. At the same time, the perps never know.

BTW do you know which group of people you can bet on carrying 24/7 in the Czech Republic? Very many rape victims. My only issue with that is that I would have wished they had the gun before.

It may be counterintuitive but the experience of past 25 years since we have shall issue concealed carry points to the otherwise. Legal gun owners are the least probable to be part in any crime. Violent crime next to impossible. You know that you will be held to much higher standard when you are armed than if you weren’t. I’ll give you a tip. If you come to Prague for a trip and you start talking shit to people on the street, beware of those who ignore you and mind their own business. Most probably those are the ones you don’t want to punch in the face.

What “opponent” are you talking about? Civilians don’t live in a war, they don’t have opponents. There are law abiding citizens and sociopaths. No law abiding citizen has a gun to scare anyone or to kill anyone. You own and carry a gun to protect yourself and to protect your loved ones. You know that statistically, in 99% brandishing your gun will be enough to stop any violent crime directed at you or your loved ones. And you can only hope that in that 1% you will have what it takes both mentally and technically to protect yourself and your loved ones. Because when that happens, any failure may very well mean debilitating injury or your demise.

Now you are making things up. I am definitely sure I have never written that and I very much think neither did @SirWarriant. Being prepared to do what you have to do in case the worst happens and saying that someone “has no problem shooting somebody” are two very different things.

I very much respect your experience. But at the same time you need to understand you can’t translate warzone experience to civilian life. You went to a certain place (Afghanistan) with intent to kill. That is insane thing to do and I don’t think I would be able to do it. That is why I never even thought about joining army. I didn’t get guns to kill anyone. But I know that bad things happen to good people and refuse to become a victim. That is all.