Do you think modern civilization could survive Terraria style random events like blood moons and invasions...

Do you think modern civilization could survive Terraria style random events like blood moons and invasions, or would we be irreparably fucked from the first few attacks?

It'd be rough until we realized "Oh shit this is going to happen regularly and we need to plan for it."

After that, we'd probably have a whole system in place for each event.

Do you have any idea how many guns the average American has?

>modern civilization

As if we could survive that shit at all before?

Amarican here. Have 5.

Granted, they're all hunting rifles, but still.

>Goblin army event
100-400 goblins

VS

A) The armed forces of whatever country the army is in
OR
B) A bunch of jacked up militia rednecks with shotguns
I think we'd be fine

Three. Two pistols and a rifle.

Invasions happen in real life already

It would be quite constructive actually. Outside / non-human threat is just about the only thing that could possibly save us from our deadlocked politics and rampant capitalism.

BASH THE FASH

Yup. We need to start shooting the sandniggers and Mexishits too.

I wonder if we really are crazy?

I mean, I'll admit that I've never actually fired mine and that I just have them because they belonged to my grandfather, but I'm pretty sure everyone in my area has at least one gun.

Not with the way we live now, I don't think. The only reason humans can afford to build huge cities and develop complex socities and economies is because we dominate everything else. Look at the devastation caused by war. Imagine if something like the vietnam war happened every other week in every major city. Humanity may survive, but it would only be survival nothing more.

You should it's fun as hell, I love shooting mine.

Also
>crazy
Crazy is willingly disarming yourself for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

I think the only crazy thing is that Castle Law isn't country-wide. Everyone should have the right to shoot trespassers without question, if they feel like it.

>I work security.

Pretty sure the goblins have figured out how to use guns. I didn't shoot those people, the goblins did it.

Agreed.

And illegal immigrants need to be counted as trespassers.

These are supernatural invasions though.
Some mobs can teleport at will. And animals become frenzied during blood moons meaning people with big/many pets are fucked.

>Crazy is willingly disarming yourself for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

I agree. However, my neighbor in particular fits the "Stupid redneck" stereotype and regularly gets drunk almost every night. Keeping his gun in his truck while doing this could be seen as a problem.

The normal random events would be cake. The civilian death toll would rise but it wouldn't do anything to threaten civilization as a whole.
If we include hardmode random events that have specific requirements to trigger it would get a lot worse though. Realistically, the martian madness event would completely fuck our shit up and we wouldn't have a chance of X-COMing our way out of it.

Any other predator responds with lethal force when its territory is intruded upon by a hostile entity. It's perfectly natural.

Garry Bobby?

I respectfully disagree.

It can't be a national thing because what constitutes trespassing differs from state to state. I do agree it's a thing every state should have, but it starts getting sticky when you suggest that the federal government should dictate to the states how to handle things.

Well you're wrong.

>Crazy is willingly disarming yourself for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
We are born disarmed. Choosing not to arm is not the same as willfully disarming.

I don't own a gun, but I've been thinking about remedying this mistake with pic related.

Is it a good choice?

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life. Go hug a tree you limpwristed faggot.

/thread

Any reason why, or just to be be different?

Well I don't mean the fed should force the states. I'm thinking more of an idyllic world where every state agrees it's the right thing to do.

Seriously. You hear stupid shit on Sup Forums all the time but that's up there with the flat earthers in terms of stupidity

What's that chambered in, .380? I have a Ruger in .22lr for plinking and I really like it.

You're going to want something with more stopping power if you plan on concealed carrying though. Unless of course you're a female and that's as big of a bang as you think you'll be able to aim properly with when under stress.

But I digress. Yeah, I love my Ruger.

Why? everyone having weapons is more of a liability than anything and while I don't we shouls go full cuck for what is defending ourselves against trespassing, I don't think trespassing is a crime worthy of death.
Homicide rates have been drastically reduced the last 150-200 years thanks to the police and deweaponization of the population.
But I'm not american and I know you sometimes value the right to have guns for the sake of having not matter if that's helping or hindering society so maybe we just have different values.
The right of arming yourself is just not seen as something important in western europe unlike some parts of the USA and overall we don't think having guns would be beneficial.

>Modern civilization
Easily. Hell it'd probably help the economy since weapons manufacturing would always be at wartime high and construction for things damaged would also provide jobs.

What's up with the 2 Blood Moon thread up on Sup Forums?
Is it coming?

>guns are what protects you
heh, good one

It's still very sticky. I think when people think of "castle doctrine" they're imagining some isolated farm in the middle of nowhere and some random serial murderer waltzing up to the porch and trying to break into the house; there's really no argument that the property owner should have the right to shoot that fucker. But when you're talking about a dense urban city with apartments right on top of each other and it's not always clear and obvious where property lines start and end and anybody can make any excuse to consider someone accidentally stepping on the wrong blade of grass a "trespasser," you can't just give them carte blanche blowaway privileges.

I think the main thing is that castle doctrine is seen as unnecessary when self defense laws are already a thing. In a scenario where you're shooting someone breaking into your home wielding a deadly weapon, you don't need castle doctrine to protect you. However, let's say I'm a census taker (government employee) or missionary (freedom of religion, numerous other protections) and I walk up to your door; it can readily be argued that the mere existence of castle doctrine puts me in danger because you're more likely to gun me down knowing you can get away with it even if there's no way to argue you did it in self defense.

Regardless of what you think of the reality of any of the above scenarios, the hypotheticals are enough to warrant every state handling it differently and it is completely reasonable that some would decide against it based on factors that simply don't apply in other states.

>Walking dog
>he gets loose and runs on someone's yard
>go to retrieve him
>get shot

>playing frisbee
>flies into someone elses yard
>go to pick it up
>get shot

Yeah that shit may be able to fly in the boonies but in suburbia and metropolitan it'd be fucking retarded.

>Why?
Because your central point of
>everyone having weapons is more of a liability than anything
Is wrong.

Tbf census workers and Jehova's Witnesses both deserve to be shot.

Explain why.

>civilizations competing for who kills Moonlord in the least ticks

I think everyone should have access to a gun as long as they're mentally qualified. What everyone shouldn't be able to do is build a fucking arsenal. That's where things become a liability. Because as of right now not only can virtually anyone get a gun, virtually anyone can legally arm themselves with enough fire power to blow away as many schools and movie theaters as they want.

As a former anti-gun nut, I am always amused at how the same people who argue in favor of sex education and claim that promoting abstinence doesn't work and simply exacerbates the problem will look at you like you're retarded if you suggest that educating everyone on proper firearm usage and responsible handling/ownership would be more effective than simply taking guns away or banning them outright.

>We shouldn't have shootings, we should have shoot outs
I don't follow the logic. Guns don't just materialize in the hands of shooters. They can buy them legally easily or buy them second hand from someone who bought them legally easy. I mean do you think it's a coincidence that the nation with free guns has the most gun violence?

Do you have any idea how few Americans know how to properly use the guns they own? Most are dudes hiding pistols in their bedstand that they haven't properly maintened, or some guy on a farm with a dusty old shotgun he uses to fire rocksalt at random critters. Even the gang bangers can't shoot shit, most of the time they hit the pavement or innocent bystanders instead of their target.

See
Guns are also insurance policies against an authoritarian state, but then I know you yuropoors love your authoritarian states.

>getting guns can be near impossible in some places and countries
>people are born with genitalia and sexual desires

Got any data at all to back up your claims? Cause I'm going to need to see some sauce on whatever you just pulled out of your ass.

...

>yurop
>authoritarian
Are you mistaking us with Russia?

>hurr dey goin take da guns
Control=/= ban. I don't get how people are retarded enough to fuck this up. You want to teach your son how to use a hunting rifle? good on you. You want autistic angsty Austin to be able to get his hands on military grade semi automatic machine guns with money he stole from his mom so he can show those kids at school who call him a faggot a lesson then what the absolute fuck is wrong with you?

>the third largest country on earth has more gun violence than we do
Well stop the fucking presses. I bet we have more people who get arrested for fucking a dog too, doesn't mean it's common.

I'm an anti-gun nut but it's basically impossible to take everyone's guns away, I just want to make it a really really fucking stringent process with lots of training and mental health evaluation

It'd be exactly like Terraria where the first time it's a massacre then slowly we become powerful enough that it's trivial.

>military grade semi automatic machine guns

I hate to break it to you, but unless you're living in a militant compound out in the middle of nowhere, your puny guns aren't going to scare any state agency.

But most of Europe is without guns problems?

you forgot your "guns won't save you from tanks/drones/jets" line

So the Bill of Rights doesn't need to apply to people with disabilities?

Good to know, now we can gas them.

>the largest countries don't have nearly as much gun violence but it's totally population scaling! muh bad guys with guns.
This is delusion.

>1 million people in the military
>320 million armed citizens
Oh they most certainly would be worried.

>what is hyperbole
Nice dodging the point though. good to know I'm right.

>>We shouldn't have shootings, we should have shoot outs
Is that a pun? I'll do you one better
>We shouldn't have shut ins, we should have shoot outs

it's both population scaling and that the US has way more guns per capita than most other nations on the planet, even with such a huge population. More guns=more gun related incidents, same with more pools and drowning or more cars and auto-related incidents

Mt point was that it was statistically irrelevant. You're more likely to die choking on your boyfriends dick you suck every night user.

JUST DISARM THE INNOCENT LMAO, the terrorist or ganbanger won't buy an automatic rifle from the CIA or Tyrone Tyrese DeShaun Tyson
Obviously we just need to shut down every weapon manufacturing plant on the planet.

Actually yeah, gas the tards. Not even that guy. I fucking hate tards.
Hell, even a handless man can handle a gun better.
That's basically how the Independence went but you people keep thinking a jet can dismantle undercover guerrillas and avoid some random faggot sabotaging logistics with a homemade bomb

>being an economic brainlet

>At one of our dinners, Milton recalled traveling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton replied: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”

Your few guns and your NRA subscription won't save you from a team of highly trained and better armed officers who know how to take down a lone gunman. If you honestly think your pile of guns is any good against any armed government group, you live in a sad milititarized fantasy land and I truley hope you never live to see yourself proven wrong.

Can autistic people really claim to be defending their rights or fighting against an authoritarian state?

>lone gunman
There are 320 million of us.

It always devolves into a 2nd argue fest when someone brags about their ownership's.
Anyway, most states and population centers would devise plans for mass migration away from any region soon to be blood moon'd when it's time than honker down and fight the monstrosities. There would be militant organizations built just for cleaning up the map of bloody critters and "escorting" (read forcibly detaining and shipping off) stragglers or anyone who wants to stay behind for whatever reason.
When undead horrors just materialize out of thin air from blind spots you can't see with the explicit intent of killing the living you don't stick around to stand your ground, you just get the fuck out of there.

Apparently they have no right to speak at all given your logic so does it really matter what they claim? You've already dehumanized them entirely.

>More guns=more gun related incidents
Exactly, so we should closely regulate who legally gets a gun.

No it isn't. It's not a coincidence that lax gun laws=more gun violence. What sense does it make to stay like in such a state when we could make an effort to curve the deaths.

>assuming control = ban
>hurr da bad guys will still have guns
You see this is my favorite because you have to actually believe the guns manifest into the hands of "bad guys" by magic or there's some retarded conspiracy when in reality it's rather simple, someone buys the guns at a gun show, or buys them illegally from someone who buys them legally. We can curb both with tighter gun laws while still keeping "innocents" with their guns if retards like you wouldn't go HURR TAKIN MUH GUNS. and fighting at every turn.

>320 millions would fight the army.
You would be lucky if 5% actually tried.
And why do you hate the State so much?

shit nigger, I would post that Sup Forumsk/ copypasta if I could find it.
but basically the defect rate is massive against citizens going into civil war, supply lines are fucked by civilians, and militaries generally get fucked by any sort of large guerrilla group, which would be the majority of the armed US population if something like this would go down

>It's not a coincidence that lax gun laws=more gun violence.
It absolutely is. How do we explain Switzerland then considering every household must have a gun? Or Saudi Arabia for that matter.

Prove him wrong.

>You would be lucky if 5% actually tried.
Yeah you're right. There's been no situation in the history of the world where a populace has taken up arms against an oppressive government.
>And why do you hate the State so much?
Probably because it's full of totalitarian inclined cocksockers like you who don't know what the word "right" means.

The USA is authoritarian? wtf?
Are you delusional?

I love how you BoRfags always inexplicably bundle the one and only amendment that deals with dangerous weapons that are routinely used to KILL PEOPLE with things like freedom of speech, press, religion etc. as if they are all on equal ground and should be treated equally, like it's somehow impossible to decide that certain people shouldn't be able to own deadly weapons without also taking away literally all of their rights.

Oh okay. Let's just give up all our guns then since this guy can see the future.

I think it'd be surprising the first few times before we just track down what causes that shit and gut them.

Works for pirate, goblin maybe halloween.
Moon event, maybe not.

So you're just going to take away some of their rights. Because you feel you or anyone else is entitled to do so.

Well in that case I would like to take away your right to speak and women's right to vote.

Easy there ozymandias

>born disarmed
We are however born with the ability to think and create in order to make up for our shortcomings. Using a weapon to protect yourself from hostility is as natural in human instinct as building a shelter or lighting a fire to protect from the elements.

>I would like to take away your right to speak and women's right to vote.
Cool argument, because taking away the right to own deadly weapons from retards who literally can't tell right from wrong is completely arbitrary and based on no logical or sound reasoning whatsoever, but clearly my ability to say what I want is surely an imminent danger to your life.

I don't get it.

Americans have been scared of the government since forever because they still remember how they got fucked over by Britain.
Besides, it's hard to look at Venezuela and not think "shit, it could happen again if we don't at least pretend to be dangerous".

>all women get pissy during blood moons besides best girl
Shit would be insufferable.

>It absolutely is.
No, it's not

>How do we explain Switzerland then considering every household must have a gun?
That hasn't been a law for quite some time and even switzerland has been taking steps to regulate their gun violence. Considering we're multitudes larger with larger multitudes more guns yet still an insanely dis proportionate amount of gun violence are you honestly going to deny it any longer? Our gun laws are too lax for the amount of guns we have, hence more gun violence.

Good thing the Constitution wasn't written with the sole intention of making pussies like you feel safe faggot. It was made to protect people from people like you.

You know how China employs thousands upon thousands of people to build cities that end up completely empty because no one is able to afford living or running businesses there? "But at least people are employed!" is a flimsy excuse that just barely distracts people from how inevitably fucked the economy is.

>No, it's not
Prove your claim then because the numbers in nations with high firearm ownership show absolutely no ubiquitous trends between each other.

Mexico and Colombia have very strict gun laws, and we have ridiculously high rates of gun-related crime. Hell, in Colombia's case the rate was around 4 times higher than the rate of war-related deaths, for the 50 years our leftists guerrillas existed. And the rate of knife-related deaths was almost as high.
The problem is the people. We're uncivilized monkeys and if you banned knives we'd kill each other with sharp bones. Same thing in America: they're fucked in the head.

Not being a pussy, you shouldn't have any problem at all sitting in a room with 100 people with down's syndrome armed with automatic rifles. They're just exercising their Constitutional rights after all, no reason for you to feel threatened or unsafe.

>how do you dare to want security in society, you sissy faggot
Are you retarded?

Are you suggesting we don't have it? Because if you think the US isn't safe maybe you should try somewhere a little more suited to your delicate sensibilities, like a gay bath house.