Z_Berenice

Didn't we touch all of those points before? I'm guessing what you're all replying to since I got that poster blocked, but that's pretty much what we all talked in the first pages... Just don't feed the trolls please, this has been a nice and civil thread so far and I actually enjoy this discussion... Good lord, why some people feel the need to start nitpicking every single thing in hopes to get the thread derailed in their favor... (not talking about you Nyo). Edit: just to prove how little some people know about guns (which also happen to be the same who are against them :roll:), I intentionally posted a mistake regarding type and caliber earlier in this thread, and nobody has spotted it yet... Figured somebody would by now, but nope... lol.

Hey guys, what's goi.... oh god... Well, it was a nice civil thread while it lasted.

So you believe in disarment, genocide/mutilation and imprisonment of those who don't share the same views as you? Sounds like the 3rd Reich, thanks God you're so afraid of guns and aren't allowed one, please, stay out of their reach. P.S. I actually found it hard to read all that again, I'll just block you as I fear you might actually post something worse, and I don't want to know what's worse than that...

Telling you, go to ports, I'm still laughing at the names lol.

Actually, there's a "neutral spanish" which is the one spoken in some parts of Venezuela (usually used for voice-overs/translations), some parts of Mexico and Chile (altho mostly of Venezuelan ancestry). So they'll probably go with that. Out of those, you're right, spanish in latin america varies way too much between locations. Hell, in my country, which is roughly 4m population, there are at least 7 different accents. But pretty much all native speakers know how to speak "neutral spanish" or in the very least keep the modism usage minimal. Haven't checked qc yet, but from what I could see from the translations of the items, they are going for the "neutral spanish".

Pretty much when people use words such as "nacho", "ole", "bueno", or just add o to the end of each word to "make it sound spanish". Or when people use phrases/features characteristic of certain spanish speaking countries as a whole, when talking to people who speak spanish (like people who says "nacho" when speaking to someone who isn't from mexico, etc...). Basically, how ignorant most non-spanish speaking people are towards spanish speaking people and how incredibly racist it sounds when they try hard, and fail horribly at it. As for the quick chat system, haven't tried yet, will do tonight tho.

Armadyl's page = Página de Armadyl in spanish. "Armadyl Página" makes absolutely no sense in spanish.

I don't speak Spanish AT ALL, but don't you think it'd probably be better for Armadyl (and other names) to be the first word in the titles of items, for ease of finding them? Good thing you don't speak spanish at all... good lord...

Native spanish speaker here, thought I would never see this day. I've been laughing since I logged, the names of ports captains is probably the best lol...

I seem to have terrible luck with oxheads... Need 4 and I'm short of one, last time I saw one was about 2 weeks ago <.< Funny thing is, I got a jade golem while I get the last oxhead and I keep sending him on <70% missions on my only ship that doesn't have lifeboat... nope, still alive...

Which state? During the shortage I was buying ammo here for some friends over the states as it even turned way cheaper with shipping costs. But they've been telling me for the last 2-3 days that they'll start buying back with their local stores since they are starting to show up again and the price is at least acceptable. But then again, 9mm... lol. Just messing, altho all of my pistols are .45, I know it must be frustating since 9mm is quite popular, specially in the states.

And where the government leverages their monopoly to buy out the manufacturing capacity of all 9mm rounds, effectively implementing back door "gun" control. Or how stocks of ammo are magically filling the shells of previously empty ones due to "extreme shortage"... As always, someone made quite a lot of money out of this :roll:

I just watched the "sentimental" broadcast they did live, and I just won a bet on the timing they would be doing this (my take was on mid april). I frequent many online gun-friendly communities, and as much as I love them, it's always the same thing when a shooting happens: 1. Sellers panic and start the "muh guns, they gunna take muh guns" campaign 2. Hoarders panic and begin mass buying 3. Price of guns rise like hell in the U.S. 4. Several bills, laws, etc. are proposed 5. Sellers reinforce their campagin with perfect timing compared to proposed bills, laws, etc. 6. Prices rise even more, people start massively hoarding ammo 7. Insert 2-3 months of the same thing gradually going down 8. The goverment broadcasts some sort of emotional defeat speech, etc... 9. Prices go back to normal, and those who proposed bills, laws, etc. / the victims / anyone who was against guns is nowhere to be seen.

Now that you say that; bombs do tell a story. Judging by the way the bombs exploded, they are what we call over here "mina quiebrapata" (legbreaking mine), which is basically a mine that once triggered, it explodes almost completely horizontally (doesn't really go over 50 cm), hence the name; also, there are some reports about doctors pulling ball bearings out of the injured legs; It all points out to being this, which can also be triggered remotely.

I'd rather things like this bombing simply go unreported as well since it does nothing but spread fear and irrationality. Finally! Somebody gets it!

And that very same day 50 people died after a series of bombings took place in Iraq, where's the headlines on that? Or are we being elitist again?

Glad to see we've finally found an "in-between" point. I wasn't implying that the ban made the country more violent, I was implying that the response to the ban basically didn't stop the violent crime from rising in the upcoming years, however, as opposed to countries like Mexico, UK did have other factors (unrelated to gun control) that affected such stadistics, which is why I didn't bother to show a graphic past 2000 where such factors took place. Again, the idiocyncrasy of such country plays a role, look at countries like switzerland (where basically everyone knows how to use a gun) where more people commit suicide via their own guns than actual crimes compared to countries like Mexico (a country with a nation-wide gun ban) where people simply don't care about gun laws + they have a drug war on top of that....

You said this was your profession before, but you appear to have missed a very important caveat from the very reference you used (Home Office, 2000). Bolded the important parts for clarity. See what I mean? You're assuming this is my profession just because I mentioned "I better not say it". Dude, I'm a lawyer... And yes, it is meant to show the year 2000, because the point it was to show how far it went up RIGHT AFTER (meaning the 3 subsequent years) the ban, given the same correlation used to make those stadistics to start with... Again, idiocyncrasy... let's look at Mexico... P.S. If you haven't noticed by now, I was backing up the statment The_Gabe made, was I sarcastic? yes... You're branching this off yet again just to disprove the method, be my guest if that's the case and makes you happy for whatever twisted reason.

Too bad the definition of violent crime changes drastically between sources :roll: I guess I better leave my profession out of the question and enjoy the incoming wave of semantics :roll: Could that not also have applied to you when you posted a massive gif with the word "MYTH" written on it? Could what be applied to...? I'm having some trouble to follow a conv with you, given how you automatically assume and impose your own point of view compared to the point the poster was trying to make. So I brought stadistics showing how fast crime rates went up right after the ban (given how the point of it was the correlation between the two), it still happened... As for yours, the supposed decrease on crime rate in the UK (this will make up for another 100 pages of discussion, so let's not touch that subject) is usually countered by someone's else own stadistics... This is where idiocyncrasy comes into place, let's compare violence in mexico after gun ban for example, and see what we can get... Do you see where I'm going to? I'm not sure if you're just having fun tyring to disprove people or if you're actually contributing to the topic... Again, this doesn't have to be x vs y, this can easily be people talking about a subject some agree with and some don't.

Too bad the definition of violent crime changes drastically between sources :roll: I guess I better leave my profession out of the question and enjoy the incoming wave of semantics :roll:

Well, yeah. The methods countries like Australia and the UK took to control guns won't work for America for a whole bunch of reasons. You mean because it didn't work for them to start with? I can't recall Australia's case right now, I remember working their stadistics a year ago, it was somewhat similar to the UK, just not sure about the exact %. Also, crime rates are actually decreasing in the U.S. (overall), however, they're rising on certain states... guess which?

No you didn't That's exactly why guns aren't allowed on buildings that already have police and/or a security system involving guns. Oh, and that's not a contradiction, I don't carry when entering a bank, hospital, police station, etc... I just leave the gun in my car or leave it with the security guard outside, hey, there's even this cool thing they do where they hold it for you... Bye.

I'm sorry what? You've branched this discussion so far that I'm not even sure if you're serious anymore... You keep trying to prove some argument wrong, yet refuse to say why the argument is wrong, you're basically saying "You're wrong but I can't tell you why!". And I live on a country where pretty much everyone has a shotgun, yet only a handful of incidents with registered guns ever happened, if you look a bit back I already talked about how the idiocyncrasy of each country plays a role, you're basically trying to turn this whole thread into x vs y, when clearly we can get along, you sir, have some serious issues.

Is that all? You just want to compare two people with similar thoughts by proving one of them wrong through semantics? And I'm yet to see your point, stop the meaning-talk, GET TO THE POINT!

This... I'm guessing he's trying to play the "you don't get my argument" card, but all I see is some sort of non-sequitur... Get to the point, as much as I love these discussions, they become annoying when people start discussing semantics and meanings...