Botellines

Regarding what i said about not having sex with MArtina Klein.... Who am i trying to fool?

Knowck it off!!!! I am already hard!!! Now, just to add something serious to the post, i believe it is possible to hve an involuntary hard on. Just an example: If i happen to be in the same room than Martina Klein in lingerie (her, not me), i would surely get a hard on in no time. It doesn´t mean i would have sex with her, only because i am faithfull to my girldfriend, but i would still be aroused by her presence, hence the need to wear elastic shorts.

Sorry, but putting down a whole profession like teaching because you disagree with one member of them, cannot be serious. Besides, an engineer is an engineer. A teacher in engineering is an engineer and a teacher, much more than just an engineer. I assure you that bad engineers seldom are allowed to give tuition.

Actually according to history, the brits didn´t get to beat our armada... We managed to sink it ourselves in a storm well before they saw us.

LOL, not at all, i want to send hugs & vibes and love letters to all our american fellows who have voted in the poll. . You know, those that voted the "I dream to be american" option

Just to sum up our previous posts and show my logic, let me inform you of some misconceptions you pro-gun guys have. 1) It is easy to get a gun in the blackmarket. Sorry, but it is not. In Europe guns are restricted to common citizens and criminals do have it, so there is a blckmarket. The average Joe, does not have the contacts to get a gun easily. Hell, even the average criminal will take a while before they get one. Plus it is a chance to get the criminal before they commit a crime by seizing him when trying to buy the gun. 2) If guns were banned only criminals would have a gun No, it is not true. Cops, army, security forces would still have guns. Those are the ones whose tasks is to protect you, and eventually be judge, jury, and executer if they have to use it to protect someone. 3) Guns don´t kill. People kill Yes, but the only think you can be sure is human stupidity. Accidents happen, and some people are not able to follow the four basic rules of gun handling. That is of course not taking into account those that go nuts. 4) CCW holders are law abiding citizen Everybody is a law abiding citizen until they stop being one. Or to put in other words, just before squeezing the trigger, that citizen was a law abiding citizen. 5)Pro-gun people are not gun freaks some are, some aren´t. But most important, not all gun owners are trained in their use sufficiently to be safe. Some of them are not even responsible to have their guns away from their kids. 6)if i don´t have a gun i am defenseless against a criminal This is the biggest lie pro-gun people tell. First of all, there is only two things a criminal may want from you: your life or your belongings. If they are after your life, you are as good as dead. No weapon will save you from a knife in your back. If they are after your belongings, it is a always a better idea to comply than possibly getting into a gun fight and risk your life. It is that simple. The only exception i can find is regarding women. To comply when facing rape is not a good option, but there is other alternatives that do not involve guns. The way i see it is that in an utopic society, guns would be just a tool as a hammer and would create no more accidents than a hammer. But your society is not utopic, you have gun freaks, people that go nuts, troubled kids stealing the guns from home, etc. You guys mix the constitution, freedom and the second amendment with the right to wear a gun, but the truth is that you just like the power a gun in your side brings. IMO guns do more bad than good. Regarding what you said about you not talking about spain´s domestic policy if i do the same with the U.S. Well, by all means if you have any suggestion, voice it, we are always open to ideas that can improve our life style. But if you don´t mind i will keep giving my opinion about other countries. There is not very many spaniards around here to discuss politics with.

So now the opponent in a war is not chosen by who attacks you or poses a threat but among the easiest picks. Nice, and you wonder why Iran is looking at nuclear power so stubornly.

That is very... macho, so to speak, but it just is not true. With all the military might the U.S has, the U.S is still Saudi Arab´s bitch. Most of the WTC hijackers comes from that country, still you guys are best buddies with them. You know, there is so many countries that pose a threat to your country, but the U.S always goes to the easy pick. Regarding WMD, Iran and North Korea are much more dangerous than Irak, but the U.S is showing an endless patient. Why?

Actually I think the messages goes like this: "Have nuclear power or we will do with your country, people and natural resources as we see fit". And i think Iran and North Korea got the message quite well.

I never said otherwise, but take away the help of France, Uk, or Russia and the Allies would not have lasted either. It was a collaboration among several countries against several countries. And on top of that, each member of the allies had personal interests that the germans didn´t win. In that you are right, my bad.

whereas it is quite easy to annoy some people just by mixing guns with sarcasm, no, it is not my intention to annoy you. In my country you have to go to college at least three years to become a High school teacher, more for a college teacher. You have to study and train at least 2 years to get your comercial pilot license, not that only with that you will get hired, mind you. Probably the same thing in the U.S But anyone with the IQ of a vegetable and no training can get a fireweapon in your country. That is what i have a problem with. Would you send your kids to a school were the teachers have only been give a two weeks course on how to treat kids? would you skydive in a DZ where the pilot has a total of 10 flying hours in any plane? Well, i wouldn´t be comfortable around people with guns who may not be current in training. Dude, this is some of your writing in this thread... You do know how utterly ridiculous your posts are, right? That's only a debate to people too thick to read simple statistics. It's resolved to everyone else. OK, try to keep up You are capable of understanding that difference, yes? This is the most patently absurd notion I've read in quite some time, even from you OK, this may be difficult for you, so read slowly. I don´t know why you think that you are smarter than i am, because chances are that you are not. Since i am not going to exchange qualifications with you over the net, and there is no need to turn this into a pissing contest, please, show some respect and consider me, at least, as intelligent as you consider yourself. Believe me when i tell you that putting down my intelligence, will not increase yours the slightest. If you are really preocupied that i cannot follow properly the english language, by all means, tell me, and we will continue our debate in the spanish forum. Check this out, it is from here A citizen of the U.S. is: -- 8.7 times as likely as a citizen of Germany; -- 9.3 times as likely as a citizen of France; -- 7.7 times as likely as a citizen of Canada; -- 35 times as likely as a citizen of the U.K.; -- 11.9 times as likely as a citizen of Australia; -- 129 times as likely as a citizen of Japan to be murdered by a gun. If I have calculated any of these incorrectly, please correct these numbers. Michael Moore's stats: Germany, 381 gun murders. France, 255 gun murders. Canada, 165 gun murders. UK, 68 gun murders. Australia, 65 gun murders. Japan, 39 gun murders. U.S., 11,127 gun murders. CIA World Factbook 2002 population stats: Germany, 83,251,851 France, 59,765,983 Canada, 31,902,268 U.K., 59,778,002 Australia, 19,546,792 Japan, 126,974,628 U.S., 280,562,489 See, maybe the problem is not the guns per se, maybe the problem is the society who is not responsible enough to own so many firearms. The fact is that there is a problem in your country with people and guns. There is no easy fix, but what i think is that since you cannot remove the people, remove the guns, or at least increase the requirements to own them (gun control), you seem to think that the problem will be fixed with more guns. Please, don´t go into the criminals vs law abidind citizen. The kid that killed 9 people in minesotta was as law abiding citizen as you are before he pulled the trigger

The bottom line is that one kid went nuts and for a while lost his mind and killed a lot of people. With ease as it has been pointed out. How do you stop people going nuts? In the capitalist country you live, society is very polarized, and while some people find success, other people finds failure. It is the latest the ones that have more chances to go nuts. Kids are mean, how can we stop popular kids to pick on unpopular ones? (goths, fats, short) the latest ones, are very likely to say that is enough, and do something stupid. The real issue is that there is no solution for the real issue. In a 260 million country, you will not have a way to stop anyone going nuts, specially with the violence culture there is on TV, where a naked woman is seen almost as pornographic, but a violent movie is okay to all ages. I agree with you, what anti-gun people wants is that while those issues are addressed and solved, a teenager do not have an easy access to a firearm. That way, if he goes nuts, he will not be able to kill so many people in so little time. Ciels- Michele

As an scottish citizen, I wouldn´t have thought that you were affected by a severe case of selective memory as some american people seems to be. The U.S was not alone in that war (France, UK, and Russia was there as well. As well as Germany was not alone (Italy and Spain were a very friendly neutral country toward the germans) It was in the best interests of the U.S to stop the germans, and better to do it in Europe than in the U.S. You know less american civilians killed. Make no mistake, every single country looks for their own interests, to do otherwise would be a treason of the government. But only the U.S tries to tell the rest of the world that they do things out of kindness of heart. Few foreign people believes it.

I don´t consider myself an expert here, but since i am not afraid of any liability and maybe this could help anyone i could tell you what i would if i was her. If ahead of me there is some place where I could find shelter and i wasn´t wearing high heels or anything that would prevent me from running fast, i would just run, i he follows, i yell fire to draw attention. If i have a tazer or pepper spray, i would quietly get ir ready, like pretending to get the car keys from my purse or something like that. Again, if i can run and there is a place to do it, i would also run while holding my tazer or pepper spray and yelling fire. if there is no place to go ahead, and no weapons, i would turn around to the lightest place and confront him, while evaluating any scape route behind. No need to make it easier for him offering him my back. If it is indeed a bad guy, i would attempt to strike once in his eyes, throat or croach and run. Very unlikely i could win a fight against someone stronger unless i am extremely well trained. See, all this may or may not work, it all depends on the individual or the attacker. After all, self defense comes down to increasing your chances while decreasing the bad guy chances, there is not anything you can do to get a guaranteed success. Regarding what you could do with a gun, i am not trained in using one, so i would probably say it wrongly.

Yes, i know the diference beetwen allowing the staff to carry concealed weapons and mandatory weapons for staff and students. I think it is a bad idea any of them for the reasons already mentioned. So to answer your question, yes, i am capable to understand the diference. Are you capable of understanding sarcasm, are you? Your first language is English, right? Don´t be cocky about semantics, english to me is just another language i speak. Schools shotings in a comunity are isolated cases. But if you put together all the communities in the U.S you get pretty much what you have now. A school shooting a year? If you are happy with it, more power to you. I don´t remember when was the last time something like that happened, not just in Spain, but in Europe. Allowing more guns in a school will only provoke more "isolated cases", what will you do when a teacher goes nuts? Arm the principal with an AK-47 Is that some sort of personnal attack? if so, you will have to try harder (and risk some time off). You see, I am sattisfied enough with my IQ that i don´t need to put down other people to feel good about myself. BWAHAHAHAHA. You dare me!!!! I will forget that because it is quite obvious you are new on Internet. Dude, just so you know, on Internet you can get statistics to prove any point you want to make no matter how ridiculous it is. See you will get them from a pro-gun organization and i will get them from an anti-gun organization. Sorry, i prefer to use common sense. Anyway, if it is important to you, i will try to get some time to give you those statistics so you can bash my source. Let´s not go there, the military doesn´t use weapons to defend themselves, period.

that is quite common in Poland. But they don´t have empty cruisers, just 2D cardboards painted like a police car. Kind of pointless since the roads there will not let you run too fast anyway.

Has anyone seen the movie "mar adentro" is made by Alejandro Amenabar, I think it is translated to English as "The sea inside" It is an excellent movie that talks about all this subject.

I agree 100%, but not always you have the chance to do that. Example, if a woman is walking to her car in a parking lot and there is no other cars nearby, she can suspect that any guy that aproach her may be up to no good. Then she could take the dfensive measures she thinks apropiate. However if a guy is walking in the same parking lot but this time it is full of other cars, she may think the guy is after her but he may just go to his car. My concern would be here to take measures with a lethal weapon against anyone that may means no harm. And you sometimes have to wait for the last moment to figure out his motives. Haven´t you ever felt like someone was following you just to find out that he just happens to live close to where you live? Self defense classes will help, although it takes years to be proficient at it. I still think that a pepper spray can do wonders if used apropiately without incurring in the risk of killing someone if you missjudge the threat.

It is pretty risky to make asumptions about someone you have not ever met because more often than not you will be wrong. Guess what? this is not the exception. I assure you that i know a great deal about self defense, 9 years doing martial arts gives you a pretty good idea. you do realize that that is not what Linsey was asking, right? Anyone with any training at all knows that shit happen, and many times and many things are well beyond your control. Besides, if you think your training is so good, why do you need a gun? Anything to prove your point? I guess you don´t consider a rape a sort of injury, because that is what will happen in the woman does not show resistance.

Dude, that looks like some sort of personal attack. Funny thing is that you don´t mention the rest of the post. The part where i prove you wrong. By the way, what statistics do you imply i am too thick to understand, the one that prove your point or the one that proves my point. You know that there is life outside of NRA, right?

I think the best for a woman in those cases is to have with her a non lethal weapon and the knowledge to use it. (tazer, pepper spray) If worse comes to worse and you use it on the wrong person, it is always easier to apology to himself rather than to his family. And if properly used, it has enough stopping power to get you away from most trouble. That is what my girlfriend hopefully will never have to use (pepper spray)

Actually, no one has a clue until we face that particular threat. And each threat is unique. A self defense class, although it will surely help, will not make anyone 100% accurate when assesing a threat. There will always be room to failure to use it properly.

please, spare me your rhetoric, get to the point. Actually yes, you are wrong. JohnRich was refering to the incident in the Minnesota highschool and he literally said What stopped the bad guy with the gun? Good guys that showed up with more guns. The presence of counter-fire capability ended the shooting spree. The shooter knew his gig was up. and And increasing the lead/air ratio in self defense to minimize casualties amongst the good guys, is a good thing. Considering it was said in the context of a highschool, that counter-fire capabilities must surely come from either students or teachers (good guys). He also said that to increase the lead/air ratio among the good guys (rest of students and teachers) is a good thing. I actually did, but i doubt you want to base your defense of gun ownership on isolated cases. If so, you should give up your toys for all the times that a teenager has stolen a legally owned gun from his father and go into a killing spree. So, in other words we are back to the old debate of whether gun ownership saves more lives than it takes.

I think JohnRich is right in this one. At the beggining of the school year we should be giving students the books along with their choice of handgun. That will make the school safer. I would propose shotguns for teachers and an AK47 for the principal.

You mean like the Irak war, right? I wonder what you would think if NK decides to take down an american nuclear power plant. I am sure you would teach the world what a proportionate response means.