GentlemanJim

If they'd stop pixelating them, many of us would enjoy them more.

And many of us would not.

Japanese male porn stars rarer than Bengal Tigers: actor

Put them in the zoo then.

Blimey, so now from the OP I am also supposed to know that if she did not have a certain type of revolver, she had a 9mm but the 9mm was not a Glock your favourite 'did you know I have a Glock' weapon of choice. (Do you know how many times you have told us on TV that you carry a Glock!) I had a US Marine desperate to swop his crappy Glock for my Browning 9mm.

It seems unlikely as Browning are complete pants, and Glock are very expensive.

I preferred to carry a Beretta 9mm with lock & cock (M9).

Now lets not get all confrontational by calling me a liar eh! I told you what a US Marine said to me, you were not there, it was in the middle of the desert and you didn't overhear.

SO it gets even funnier, because a Glock is 'very expensive' you think it is better? The browning is epic and can stand up to very adverse/harsh environments. There are some pretty expensive assault rifles but they are beaten hands down by the cheap old AK47. You are talking nonsense. Just think before you post, this is not a competition about who has to win with a number of posts, it is supposed to be an adult discussion.

By the way, find me a review by a reputable gun magazine that says the Browning is 'pants', I think you will find they all say it is one of the most formidable, best 9mm available.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Why was the safety not on etc etc.

Because revolvers don't have a safety, if you know nothing about guns, why post in this thread?

I know everything about guns. Did she have a revolver? It does not say that in the OP does it. Are you making an assumption? And your statement about revolvers is not quite true is it. Can the fact that a woman shot herself in school only be commented on by experts in guns now? Do you have to be a gun expert to realise someone is an ass for having a ND?

"Gun in holster during class, no reason to take it out, unlike when you are in the toilet.

If you know nothing about the operation and practicalities of carrying a gun, why post in this thread?"

There you go again, assumptions assumptions and we all know about those don't we.

You know everything about guns yet you asked why was the safety not on. Glocks, which are a very popular semi-automatic and carried by most US policemen don't have a safety that you can switch on. The OP didn't say what kind of gun she had yet your knee-jerk question is about "the safety."

As AnotherOneAmerican told you, if you don't know anything about guns (and you don't,) why post in this thread?

Blimey, so now from the OP I am also supposed to know that if she did not have a certain type of revolver, she had a 9mm but the 9mm was not a Glock your favourite 'did you know I have a Glock' weapon of choice. (Do you know how many times you have told us on TV that you carry a Glock!) I had a US Marine desperate to swop his crappy Glock for my Browning 9mm.

Can we remain adult on the thread and get some intelligent replies if you are going to take the time to sit at the keyboard. Otherwise please move along.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

It's a different culture that you aren't expected to understand.

In my state I'm allowed to carry a gun into any school from preschool through uni, and I'm not a teacher or employee. The punk kids who've done school shootings don't qualify to carry guns. They are breaking the law just by possessing.

The countless teachers who carry guns do so to protect themselves and students from some nutter school shooter. To the best of my knowledge, no school shooting has been attempted in the presence of teachers who had guns.

If I was going to have a happy dream, it would be me standing on a street in London when some punk decides he's going to behead a soldier or an elderly woman, or to just happen to be in a school when some punk decides he's going to shoot the place up.

With freedom comes risk, but a different kind of risk than an unarmed population is taking.

Freedom isn't free, and some things are worth dying for, to paraphrase a couple of sayings.

But you wouldn't understand that.

Your barking mad mate. As a Brit I find it sad that you feel the need to carry a gun and clearly are desperate to shoot someone. In the UK total gun deaths over the past few decades don't reach anywhere close to the annual slaughter that takes place in the US.

You might not agree with him - but that doesn't mean he is mad, nor does stating that give credibility to your comments.

As a Brit, I find it sad that we are virtually banned from owning guns, carrying all but tiny penknives, and generally not allowed to make choices for ourselves. We are supposed to rely on the police, some forces can't even get passed by HMIC, and the competence of various forces is in news articles on a regular basis. Not blaming police officers - under paid, under staffed, often poorly led and more politically controlled than ever before.

Have you compared the size, diversity and population of the US with that of the UK?

There is a balance and Britain certainly ain't balanced unless you are wealthy or politically connected when you will have very good security protection. More CCTV than any country hasn't stopped the serous violence every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday evenings.

Look on the bright side, it must have stopped it Sun to Wed then. 4 days out of 7 is a result that's better than average.

Why was the safety not on etc etc.

Because revolvers don't have a safety, if you know nothing about guns, why post in this thread?

I know everything about guns. Did she have a revolver? It does not say that in the OP does it. Are you making an assumption? And your statement about revolvers is not quite true is it. Can the fact that a woman shot herself in school only be commented on by experts in guns now? Do you have to be a gun expert to realise someone is an ass for having a ND?

edit for your edit

"Gun in holster during class, no reason to take it out, unlike when you are in the toilet.

If you know nothing about the operation and practicalities of carrying a gun, why post in this thread?"

There you go again, assumptions assumptions and we all know about those don't we.

Now we see the violence inherent in the system! (can anyone name the movie). Firstly a problem with your 'happy' dream is that if you carry your weapon in London our police will arrest you and you WILL spend a long time in jail. If I had a 'happy dream', it would be that there were no people beheading anyone, that we all lived in a peaceful society. Your happy dream is that you ARE killing people you want the gung ho shoot em up 'kill a punk' situation to be part of your fantasy world. Can you see what is wrong with that? You are a product of a violent society.

you say

"Americans have always played the long game on this issue while the UK prefers to be short sighted. We are ready, will accept the risks, and won't take shit off anyone including our government because we have a constitution and a certain mindset."

The US have not been part of any 'long game' yet. You have a 250 year history, it is not a long game. The funny thing is that you all DO take continuous s**t off your Government, regardless of how many guns you have and your constantly stated intention of 'taking no s**t'. The patriot act, the restriction of freedoms, the prisons for profit, where a man that pays TOO MUCH money in alimony to his kids goes to jail, the fact that the US will tax it's citizens regardless of where they live in the world and that your Government has bullied the world's confidential banking systems into disclosing all the accounts of all it's citizens world-wide. If you think you have freedom you can honestly keep it.

Why/How has this woman shot herself in school. Why is she not examined to ensure she is competent to carry a lethal weapon in a school full of primary children? We examine people who drive cars, another lethal weapon in the wrong hands, yet no examination of a woman carrying a concealed gun. Why was the safety not on etc etc. Isn't it lucky that she did not discharge the weapon in class and kill a child? Or would that be seen as just being an acceptable risk, collateral damage perhaps. Violent societies beget violence, and your happy dreams are killing people.

The Holy Grail, can I claim a prize?

Indeed you can Pitrevie, there is an afternoon of free Bolly and dancing girls on Bora Bora tomorrow, you are welcome to join in.

Just for you..........and it is funny, and oh so true......

Violent crime is reported very differently in USA and EU/UK, Apples and pears

If I went by statistics. I would have said that the UK violent crime rate was 5 times higher than the US. I think it is fair to say that it is easily twice as high, no matter how you measure it.

You are making it up! More statements plucked out the air in a world of make believe. What statistics? What statistics put violent crime 5 times higher in the UK than the US? Oh and then you say, 'well it's fair to say the rime rate is easily twice as high'. You are obviously using some pretty robust statistics to come up with a figure of 5 times, that then changes to 2 times in the space of the same breath. You are making it up.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

So how exactly is the Russian government 'hitting back'? What a piece of garbage journalism.

Need some glasses?

“According to Paragraph 1 of a bilateral intergovernmental agreement [between Russia and Thailand], Russian tourists are allowed to enter Thailand for up to 30 days, after which they must leave the country, [but] the number of entries is not limited.”

i.e. they can do in and outs as many times as they wish.

I think the point trying to be made is that this is a badly written article and the headline implies a course of action being taken by the Russian Government, when in fact there appears to be nothing other than a comment stating the obvious.

Culpable murder. Is this like "Manslaughter" in the usa? Seems rather reckless to assume a burglar and then use of deadly force on an unidentified/ unresponsive person. I think in the usa they would find him reckless & guilty of manslaughter with maybe 5 years in prison. Interesting to learn the rules related to "Culpable murder" in S Africa.

In the USA i doubt you would even go to the police station for the shooting of an 'unidentified' person you thought had entered your house. Not saying that is what the situation was with Pistorius;, but it seems the rule of minimum force is not often played in the US.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

why are the establishment so worried about Scotland leaving the union?

or is it just about that lovely oil and gas?

Salmond wants to keep the pound, I am sure he does but he will not be able to will he. It is the English, Welsh and Northern Irish that decide if Scotland keeps the pound, not Scotland, and why would they the 'UK' tax payers want to support and pay for the currency of an independent nation, it will not happen.

It will happen , it is already been said that Scotland could keep the pound (after first declining it to win some votes).

It is nothing to do with Scotland if they vote yes. It will be with the electorate in what remains of the UK and they will not permit Scotland to keep the pound. If Scottish banks subsequently go crash who supports them? If nobody does the pound goes crash. Why would English/Welsh/NI tax payers want to accept the risk of an 'independent country? It will not happen . Economics 101.

At the first General election in England after the split the opposition will say, 'vote for us and we stop Scotland using our pound', cue landslide victory.

This whole thing will have a very bad effect on Scotland whatever the outcome. The country is now split and regardless of yes or no 48% of people are going to be totally pissed off and alienated. It is a national disaster. Well done the politicians, they successfully divided a patriotic country.

A real country can rule itself.

Of that I have no doubt but that is not what I said is it?

The 'lovely' oil and gas bit is being more than a bit overplayed. The oil was worth around 6 Billion last year. Did you know that in Scotland the big banks employ 185000 people and generate 8.2 Billion a year for Scotland - 7% of its Gross product. Where do you think those big banks are going with a Yes vote?

Salmond wants to keep the pound, I am sure he does but he will not be able to will he. It is the English, Welsh and Northern Irish that decide if Scotland keeps the pound, not Scotland, and why would they the 'UK' tax payers want to support and pay for the currency of an independent nation, it will not happen. The UK already supported failing Scottish banks and it cost the English tax payer billions. If Scottish banks were to fail again and there is a good chance they will then why will the remainder of the UK want to support the negative effects on it's own currency caused by the mismanagement of an 'independent' country? Salmond has thought this through with the rigour of a 6 year old being distracted by the Micky Mouse Club House while trying to do their homework.

Scotland will end up without a centralised bank. Most of the customers are English. Without a centralised bank there will be no deposit guarantee on funds in the bank. Who is going to put their money in a bank with no deposit guarantee when south of the border every bank will have one? Cue the exodus of most all English customers from Scottish banks.

Salmond claims he will cut corporate tax to encourage business from England to move to Scotland, a move that will piss off Westminster and the UK tax payer, the ones that Salmond wants to pay for Scotland to keep the pound. I could go on. Neither Darling or the 3 stooges have voiced the plain simple economic arguments that would have most Scots with a brain thinking 's**t', but these plain simple arguments are the truth of the matter. A yes vote will be a disaster. My only recommendation is to have a pile of money shorting the FTSE 100 on the day of the result as if the vote is yes the market will freefall. If the vote is no get your money out in nanoseconds and have your stop losses tight.

I'm surprised you are not posting this on Mustique Visa Forum given your obvious stock market success.

Where did I tell you I have had stock market success? If I use the terms 'short', 'FTSE 100', 'free fall' and 'stop loss' does that open me up to facetious remarks from you now?

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

why are the establishment so worried about Scotland leaving the union?
or is it just about that lovely oil and gas?

The 'lovely' oil and gas bit is being more than a bit overplayed. The oil was worth around 6 Billion last year. Did you know that in Scotland the big banks employ 185000 people and generate 8.2 Billion a year for Scotland - 7% of its Gross product. Where do you think those big banks are going with a Yes vote?

Salmond wants to keep the pound, I am sure he does but he will not be able to will he. It is the English, Welsh and Northern Irish that decide if Scotland keeps the pound, not Scotland, and why would they the 'UK' tax payers want to support and pay for the currency of an independent nation, it will not happen. The UK already supported failing Scottish banks and it cost the English tax payer billions. If Scottish banks were to fail again and there is a good chance they will then why will the remainder of the UK want to support the negative effects on it's own currency caused by the mismanagement of an 'independent' country? Salmond has thought this through with the rigour of a 6 year old being distracted by the Micky Mouse Club House while trying to do their homework.

Scotland will end up without a centralised bank. Most of the customers are English. Without a centralised bank there will be no deposit guarantee on funds in the bank. Who is going to put their money in a bank with no deposit guarantee when south of the border every bank will have one? Cue the exodus of most all English customers from Scottish banks.

Salmond claims he will cut corporate tax to encourage business from England to move to Scotland, a move that will piss off Westminster and the UK tax payer, the ones that Salmond wants to pay for Scotland to keep the pound. I could go on. Neither Darling or the 3 stooges have voiced the plain simple economic arguments that would have most Scots with a brain thinking 's**t', but these plain simple arguments are the truth of the matter. A yes vote will be a disaster. My only recommendation is to have a pile of money shorting the FTSE 100 on the day of the result as if the vote is yes the market will freefall. If the vote is no get your money out in nanoseconds and have your stop losses tight.

Hell is too good.

"Consciousness can be recovered after nine minutes without oxygen, though one is beyond help if it is longer than 10 minutes," he said.

Did a Doctor really say this? Not just a Doctor but Chairman of the Medical Council.

Whatever we think of the Banks' motives the fact is that it is a fantastic move for those people on the list. These folks have little chance of improving their lives as anything requiring a loan must be done using the loan sharks who charge 10/20/40% per month.

The Queen will remain Queen of Scotland....there is no question there at all.

So you want your cake and eat it? Why didn't you say. Well I don't know constitutionally how that would work. Maybe the Queen will see independence as total independence. Shame about Balmoral.

Try not to advertise your ignorance on this issue Jim... I know you see yourself as the king of this forum but on Scottish independence you are out of your depth....run along now.

It was tongue in cheek smokie and as for your other implication the thought has never ever crossed my mind, nor would it when there are folks on here with 50K plus posts. Old age has you becoming bitter and twisted.

The Queen will remain Queen of Scotland....there is no question there at all.

So you want your cake and eat it? Why didn't you say. Well I don't know constitutionally how that would work. Maybe the Queen will see independence as total independence. Shame about Balmoral.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I think if the yes vote wins by a small margin that the UK government will somehow try to get a second vote. Probably have some negotiations and then demand a vote on those so as to delay the inevitable. Just like happened in Ireland when the people voted no when hey were supposed to vote yes. They just gave them some extra money and they vote yes like they were supposed to the next time.

They can't. This is one time only. A yes is a yes, even if it is a win by one vote. A no is a no, there will be no more referendums on this issue.