Morden

Quote JDGruen:

"Few Britons ever saw the need to own a gun except for vermin control on farms, hunting, clay pigeon shooting and target practice" Sounds like a shotgun ... the same weapon the Navy Yard shooter used...

All that you write may be what the people of your country want -- but America has been and still is a drastically different county in the last 240 years or so of history ... We don't want what you want... thus the reason we have a separate country .. Many in your country now are worried about cultural replacement by Muslims -- I'll be glad to tell you how to handle that - but it is not really my business..

No, not the same weapon at all. He used a Remington pump action. They are illegal the UK. Also in the UK applicants for shotgun licences get home visits from the police who check that the safe storage regulations are followed. All part of a rigorous background check prior to a Magistrate deciding whether of not to grant a licence.

You can be as different from others countries as you like but does that include doing nothing to stop your frequent massacres?

This thread isn't about Islam but you might like to start one. Before you do, take a look at the growing Muslim population in your own country.

NeverSure (post 33), please don't tell non-Americans to mind their own business. You come from a country that loves to tell others how to behave. If non-Americans didn't care about this latest and the previous massacres, they wouldn't comment.

According to what we know so far, the failings that allowed this massacre to happen are the ease with which guns can be legally purchased, the failings of mental illness screening (the man tried twice to get help but was given only treatment for insomnia) and the failings of at least one background check. Surely, after all of the massacres in recent times, something must now be done.

The history of the War for Independence and the Civil War seem to me to have no relevance to Americans massacring their own for no good reason.

If the government can't be trusted, isn't that something to deal with at election time? If the government decided to oppress its citizens, it wouldn't merely send soldiers down each street with guns. The argument that the government may one day want to shoot its citizens is probably a favourite with those groups who would like to impose their own gun-supported regime if they ever got the opportunity.

You're correct to say that non-Americans don't understand the American gun culture. That's because it's irrational in civilised society and the failure to do anything about the frequent killings is incomprehensible. I don't believe that it's about personal freedom and independence. How can you have either if you are at risk of being blown away wherever you go? Citizens of many other countries would argue that they have personal freedom and independence but usually in a society that has a social conscience rather than a 'me first' culture.

By the way, I'm not against gun ownership completely. I believe, though, that there must be effective limitations to the types of guns allowed, the individuals who may own them and the circumstances in which guns may be stored and used. Enforcement of the laws is, of course, also important.

I'm sorry that you feel people are poking their noses into the affairs of the US and hope that your country will soon see the need to solve what appears to be an escalating disast

I like your post overall but there are some points in it that stop me ticking the "Like" function.

First and foremost I want to say the observations and comments of foreigners are welcome in the gun issues of the United States. Foreigners who have an interest and concern about the US gun subculture are almost always critical of it, as is the culture of the United States itself. So the sharing of this view is good and helpful to we in the US who are the majority on the issue.

It does matter historically however that individuals owned their own weapons during the War of Independence. It mattered less during the civil war but it still mattered a lot. It mattered a great deal throughout the settlement of the US from the Atlantic to the Pacific, as the open ungoverned and pristine frontier existed from the first settlements of the early16th century to the beginning of the 20th century. The US government, founded in 1776, wasn't able until 1890 to declare officially that there wasn't any more open unsettled frontier.

So foreigners who want to comment on the US gun subculture need to have a better knowledge and comprehension of the history of the United States with special attention to the ungoverned frontier aspect of it, which is a major aspect because it presents the historical necessity of a gun culture over a period of centuries.

Conversely, those US citizens who are a part of the surviving gun subculture also need to recognize that the open and lawless frontier is long gone. The vast majority of Americans easily know and comprehend the fact. We consider the rule of law to be of vital importance to our well being and to the realization of justice. We know the rule of law means access to guns and the ownership of guns is subject to law rather than to historical sentiment or passe' notions of self-protection and self-preservation.

Yes, there is crime and a gun can be useful for self-protection. Yes, some people like to collect guns and have an aesthetic attitude towards guns - something I think is morbid but which I also can appreciate from an aesthetic point of view (but only after some effort).

The gun subculture however manages to intimidate politicians to act against the expressed will of the mass of the US population in respect of greater and better measures concerning access to and the ownership of firearms. This is both irrational and confounding.

So any rational and consistent person in any contemporary society and civilization who wants to make observations and to comment on the US gun subculture is welcome to do so.

Good post. Thank you.

The very first time that I visited the US (Miami), I was warned by our hosts to assume that every car carried a gun. In particular, I was told not to do what we did back home and idly look at people in other cars as we waited at traffic lights! It was something of a shock to learn how different things were over there but it seems to be much worse now.

I often discuss the subject of guns with a good American friend of mine. He has a knowledge of guns and I perceive a need to have one at home here. He has explained the background to the American philosophy in much the same way that you do. He recognises the need for change in order to at least reduce the present incidence of gun massacres. I know that there are many shootings that don't fit the definition of 'massacre' but I think that is a more difficult problem to solve given the number of guns in private hands. My focus is on the massacres which seem to be more frequent now as, perhaps, those with the appropriate mentality see each new one as an opportunity to gain fame in the same way. It's a crying shame that our cousins in the US, or the politicians, can't see that some action is needed. We suffered two massacres in the UK. The first involved semi-automatic rifles which the gunman took from his club. The law was quickly changed to ban them. In the second, young students were killed at school with a handgun. They too were quickly banned. Very few people in the UK objected to the changes in the law and therein lies the difference. Few Britons ever saw the need to own a gun except for vermin control on farms, hunting, clay pigeon shooting and target practice.

NeverSure (post 33), please don't tell non-Americans to mind their own business. You come from a country that loves to tell others how to behave. If non-Americans didn't care about this latest and the previous massacres, they wouldn't comment.

According to what we know so far, the failings that allowed this massacre to happen are the ease with which guns can be legally purchased, the failings of mental illness screening (the man tried twice to get help but was given only treatment for insomnia) and the failings of at least one background check. Surely, after all of the massacres in recent times, something must now be done.

The history of the War for Independence and the Civil War seem to me to have no relevance to Americans massacring their own for no good reason.

If the government can't be trusted, isn't that something to deal with at election time? If the government decided to oppress its citizens, it wouldn't merely send soldiers down each street with guns. The argument that the government may one day want to shoot its citizens is probably a favourite with those groups who would like to impose their own gun-supported regime if they ever got the opportunity.

You're correct to say that non-Americans don't understand the American gun culture. That's because it's irrational in civilised society and the failure to do anything about the frequent killings is incomprehensible. I don't believe that it's about personal freedom and independence. How can you have either if you are at risk of being blown away wherever you go? Citizens of many other countries would argue that they have personal freedom and independence but usually in a society that has a social conscience rather than a 'me first' culture.

By the way, I'm not against gun ownership completely. I believe, though, that there must be effective limitations to the types of guns allowed, the individuals who may own them and the circumstances in which guns may be stored and used. Enforcement of the laws is, of course, also important.

I'm sorry that you feel people are poking their noses into the affairs of the US and hope that your country will soon see the need to solve what appears to be an escalating disast

It is none of your business. That's why we have separate countries with different cultures with sovereign borders. There are tons of things I am horrified with in how various European entities run their countries, but it's none of my business so I don't come on here much complaining about it.

I too have things that I don't like abut European 'entities' and am willing to discuss them with anyone from any country, something I do with my friends from the US an around the Western world.

More trash posts!

The man is alive and in hospital after living in the jungle for a few days. No-one killed him, he didn't have an accident and he didn't commit suicide.

Perhaps he and his wife could be shown more respect here.

I wonder how many of those who make no advance provision for big medical bills have full insurance on their vehicles.

Must be tracking.

On the other hand, it's useful to be able to tell people that you do have a ghost around. My sister-in-law won't go upstairs in our house because she believes that there are ghosts up there. I told her that we had them downstairs too.

She cannot have taken the title Mrs. It means she has had a marriage registered at the ampure. She can change her name but she cannot change that. At least you know she is not a ladyboy.

Why contradict facts? She did everything I wrote. She has no reason to make it up.

It would not bother me if she was married before. So why make this up?

You can do almost anything in Thailand for the right price with goverment.

But she did not even have to bribe anyone to do this.

There is a thing called courtesy.

I have been in Thailand 12 years and have been with this lady for more than 4 years.

Now if anyone would like to reply to the question at hand I'd appreciate it.

Doc

The morons usually do descend on requests for information with insults and false information.

I wish I could help you with an answer but I'm not even of the appropriate nationality. Have you tried asking your Embassy or Border Agency for advice?

Not missing with "OUR" car or "THEIR" car......missing with "MY" car.....HUMMMMMMMM !!!!!!

Have we scraped the bottom of the barrel with this post, written after the man was reported found? Probably not. Let's wait for the next one of its kind.

It's very good news that he's been found alive. I hope that whatever treatment he needs in hospital is minor.

Hopefully, that will put an end to the posts on here that have gone from ridiculous to offensive. The guy was missing in unknown circumstances and all that most posters could bring themselves to do was invent stories about his wife and suggest that the police were incompetent.

I agree in your situation.. still I dont like poison but you seem to have done all reasonable things.

As for free roaming dogs.. kinda depends if you have poultry you have to fence off as it will attract them otherwise free roaming dogs don't come to your property and are easily scared off. Plus this is Thailand.. and here they think different about free roaming dogs as you. You might have an other opinion but the majority does not.

Its easy to scare a dog away from your property as long as you have no attractor (poultry in your case) and every farmer in the world protects his lifestock with fences. If you have done so in all reasonably and dogs still come even after warnings.. I say they are free game

Ta for that! Our patience ran out and we saw only the one solution, other than getting up before dawn with the gun for a few days.

I accept that the locals have their own views on dogs but so do they with driving etiquette and that needs to change too.

Unfortunately like the driving etiquette (where i agree 1000000000000%) change has to come from the Thais not us. I let my dog roam for 20 minutes at a time in the park in front of my home (actually can see the dog when standing up and make sure there are not many people around when i let him go). During busy times i walk with him on the line. Most dogs here are just walking free but I don't do that as i like my dog to be home and else it might bother people.

Sure, the change must come from the Thai population and enforced legislation. In the meantime, we do what we need to ourselves.

Back in the UK of the '50s, dogs were allowed to roam the streets, crapping everywhere. I knew of no dangerous dogs in those days but the streets were filthy. Dog licences were compulsory but had no real purpose. Laws were introduced stating that dogs out of the home must be on a lead and crap must be picked up by the walker . The licence law was scrapped. Stray dogs were to be captured and eventually re-homed or destroyed. The dog problem was solved at a stroke. Similarly, laws were introduced, supported by government propaganda, to improve safety on the roads.

It just needs the will from the top to change attitudes and enforce reasonable controls.

I'm glad that you take proper care of your dog.

I agree in your situation.. still I dont like poison but you seem to have done all reasonable things.

As for free roaming dogs.. kinda depends if you have poultry you have to fence off as it will attract them otherwise free roaming dogs don't come to your property and are easily scared off. Plus this is Thailand.. and here they think different about free roaming dogs as you. You might have an other opinion but the majority does not.

Its easy to scare a dog away from your property as long as you have no attractor (poultry in your case) and every farmer in the world protects his lifestock with fences. If you have done so in all reasonably and dogs still come even after warnings.. I say they are free game

Ta for that! Our patience ran out and we saw only the one solution, other than getting up before dawn with the gun for a few days.

I accept that the locals have their own views on dogs but so do they with driving etiquette and that needs to change too.

I dedicate this post to the little girl lying in hospital, swathed in bloody bandages and feeling the pounding pain of the bites with each beat of her innocent little heart. I also dedicate it to my son, whom I love beyond measure:

It has become quite clear to me that lemoncake is on an entirely different agenda than what is being discussed here in the OP. The only problem is that there is no defining element to the agenda other than to hijack an article about a little girl's innocent desire to play, and instead get people worked up and use other people's sentiment as well as other people's plight to fuel irrelevant discussion about the deification of wild dogs occupying a human society.

Someone, in this case an ignorant and defenseless child, is mauled by a canine. That is the thesis of the OP.

Rather than go on about what 99% of others feel is logic and rationale, I will expose lemoncake for what lemoncake is; a spammer!

The reason I suggest this is that throughout lemoncake's posts, there is no offering up of any solutions to a legitimate issue which puts human beings of any gender, race, religion or age in peril. There is no expression of sympathy, other than an insincere quip after I called lemoncake out on a prior post. Quick back peddling brought out that insincere expression of sympathy, but the ache and pain of love for those mongrels was simply too much. Merely a few posts ago, lemoncake came clean and outed the little girl as guilty (point made further on in this post).

The only items I have contrived out of lemoncake's posts are a summary dismissal of mentioning any negative impact from the feral canine community, and rather instead to keep other posters on their heels. There is no offering up of any solution which names the feral canines in the same sentence. None! Zilch!

Moreover, there are no solutions offered up with the human community. There are only accusations and blame. The accusations are ridiculous at best, and the blame is so preposterous as to suggest that people seek methods and means which are absolutely beyond their measure of abilities to do so... all this stupidity over being upset over the comfort of a dam_n dog and its kind.

Do remember that we are human beings and that the OP is about a little girl lying in hospital in the most horrible pain imaginable; emotionally, physically and psychologically; ...all because she wanted to play... she simply wanted to play. That is all that was going on in her sweet little mind.

GUILTY! ... as it was implied.

There seems to be, in lemoncake's wonderful world of canines, some aura or element of deification which, when expressed through his or her perceptions, makes one wonder at what depths an unreasoning person can sink.

It cannot be possible that a human being can regard a lower creature with such religious fanaticism and abject love to the point that the human being begins to disassociate one's own humanness and begin to feel a kinship with the lower orders - to such an extent that one actually begins to think like a dog and even feel hatred towards the human species and to angage the human means of typing and uttering in defense of one's newly adopted species. But one wonders, It is almost as if the attacking dog were to have a voice that we would hear lemoncake’s harping on about rights and freedoms for all dogs - anthropomorphism in mindless, overreacting heat!

But I digress. Fortunately, I do not allow myself to project my feelings to those of a dog, nor to insult others senses of morals and ethics to the standard of said dogs; and to even consider to do so is tantamount to doing exactly what lemoncake seems to be doing; to digress with spam tactics… to avoid a thesis with irrational and meaningless drivel about things which have been abandoned by the human consciousness thousands of years ago through evolution and enlightenment.

In one of lemoncake's final posts, it is finally outed that the child is wrong, ("little girl was in the wrong by approaching a mother dog"). Now I don't know about anyone else, but the way I learned my language is that when someone is wrong, it is equated to guilt. The little girl is guilty.

---------------------------

So, in closing, I remind the reader that I have dedicated this post to the little girl and to my son. This dedication is a bit late for the little girl, but not for my little son.

The soi dogs are my enemies. I will treat them with the respect they are due within the measure of the degree that I feel towards my own security and the security of my loved ones. As I am certain that said dogs are not capable of exercising a kind of intelligence to respect my rights, as the bitch demonstrated towards the girl, I will use that example along with all the other examples to draw immediate judgment and action towards said dogs in the event they decide to occupy "my space".

As to their rights: Dogs have no rights within the thesis and scope of my discussion. Those dogs abandon their rights when they demonstrate they cannot function in a human society, and rather instead occupy it and begin to cross my lines of decency and civility. Any further rights which I might atone to those dogs are thereby transferred to any humans within that environment, who choose to take said dogs under their protection and ensure that said dogs abide by the rules and behaviors of a human society. If they cannot deal with that, get them elsewhere or face the consequences. If said dogs have no guardians, I will deal with said dogs. If there are guardians, and damage has been done, I will exact compensation to the degree I see fit without consulting the guardian, who should have known better in the first place. Good enough for you, lemoncake?

Human beings who have degraded themselves with fanaticism, and who place my ethics and morals on the same levels of said beasts, I will treat the same. Human beings who defend said dogs to the point of degrading another human being and bludgeoning them with guilt, I will treat the same.

I cannot believe that any human being would react violently towards another human being for protecting their self or another. I cannot believe another human being would react violently towards another human being for putting down a feral creature over the excuse that they loved that creature - after it had disfigured or killed a human being. Were they to do so, I cannot now, in good conscience, state what I would in turn do to those creatures acting as humans, but I assure you they would be at minimum on sticks for many months if not worse. I also assure you that my reasons for this violent behavior are far superior to those of a feral bitch mauling a little girl near to death when the feral bitch is too undeveloped to know otherwise.

This article is about a little girl wanting to play, and getting a life-long injury over it. The factors which lead up to that happening are controversial, but leave it be said that there lives among us an element of instability; wild dogs; wild dogs that are one step from being predators, and some are, who have tasted human blood and crossed over.

Lemoncake has spammed enough times to the point that I get it. I understand that these dogs can do no wrong in your eyes. I understand that the element of danger with wild dogs occupying space in a human environment is not the only danger to my child; that I have to worry about a killer being championed by the likes of you after a little one has been mauled and disfigured or even killed - a danger that would ensure the tables to be turned faster than you could blink or snatch that beast out of my reach.

But in closing, I will strongly suggest this; I strongly suggest that you reign in your passion and views about your soi dogs if you ever happen to be present in the aftermath of a dog attack, and are standing there in witness to a child lying on the ground in a pool of blood. I strongly suggest you do not run to the dog and attempt to comfort it or protect it from an avenging father or mother. On this board, it is the norm and quite acceptable. We get spammers and trolls all the time. I can understand your desire to blather on from the safety of your keyboard. Keep it at that. In doing so, you will enjoy a longer life of promoting the safety and deification of wild things whilst accusing mauled, disfigured children of blame and guilt if that is your desire.

"little girl was in the wrong by approaching a mother dog"

I cannot think of any better way to demonstrate a reason for the hatred and anger I feel towards such absolute and disgusting ignorance in any human being.

-----

Rest easy my little dear. I hope you recover and are able to achieve better things in life than this. You simply do not deserve it. And to my son, daddy is there little one. No worries.

Excellent post!

No-one has suggested wiping out an entire specie, just the accursed stray dogs that attack human beings and their own livestock.

Whatever you believe, Thai parents let their children wander, just as was done in the UK in the past. My own belief is that children should be more entitled to do that than diseased and dangerous dogs in the street.

We don't know enough about the construction site and the other circumstances to pass judgement on those responsible for the child in this case.

There was no dangerous dog here.. just a protective dog. Totally different story, you can't make the environment 100% safe. I agree go after dogs that are dangerous really bit people. Leave the other dogs alone, this dog was protecting its young a normal thing to do.

If you follow your way of thinking you have to fill all the klongs and canals, make sure no cars drive anymore and put pillows against any sharp objects. Don't sell any knives as someone might cut themselves. Thing is shit happens and you can't prevent it all. Good parenting can prevent a lot but in this case no good parenting. Obviously the dogs are not that viscous as the girl played with them before but she should have been taught not to go after newborn puppies.

If you are talking about dogs that go out of their way to attack humans (non defensive but aggressive) sure humanely kill them. Not your cowards way. Only cowards use poison and people who are old and afraid of their own shadow who see this as their last power trip.

I think that you have taken the comparisons beyond sense. It's a common tactic of those who have a weak argument. They attempt to strengthen by inventing irrelevant and spurious hypothetical arguments.

Who in his right mind would approach a vicious dog for a chat? That's would be stupid, not brave. Dogs that got onto our land and killed our chickens were safe until they got in again two days later. If they had stayed away they would be alive today. We have the right to protect ourselves and our property at home but I wouldn't do it by having a quiet fireside chat with the creatures about respect for the property of others. The owners laughed at the massacre so we took appropriate action ourselves.

I leave dogs alone until they threaten me and mine.

Different story and still poison is not really a good thing to do it but dogs that kill your life stock (presuming you have taken your part in fencing your land off) is more understandable then killing all the street dogs because a few are doing bad things. My argument was great you started about killing off all the dogs while you now take a far more sensible and defensible stance.

I can understand how you would feel after some chicken have been killed and the owners of said dogs laugh at you. You warned them. Does depend a bit on the actual situation if you leave your chickens on an unfenced piece of land and expect for the best your part of the problem. If you did your best to fence them off and the dogs still got in then your position is justified.

But we were talking here about killing all the soi dogs because a child without parental supervision got bitten by an otherwise not agressive dog protecting her young. Different stance at so keep to the story.

We mainly have walls. There's one stretch that the neighbours will wall off. For the time being, that part of the boundary has a post and barbed wire fence and sufficient undergrowth to keep put dogs. However, the neighbouring owners occasionally send in a plough to clear their land and take out the undergrowth at the same time. Out patching attempts have failed on occasions and, over two years, we lost around 50 free range poultry and a lame dog we were caring for ran out of the gate as we opened it and was savaged by the brute across the road. The dog owners never gave a damn, hence, after those two years, we decided to take action ourselves.

On the general point of roaming soi dogs, my view is that they should be fenced in on their owners' land rather than others without dogs have to do the same with theirs. The result of not doing so should be that roaming dogs should be rounded up and put down.

No-one has suggested wiping out an entire specie, just the accursed stray dogs that attack human beings and their own livestock.

Whatever you believe, Thai parents let their children wander, just as was done in the UK in the past. My own belief is that children should be more entitled to do that than diseased and dangerous dogs in the street.

We don't know enough about the construction site and the other circumstances to pass judgement on those responsible for the child in this case.

There was no dangerous dog here.. just a protective dog. Totally different story, you can't make the environment 100% safe. I agree go after dogs that are dangerous really bit people. Leave the other dogs alone, this dog was protecting its young a normal thing to do.

If you follow your way of thinking you have to fill all the klongs and canals, make sure no cars drive anymore and put pillows against any sharp objects. Don't sell any knives as someone might cut themselves. Thing is shit happens and you can't prevent it all. Good parenting can prevent a lot but in this case no good parenting. Obviously the dogs are not that viscous as the girl played with them before but she should have been taught not to go after newborn puppies.

If you are talking about dogs that go out of their way to attack humans (non defensive but aggressive) sure humanely kill them. Not your cowards way. Only cowards use poison and people who are old and afraid of their own shadow who see this as their last power trip.

I think that you have taken the comparisons beyond sense. It's a common tactic of those who have a weak argument. They attempt to strengthen by inventing irrelevant and spurious hypothetical arguments.

Who in his right mind would approach a vicious dog for a chat? That's would be stupid, not brave. Dogs that got onto our land and killed our chickens were safe until they got in again two days later. If they had stayed away they would be alive today. We have the right to protect ourselves and our property at home but I wouldn't do it by having a quiet fireside chat with the creatures about respect for the property of others. The owners laughed at the massacre so we took appropriate action ourselves.

I leave dogs alone until they threaten me and mine.

It's not about blaming the animal, it's about dealing with the curse of rabid, dangerous dogs roaming the streets, breeding and attacking human beings and their own animals. The solution is to either pen them or kill them.

I assume you apply same logic to all "undesirables" and who ever you see as " dangerous"?

What do you mean by that? This thread is about dangerous dogs and a young girl who has been scarred and may well have been killed.

Interesting answer , was not expecting anything different

Again, what do you mean by your unfounded criticism?

It's not about blaming the animal, it's about dealing with the curse of rabid, dangerous dogs roaming the streets, breeding and attacking human beings and their own animals. The solution is to either pen them or kill them.

I assume you apply same logic to all "undesirables" and who ever you see as " dangerous"?

Seems you don't understand that dogs are NOT humans and don't deserve to be treated as such.

If a dog attacks anyone it deserves to be put down. If the owners of the dog cannot, did not train it properly then that is their fault.

Humans have more right to be safe whilst out and about than do dogs.

Remind me again who made human to be superior ?

Some also seem to believe its perfectly acceptable to wipe out the entire specie for what ever reason.

In this case it is clear even to the biggest idiot little girl was in the wrong by approaching a mother dog.

It is also just as clear that little girl is not to blame and it is sad she got hurt , but she should not have been left unsupervised at all, let alone at construction site where there are dangers all over the place

No-one has suggested wiping out an entire specie, just the accursed stray dogs that attack human beings and their own livestock.

Whatever you believe, Thai parents let their children wander, just as was done in the UK in the past. My own belief is that children should be more entitled to do that than diseased and dangerous dogs in the street.

We don't know enough about the construction site and the other circumstances to pass judgement on those responsible for the child in this case.

Blackman.

Oh dear, you are in a mood. I've just had a roast lamb lunch. I hope that yours is just as enjoyable as was mine.

By the way, do try to learn the difference between opinion and fact. You'll feel much calmer that way.

Morden, in a way I get the impression you are working for the health insurance industrie, because you are not really honest. I had an international health insurance and part of the policy was, that I was only allowed to go to certain hospitals, there was nothing like a no-claim bonus, the premium was going up and up and up, whether used or not. Insurance companies are profit making organisations and I will accept that. They will keep their costs down to a minimum and their profits to a maximum, so certain risks they will not take and not insure. You can get a snow damage insurance in Thailand very easily, but ask people who live in an area that is almost annually flooded if they can get a flood damage insurance and you will only find very few. Insurance companies just don't like to take risks and they have so called risk management department, who will make the decission for you. I better pay cash and make my own decission and look for my interest myself.

I'm retired and never worked in health insurance. I hope that answers your point.

I happen to believe that good health insurance is important to me here. Those who disagree about the wisdom of insuring are welcome to their own views.

It's not about blaming the animal, it's about dealing with the curse of rabid, dangerous dogs roaming the streets, breeding and attacking human beings and their own animals. The solution is to either pen them or kill them.

I assume you apply same logic to all "undesirables" and who ever you see as " dangerous"?

Seems you don't understand that dogs are NOT humans and don't deserve to be treated as such.

If a dog attacks anyone it deserves to be put down. If the owners of the dog cannot, did not train it properly then that is their fault.

Humans have more right to be safe whilst out and about than do dogs.

Quite so. The logic is quite simple.

It's not about blaming the animal, it's about dealing with the curse of rabid, dangerous dogs roaming the streets, breeding and attacking human beings and their own animals. The solution is to either pen them or kill them.

I assume you apply same logic to all "undesirables" and who ever you see as " dangerous"?

What do you mean by that? This thread is about dangerous dogs and a young girl who has been scarred and may well have been killed.

Blackman, you're way of the mark.

The gun is for protection at home and I was referring to shooting dogs that encroach. There is no possibility that anyone would retaliate by breaking into our home over a dog. You know that from what I wrote.

I respect the property of others but I respect my own property and animals more. The soi dogs (hardly 'property') haven't bothered me or my wife in the street so far but they have on our land. We once were caring for a lame dog for a friend. He nipped out one day and was savaged by the brute across the road. His back was ripped and bleeding. The brute's owner suggested that I take the dog to a vet. - at my expense, of course. That brute went too far when he forced his way through a hedge and used our chickens for breakfast.

It's common sense to protect yourself and yours against diseased, vicious and uncared for dogs. If the owners won't control them, then other can. We killed dogs on our land once and have had no problem from others since.

like i said, maybe it will happen to you one day

you cannot possibly categorically account for others thoughts and actions about losing a family member to a cowardly poisoner

you seem to think you are immune from retribution in a country where face seems to mean so much

but why would you think they would break into your home to get at you?

anybody seriously bent on revenge would serve the dish cold and get you in a quiet road when you least expect it

Your lack of sympathy for the injured girl and preoccupation with what I do to protect me and mine is noted.

A sick and dangerous dog is a 'family member'? Take a step back and listen to yourself. As for poisoning and our other solution, do you suggest that I approach a dog having its meal at my expense and have a quiet chat with it? Do you suggest that I let it continue and return for more?

I don't think that they would break into my home for revenge. That's your suggestion and, it's seems, your wish.

I wonder how much time you have spent in Thailand and how much you have learned here. Only a fool would put up with the antics of vicious, diseased dogs the owners of which allow them to wander and terrorise the neighbourhood. We dealt with our problem ourselves and it's finished. Your wish that we suffer an attack from owners when all that we have done is protect what is ours is also noted.

actually my number 2 post on this thread said '' i hope the girl recovers quickly with minimum scarring''

not at any time have i wished that someone would break into your home

i have been here well over 10 years but it does not make me any better or worse than you

i have learned enough to survive here this long with only a few incidents of note

i think you should take a step back and actually read whats been said by me in our exchanges

not at any time have i wished that you suffer an attack from anyone

i merely pointed out that it could happen to you and that you may unwittingly encounter someone who cares about a diseased and dangerous dog more than you think

the conclusions you have reached are unfounded and are empty suppositions that are not based on the facts to hand but your insecure imagination

it has been noted that you are prepared to manipulate the facts to defend yourself

Let's just agree to disagree.

Stevenl, absolutely right. Accident insurance isn't sufficient.

Yes, it's the serious issues that are important. A broken arm costs little in the way of treatment.

There's another point about insurance. The company will ensure that the treatment is appropriate and give you the benefit of the knowledge of the doctor that it employs. Pay for treatment yourself and you may be given some that's not necessary. You would be on your own with no advice and possibly paying too much from your own pocket.