lostoday

The last thing Thailand needs is more westernise corruption by the broken country America!

The corporations that control the west do not give a shit about their people hence family valves have been destroyed and narcissistic behaviour encourage. We don't need this corruption as well as Dysfunction Feminism in Thailand!

You probably don't want to tell that to the disabled Thai children who the US Navy sailors helped here in Thailand last week.

The question here is : do you, pro guns who live in thailand, have a gun here? If yes do you own it legally? If no, do you feel your safety threatened ?

It is legal for wives of Farang to own and keep guns in the home as it is legal for wives of Farang to own homes and land.

So doyou have a gun?

If the wife can have a gun that doesn't mean you can carry a gun with you

My wife goes with me most places and people don't seem to bother us. Below is a photo of wife.

2001 by Muslims from Saudi Arabia. (9/11) is the largest I think. 3003 people murdered. 8700 injured. By limiting to 10 years you miss the largest and most catastrophic murders. I don't really think the difference between 10 and 14 years is significant unless you are trying to cover up the largest atrocity which I think is your point but no one is fooled. It is like saying how many people were murdered in death camps in the past 70 years = 0. How many in the past 75 years = 10 million. Get it?

Covering up what and foollng who? Thanks to CNN, we can crank the time frame back to include America's second most infamous day in history and guess what...? You do the math.

Get it?

This is a hate crime. The media attention to gun crimes is a diversion so the people don't get any more angry than they are at each other.

Hate crimes should be compared to hate crimes. The gun control spotlight is media trying to manipulate ignorant people into making it an election issue and you are falling for the hype.

I would wager that most violent deaths by the bullet in the US are because someone hated someone else so I don't really understand your diversion here.

So what if people "get more angry than they are at each other"? All they need to when all riled up is go get a gun and take care of it no?

In the initial coverage, the media filtered the reporting to specifically eliminate the 'religion' aspect by saying the shooter simply asked victims what was their religion. It's only after about a day that it has become clear that the shooter specifically asked if victims were Christian before killing them. It's the right-wing media that's getting their panties in a bunch with their rather lame "Christians were being targeted so it is only another a hate crime so better go get your guns".

Wrong again. You wrote, "someone hated someone else so I don't really understand your diversion here."

Hate crimes Crimes of hatred and prejudice—from lynchings to cross burnings to vandalism of synagogues—are a sad fact of American history, but the term “hate crime” did not enter the nation’s vocabulary until the 1980s, when emerging hate groups like the Skinheads launched a wave of bias-related crime. The FBI began investigating what we now call hate crimes as far back as World War I, when the Ku Klux Klan first attracted our attention. Today, we remain dedicated to working with state and local partners to prevent these crimes and to bring to justice those who commit them.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes

Well I guess familiarity has bred contempt for me....months of walking past daily and the area leaves you jaded.

I am guessing those in love with the place visit for a week at a time max.

Understood and your second sentence is spot on.

dour·er, dour·est

There were guys who lived at the Nana Hotel. There was the Golden bar outside for people watching or the lobby in the morning even a picnic area outside at night. The morning was fun. The guys staggered to the "all you can eat breakfast" after a night across the street and late night at the disco in the hotel. The disco used to search you at the door and even had a metal detecting wand.

The guys who lived at the hotel were old duffers who to my knowledge didn't fool around much but enjoyed watching and comment on the constant flow of new punters from all corners of the world. Some had been there (or close by) since the early 1960's.

Everything one needed was in easy walking distance. The front desk had a safety deposit box that saved my neck on numerous occasions after being drugged across the street. I have a lot of non memories as well as memories of the area. The first time I got drugged in Thailand was around there somewhere (don't remember if it was the Golden bar or across the street). Ah what a life.

Well I don't know

Why I came here tonight

I got the feeling that

Something ain't right

I'm so scared in case

I fall off my chair

And I'm wondering

How I'll get down the stairs

Clowns to the left of me

Jokers to the right

Finland had the same problems as Thailand in the 1960's. They hired experts and changed their education system till now it is one of the best in the world. Thailand could do the same. We have much to learn from each other.

From my understanding, part of that change involved the remuneration and position in society accredited to teachers in Finland. They are well trained, closely mentored in their early career years and have a respect level of other professionals.

The people who own and run the private schools in Thailand won't make that sort of change. The public sector squanders and thieves too much cash from the budgets as it is.

Thailand could learn a lot from countries like Finland, South Korea, Italy (early learning), and the US and UK tertiary sector. But there has to be a willingness to change quite fundamentally and a desire to accept the learning.

D.C. public schools are violent, chaotic places that have among the highest dropout–and the lowest graduation–rates in the country. In 2007, D.C.’s fourth- and eighth-grade students scored lower than children from all 50 states

Obama acting like the the rich guy that he is chose to send his own daughters to Sidwell Friends, a private school among D.C.’s most exclusive institutions whose annual tuition runs around $30,000.

And at the same time canned a voucher program that was working to get students a decent education in the DC area.

In America the problem is rich people and teachers unions and Democrats (teachers unions big contributors) http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/16/school-voucher-washington-dc-teacher-union-opinions-contributors-obama.html

Finland eliminated all private schools. Thailand if it wants a decent education system has to do the same thing.

Simple really. A general in charge could do it in a minute #44. No more private schools. Done. The schools would be better in short order.

Mr Rich Somchai is not going to let little Lek go to a bad school. Same thing happened in Finland.

How on earth did Finland eliminate private schools? Gosh that is a great move for a quality education.

America can't do it. Too many teachers unions guarantee bad teachers jobs. Thailand has no teachers unions.

There are only two professions left where results don't matter, teachers and weathermen.

I'm gonna use a big word here so don't let me scare you away. Ethnocentric. South Korea is a leader in ethnocentric behavior as is Japan. They make Thailand look downright accepting of Farang. But. But. Korea and Japan have great education systems.

Oh I forgot. What is ethnocentric? It's like Thainess that you all have been discussing.

So if you want to look at a reason for a bad education system Thainess/ethnocentrism is not the place to look. If it was Japan and South Korea would not have such highly regarded education systems.

A school teacher has an easy time with a class of 10 and a difficult time with a class of 50. Australia has a population of 20 million and the USA has 300 million. Do you see the difference? Australia has 33 thousand people in jail. USA has almost 3 million. Do you see the difference? If my only worry was a population the size of Florida with few violent minorities, crime and guns would not be much of a problem.

Clearly the whole concept of governance eludes you. You imply a connection between differential population sizes and gun control but don't offer anything but snide comments centred on simple arithmatic. Utterly meaningless. Your notion of social cohesion is outmoded, discredited and backward. As is your notion of class room management. There is nothing there to offer to any discussion on gun control. Other countries have led the way and provide examples. Ignore, resist and deny them at your peril.

The concept of city like Detroit eludes you. Australia does not have one. Crime in Australia is not the same as crime in America.

If you have a problem in America in many places cops don't come to help you. It is not the same in Australia.

You want to compare Australia gun/crime with America OK. Adjust your ethnic populations to match America.

Pick places in America that have a ethnic and population match to Australia. Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming those kinds of places. Gun crimes? Next to none.

2001 by Muslims from Saudi Arabia. (9/11) is the largest I think. 3003 people murdered. 8700 injured. By limiting to 10 years you miss the largest and most catastrophic murders. I don't really think the difference between 10 and 14 years is significant unless you are trying to cover up the largest atrocity which I think is your point but no one is fooled. It is like saying how many people were murdered in death camps in the past 70 years = 0. How many in the past 75 years = 10 million. Get it?

Covering up what and foollng who? Thanks to CNN, we can crank the time frame back to include America's second most infamous day in history and guess what...? You do the math.

Get it?

This is a hate crime. The media attention to gun crimes is a diversion so the people don't get any more angry than they are at each other.

Hate crimes should be compared to hate crimes. The gun control spotlight is media trying to manipulate ignorant people into making it an election issue and you are falling for the hype.

A 3 year old retarded girl could pick up a pistol and splatter your brains against a wall. Is she brave also?

I was responding to a troll poster trying to start a fight as he wrote, "The evidence we have on this forum is that gun owners are the ones living in fear" as you well know and are another troll trying to belittle and start a fight.

No one said anyone who shoots another is not living in fear or anyone who owns guns is not living in fear. The poster above said, "on this forum gun owners are the ones living in fear" and I'm not. I also did not say I was brave. I'm not. So why not concentrate or reading a post and not making up things and changing the meaning of the post.

Ok, maybe I was a bit harsh in my analogy. yet, there's an issue that's always bugged me: how guys use guns to bolster their manliness. We saw it in the Terminator movies and all the movies with Stallone, Chuck Norris, Bruce Willis, etc ad nauseum. Whenever they had a firearm (which was nearly constantly) they always gave the impression they were braver and more masculine than others without (or with smaller) firearms, or others with other types of weapons.

My point was: anyone over the age of 3 can pull a trigger on a firearm - and could kill Arnie, Sylvester, Chuck, Bruce or any Navy Seal or Green Beret.

To me a true fighter is epitomized by someone like Royce Gracie, who has mastered fighting with no weapons, other than his body. A man covered in firearms is, to me, no more of a man and no more courageous than, for example, weaponless David who went to try and save Hannah from harm, last year at Ko Tao.

Certain segments of society and movies have glorified firearms to the billionth degree, and the perverse killings at Oregon campus are just one emanation of that.

I don't like true fighters and think the concept is childish and belongs in Hong Kong Kung <deleted> movies. A gun is a tool. When I was a soldier I took my tools to work. When my grandfather defended Australia he didn't take a Karate course he took a gunnery course and shot people with guns to keep Australia free. The nut in Oregon used a gun to kill Christians. It was a hate crime. He didn't do it because he had a gun he did it because he hated Christians.

Finland had the same problems as Thailand in the 1960's. They hired experts and changed their education system till now it is one of the best in the world. Thailand could do the same. We have much to learn from each other.

The Aussie contingent seem to be having quite a lot of pedantic fun with the death of the 9 innocents.

My opinion is he was probably an atheist.

Many of the atheist persuasion are probably capable of doing such a thing and they certainly hate religions.

Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn't. But the key word is he was INSANE. There is nothing to worry about with a radical Atheist movement that adopts an ideology of murdering believers in anything. Like an atheist Isis. it's not happening and it's never gonna happen ... so chill pill time.

As far as how Christians are trying to spin this, I think there is still evidence to gather and what was in that LETTER he left ... has that been released to the press or what? ... but I reckon he would have have shot anyone professing belief in any religion in the head, based on multiple reports that he was talking about "having religion" in general as well as asking about Christianity.

10 who did not say they were Christian were not killed. What do you reckon they said?

That they were non believers, agnostic, atheist. Take your pick. Perhaps they were not killed as they did not believe in an organised religion. As the killer stated.

Perhaps. The media will not tell us because?

I recall a thread only a few weeks back when it was stated there were on average more than 1 mass killing a day in America...

_85880103_02_10_shooting_nocred.jpg

Thursday was day #273 of 2015

I hope Hillary has the Balls to take on the NRA something no male US President has.

She didn't have the balls to take on her husband. Bill is a hunter.

Australia is quite small compared to the US? You really do dream this stuff up.

I suggest you use google to compare.

The population of Australia is 10 million less than one state, California (there are 49 other states). If you combine the GDPs of Australia, Burma, the Czech Republic, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Peru and Ukraine, you will have the same size economy as California. California accounted for nearly 3 percent of the worlds GDP in 2008. The Governor of many states in the USA has a significantly larger populations and economies to manage than the country of Australia. Almost all of America is habitable and almost none of Australia is. Australia’s habitable land takes up approximately 10% of the actual land mass, with 90% being ‘termed’ uninhabitable. http://37propertygroup.com.au/2012/08/12/population-density/

Sorry, it's a small country the size of one State in terms of population and economy and does not have the same problems as a large country like the USA to compare the two is apples to watermelon; it does not compute.

http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/california-vs-the-world_2010-05-10/

You present no argument to demonstrate any correlation between population size, GDP and percentage of habitable land with gun control. You merely spray around googled figures that are entirely out of context in an attempt to counter legitimate questioning of your assertions; such assertions getting wilder and wilder as you dig yourself deeper into numerous holes.

Figures on increases in total number of guns in Australia since 1996 that you have tried to throw around elsewhere are meaningless. The issue is not the ownership but the regulation of ownership which is far stricter and far more effective in Australia as a result of effective, sensible and enforced gun control legislation.

The trouble with googling data to support weak, illogical and inconsistent arguments and statements is that meaningless data does not provide meaning for nonsensical statements. I have spent a number of years living in and working with indigenous people who inhabited your so-called 'uninhabitable' areas of Australia. They and their ancestors have been doing so for probably more than 50,000 years. That's even before indigenous people inhabited the North American continent. I don't know the originator of the nonsense on habitable vs non habitable land that you 'researched' or the context of the data but every 2nd year high school geography student in my home state learns about the difference between arable and non arable land as this has been a guiding factor in the development of that part of Australia since colonisation. But again, serious issues but nothing to do with gun control.

Your objective is clear. You wish to diminish Australia's achievements to support your ideological rant on guns. You attempt to blow the horn of American 'exceptionalism' to justify your point of view. Go for it. These threads occur with appaling frequency and there is always some 'enthusiast' to spout the usual pro-gun nonsense backed up by judicious contributions from the hard right loons talking about the good old days in Texas or Oregon or 'when I was a prison guard'. Next week's mass shooting threat will throw up some other goon to push the party line. It is pleasing to see the number of Americans who appreciate the experience of those who live without fear in communities with well regulated gun laws and understand absolutely the correlation between gun control and th reduction in deaths by firearms.

Go for it. But if you attempt to use information about things that you only find out from Google, then don't be surprised if your silly 'facts' and data are thrown back at you. That pretty much includes almost everything about Australia.

A school teacher has an easy time with a class of 10 and a difficult time with a class of 50. Australia has a population of 20 million and the USA has 300 million. Do you see the difference? Australia has 33 thousand people in jail. USA has almost 3 million. Do you see the difference? If my only worry was a population the size of Florida with few violent minorities, crime and guns would not be much of a problem.

The question here is : do you, pro guns who live in thailand, have a gun here? If yes do you own it legally? If no, do you feel your safety threatened ?

It is legal for wives of Farang to own and keep guns in the home as it is legal for wives of Farang to own homes and land.

I am posting on this forum. I own guns. I'm a combat veteran from Thailand and Vietnam. I'm not afraid. Now you know about one poster on this forum.

A 3 year old retarded girl could pick up a pistol and splatter your brains against a wall. Is she brave also?

I was responding to a troll poster trying to start a fight as he wrote, "The evidence we have on this forum is that gun owners are the ones living in fear" as you well know and are another troll trying to belittle and start a fight.

No one said anyone who shoots another is not living in fear or anyone who owns guns is not living in fear. The poster above said, "on this forum gun owners are the ones living in fear" and I'm not. I also did not say I was brave. I'm not. So why not concentrate or reading a post and not making up things and changing the meaning of the post.

The Aussie contingent seem to be having quite a lot of pedantic fun with the death of the 9 innocents.

My opinion is he was probably an atheist.

Many of the atheist persuasion are probably capable of doing such a thing and they certainly hate religions.

Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn't. But the key word is he was INSANE. There is nothing to worry about with a radical Atheist movement that adopts an ideology of murdering believers in anything. Like an atheist Isis. it's not happening and it's never gonna happen ... so chill pill time.

As far as how Christians are trying to spin this, I think there is still evidence to gather and what was in that LETTER he left ... has that been released to the press or what? ... but I reckon he would have have shot anyone professing belief in any religion in the head, based on multiple reports that he was talking about "having religion" in general as well as asking about Christianity.

10 who did not say they were Christian were not killed. What do you reckon they said?

However, conflicting reports emerged about Harper-Mercer's words as he shot his victims.

Stephanie Salas, the mother of Rand McGowan, another student who survived, said she was told by her son that the shooter asked victims whether they were religious but did not specifically target Christians.

Salas said it was like telling the victims "you're going to be meeting your maker."

http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Survivor-Gunman-spared-lucky-one-to-give-6548897.php

The shooter was obviously mentally ill. Mentally ill people often have issues with religion. More commonly they think they ARE Jesus or something like that. This was a variation on that. He was no Islamic Jihadist ... there are enough real ones, OK?

Quote from your link, "If they said they were Christian, he shot them in the head," Willis said, citing the account given by her granddaughter.

However, conflicting reports emerged about Harper-Mercer's words as he shot his victims."

And...... If they were all christians then he could only kill christians. That fact seems to elude your logical thinking.

And to think you own guns.

To refer to something you responded to me with before.....you dont live there, havent done so for years. Why does it bother you, what makes you think your view should be considered when you dont even live there?

He did not kill those who told him they were not Christians. 7 other people who did not identify as being Christian were shot but not killed.

I only post to correct your errors in fact.

It's a good thing none of you gun control freaks are Americans.

You would be living in fear if you were there...or ever went there.

Why is a humanitarian who advocates for measure to lessen the deaths of innocent students a "freak"? That's just plain whacky.

Why do you think any of them would be living in fear? It's the gun nutters that live in fear. Just look at one prominent voice here talking in support of guns: He wants his gun to be able to penetrate body armour in case someone with body armour attacked him. . He also wants his guns to "play the long game" for when his imagined Islamists try to over-run the US. . He also wants his guns to be ready in case the gummint gets uppity. .

Who's living in fear???

Really, who? It's the gun owners who live in fear. That's why they have guns.

I don't think there will be moves for a great firewall of America or the banning on Orwell's 1984. Now you may say but what about the UK or Australia? It should be pointed out that those places are quite small and easy to manage in comparison to America.

Alaska does not have the same problems as NYC. America does not have national ID cards. Many things are different. If you live in many areas in the USA bears/coyotes/wolves steal your food and kill your dogs.

Obama has polarized America. I have far more in common with a farmer from Issan than I do a member of the rainbow coalition from California.

Gun owners aren't living in fear. I kept three legal guns at my business in America. I was in a war. I've used guns in combat and I would not hesitate to use them again if threatened. 21.9 million Americans combat trained veterans of the military all know how to use guns and are not afraid.

The evidence we have on this forum is that gun owners are the ones living in fear...as outlined in my post.

Need to be able to pierce body armour for when that angry Islamist neighbour attacks. Need to be ready for when the gummint 'n revenoo comes a callin'.

Neil Young; "Daddy's rifle in my hand felt reassuring. He told me "red means run, son, numbers add up to nothin'...."

I am posting on this forum. I own guns. I'm a combat veteran from Thailand and Vietnam. I'm not afraid. Now you know about one poster on this forum.

I don't know. All I know is he didn't kill any. He only killed Christians. True or false?

Ahahaha. You say he didnt kill any muslims yet dont even know if any where there. Thats priceless.

Hey he didnt kill any martians either so he only had it in for earthlings.

I don't share your humor at the killing of Christians. He asked the students if they were Christian and shot the Christians in the head killing them. Only Christians. Not Muslims or Jews or Buddhists. He only killed Christians. He didn't ask if the students were members of an organized religion. He only asked if they were Christians and then the shot the Christians in the head killing them.

The humour is from the twisted logic you try to explain.

How many buddhists or jews where there?

Its a bit hard to kill denominations that arent there.

But keep going.

She lay on the floor with her arms in front of her and heard the shooter say: “You, in the orange shirt. Stand up. What religion are you? Are you a Christian?”

When the student answered, Lacy told her father, “I heard, Daddy, I heard a pop, and then the thud of a body that just hit the ground.” The gunman asked the same question of another student and shot them, too, she said.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-shooting-20151004-story.html

That's a chinchilla

How many muslims were in the classroom?

I don't know. All I know is he didn't kill any. He only killed Christians. True or false?

Ahahaha. You say he didnt kill any muslims yet dont even know if any where there. Thats priceless.

Hey he didnt kill any martians either so he only had it in for earthlings.

I don't share your humor at the killing of Christians. He asked the students if they were Christian and shot the Christians in the head killing them. Only Christians. Not Muslims or Jews or Buddhists. He only killed Christians. He didn't ask if the students were members of an organized religion. He only asked if they were Christians and then the shot the Christians in the head killing them.

How many muslims were in the classroom?

I don't know. All I know is he didn't kill any. He only killed Christians. True or false?

Using the 2nd amendment to justify anyone buying and using a semi-automatic war weapon, is akin to using the 1st amendment (free speech) to allow me to stand in your bedroom with a megaphone and shout my political leanings to you and your wife all night long.

The guy in Oregon did not use an assault rifle or machine gun. He used a pistol. Auto or semi auto or revolver in a pistol the rate of fire is hardly different. Also the reason the Constitution has lasted so long is that it has kept pace with the changes in society. A gun in 1776 is still a gun in 2015. Semi automatic speed weapons were available in the 1800's not to long after the Constitution was written.

It's a good thing none of you gun control freaks are Americans.

You would be living in fear if you were there...or ever went there.

Why is a humanitarian who advocates for measure to lessen the deaths of innocent students a "freak"? That's just plain whacky.

Why do you think any of them would be living in fear? It's the gun nutters that live in fear. Just look at one prominent voice here talking in support of guns: He wants his gun to be able to penetrate body armour in case someone with body armour attacked him. . He also wants his guns to "play the long game" for when his imagined Islamists try to over-run the US. . He also wants his guns to be ready in case the gummint gets uppity. .

Who's living in fear???

Really, who? It's the gun owners who live in fear. That's why they have guns.

I don't think there will be moves for a great firewall of America or the banning on Orwell's 1984. Now you may say but what about the UK or Australia? It should be pointed out that those places are quite small and easy to manage in comparison to America.

Alaska does not have the same problems as NYC. America does not have national ID cards. Many things are different. If you live in many areas in the USA bears/coyotes/wolves steal your food and kill your dogs.

Obama has polarized America. I have far more in common with a farmer from Issan than I do a member of the rainbow coalition from California.

Gun owners aren't living in fear. I kept three legal guns at my business in America. I was in a war. I've used guns in combat and I would not hesitate to use them again if threatened. 21.9 million Americans combat trained veterans of the military all know how to use guns and are not afraid.

Australia is quite small compared to the US? You really do dream this stuff up.

I suggest you use google to compare.

The population of Australia is 10 million less than one state, California (there are 49 other states). If you combine the GDPs of Australia, Burma, the Czech Republic, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Peru and Ukraine, you will have the same size economy as California. California accounted for nearly 3 percent of the worlds GDP in 2008. The Governor of many states in the USA has a significantly larger populations and economies to manage than the country of Australia. Almost all of America is habitable and almost none of Australia is. Australia’s habitable land takes up approximately 10% of the actual land mass, with 90% being ‘termed’ uninhabitable. http://37propertygroup.com.au/2012/08/12/population-density/

Sorry, it's a small country the size of one State in terms of population and economy and does not have the same problems as a large country like the USA to compare the two is apples to watermelon; it does not compute.

http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/california-vs-the-world_2010-05-10/