oslooskar

One size fits all blanket statements like yours are usually made by idealists who have lived very narrow and sheltered lives.

Be specific and tell us exactly what action Taboo2 made reference to that caused the death of that Australian.

Right! And if my memory serves me correctly, they've had to cross the oceans of this world to protect others from intruders.

There is nothing ambiguous about my previous comment. The point of it should have been easily understood by anyone with average intelligence or above. That being said, let me simplify it for you. The point was, if you DO include those figures of 3.82 per 100,000 inhabitants, which include the homicide rate of the U.S. black population, then you are no longer comparing apples with apples.

How can you possibly have an "apples and apples comparison" if you bring the United States into the equation? After all, as I previously stated, it has a minority population whose males make up approximately six percent of the U.S. population but commit over 50% of its homicides. However, in the interest of apples and apples, if we subtract those homicides from the 3.82 per 100,000 we get a much lower homicide rate. That being said, there are other factors involved that prevent an apples to apples comparison, at least with the United States. Therefore, I would suggest, for example, comparing the private gun ownership rates of those countries like Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, and Austria that have lower homicide rates than the United Kingdom's. In that way you can see if their lower homicide rates are a result of low gun ownership rates or not. Japan and Singapore have extremely strict gun laws and very low homicide rates, but they cannot be part of the equation either because both countries have Capital Punishment on the books, which only one European nation today has. Also, it is worthy of mention, that Asian Americans have an extremely low crime rate even though they have access to firearms.

You need to look at a country's homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants and then do the same when looking up its rate of private gun ownership.

Maybe! But there is no evidence that high gun ownership rates in a country equal high homicide rates.

Well, in that case, I guess I'll have to sue the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for posting false documentation on the Internet-----which, incidentally, you can easily access. In fact, if it wasn't against the rules I would have posted the link to it.

Please don't say things like that, as an American I'm very sensitive and you've hurt my feelings. 😄

Because it has a minority population whose males make up only 6% of the U.S. population but are responsible for over 50% of its homicides. Not to mention the fact that it also has a long border with a violent Third World country whose nationals cross into the United States illegally and commit a large number of crimes.

Americans have no such Constitutional right to "bare" arms. In fact, many establishments in the United States will require you to wear a dinner jacket before you can enter their restaurants.

Good point! They're a lot stronger than their English-speaking peers who were raised on fish and chips.

That's on you and doesn't prove Taboo2 wrong.

Aaah, yes, of course, how thoughtless of me. Hopefully I won't be denied my flight because of a few staples in one of my passport pages.

Apparently I'm missing something here. So, maybe you can help me out and explain exactly how a yoga instructor is going to hijack an airliner with her slightly torn passport?

Civil servants instinctively throw their weight around in order to convince the public that they're needed.

Try addressing my statement instead of leveling personal insults, and you won't come across as intellectually immature.

Everything! He committed a serious crime in Thailand and as far as I know, there is an extradition treaty between the United Kingdom and Thailand, which also applies to Scotland as part of the UK.

When a western nation covers its citizens' prison costs, it prevents the unfair financial burden on Thai taxpayers, who shouldn't have to pay for the long-term incarceration of foreign nationals. This contrasts with healthcare services, which are part of the UK’s hospitality to short-term visitors.

Because by covering these expenses, a western nation spares Thai taxpayers from bearing the costs of a foreign prisoner, thus reducing the financial burden on the locals.

There should be an agreement between Thailand and Western nations that requires the West to cover the expenses for their citizens incarcerated in Thailand.

I seriously doubt that they could, they don't have that kind of influence.

I'm not terribly worried. If the Thai authorities make life difficult for me here, I will simply pack up and move elsewhere. That being said, I think every expat, no matter where they live, should have a backup plan.

Try to look on the bright side. This will shift public attention away from those troublesome Brits who have been making headlines lately.

So, no hearing, no trial, just a good kicking before all the facts are known???