wildewillie89

12 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Wear it in a shoulder holster, no chance of a child getting hold of it.

No need for a safe, just wear it. When you go outside, it's still with you.

I think that would be quite illegal here.

18 hours ago, smotherb said:

Depending upon the location(s) and ease of access to your gun(s); that time should be a matter of very few seconds.

If I could reach for a gun in seconds then so could children. The only way a gun can be safely kept in a home with children is if it is locked in a safe. Getting a gun out of a safe takes more than a few seconds, as obviously you wouldn't put the safe in the middle of your living room (where I spend most of my time). Not to mention I could be 50 metres away from a gun in my house as I spend a lot of time outside. What use is it to me? The only possible use it could be is if it was actually on me. For the incredibly low chance of needing a gun vs the much higher chance of my kid wanting to reach for it whilst it is on me....it just isn't worth it. It is acting on paranoia/fear/thinking I am more capable than I am, rather than logic. 

21 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

I would not consider anything in the NYT (or most any other source) without being able to review all the data and the method(s) they used to come up with their numbers.

The NYT is clearly anti-gun and they will massage the numbers any way they see fit to as long as it promotes gun control.

Trusting the Times about guns is like trusting Fox about Trump.

Nine out of ten times, five guys running at you change direction once you start shooting.

 

Regardless of the numbers (which from memory were quoted in the whole arming teachers debate), the chances of hitting a subject in a real life situation compared to the shooting range is obviously a lot different. It doesn't take stats for someone to realise bodily responses (emotional and physical), distractions, and just the fact most people are not aware of their surroundings during traumatic events.

If we look at a more simplistic scenario of when a snake falls out of a tree and scares someone. Even when people get good visual of it they are unable to remember even the colour of it due to emotional responses taking over their faculties. It is why witnesses of traumatic events are so easily discredited by defence lawyers and why conspiracy theorists love using them. All this explains a 43% hit rate from 0-6 feet in real life vs probably a 100% hit rate in a range. The chances of someone (who is not specially trained/experienced with these situations) killing their kids/wife by accidents are probably close to killing the intruders - probably by accident also. 

The original seat belt and gun comparison (insurance) I don't think works. Wearing a seat belt creates no potential safety issues, in fact in reduces them by not throwing you around the car in a crash. Having a gun, when the likelihood of needing one is incredibly small (standard Issan village), I would think creates more safety issues than the chance of needing it warrants (basic risk analysis).  Well if we look at the stats of children getting their hands on them in supposedly gun responsible homes anyway. 

32 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I do not have a hand gun in Thailand and never felt like I needed one. I lived is Prachinburi for 17 years and live in Bangkok now.

That said, it’s like a seatbelt, I’ve never had the chance to use one, but I would not go without it.

As far as the hit-miss ratio, it’s real easy to hit a person at 5 meters and pretty easy to hit one at 10. I’ve been to the range with a lot of guys that have never fired before, and I do not remember anyone missing entirely.

If I lived in a high crime area, I would get a 9mm and teach my wife and kid to use it.

 

A NY Times article wrote that supposedly trained American police officer's stats of hitting a target between 0-6 feet is 43%. The number was not considered low by the professional trainers due to the obvious stresses that are not endured in a controlled environment like a gun range. Longer distances are obviously where we go into the teens. This is just hitting the target in general, not even trying to hit it in a specific place.

I have been to a range and didn't miss the target from a longer distance with a 9mm. However, I wouldn't say if you put me in my house right now with 5 guys running at me with guns with my kids screaming that I would be nearly as accurate as I am not an 'elite' soldier/police officer. 

If I lived in somewhere I really needed something, I would probably modify the house in a way that it took enough time for someone to enter it to at least get some sort of composure, or even better have someone who is trained to deal with the situation. 

*Edit: house would have to look like a prison for that to work. 
 

I don't think life is that crazy that people need a gun. Especially if you have kids living or visiting (as nearly everyone at least has kids who visit). How many people have actually ever used their gun against people in a situation that actually called for it? When I first moved here my dad suggested the idea of having one as he had heard stories from a Thai friend back home. The Mrs has been trained to use a gun as part of her work, but didn't feel the need to have one even when working in the red zone of Yala (insurgency). Every now and then she flirts with the idea as everyone around us has one, but always comes back to it is silly. After listing the pros/cons, we decided on the guardian dogs. 

Surely if a gun is safely locked away that kids cannot get to it, then by the time someone nervously plays with a safe whilst their listening to the home invasion that is going on, the family and person would have already been dealt with. Not to mention how highly trained with weaponry someone needs to be. Didn't it come out when they wanted to give guns to teachers in America that police officers have only a 18% hit rate in gunfights? A police officer probably practise as much or more than your local expat in Thailand. Not to mention practising hitting a target is much different than real life. Most people on here even have a fear of confronting a nrighbour to turn down his speakers. Would prefer not to have guns in those people's hands.  

Just ask around. We have 3 people we can trust (family) who carry guns who live about a 45 second walk away. By the time the dogs warn us (as they would need to shoot the dogs to get through), plus jump the fence, and for me to open a safe and then expect to act like a SAS member or movie star...not worth it with 2 little kids running around the house, may as well call the infantry who have at least a little bit of an idea what they are doing (police/army trained so probably less than 18% of an idea lol). Not to mention the Mrs may get angry one day or if I get a bit lonely haha. 

Guardian dogs are very useful for village security (need good fencing or they will claim the whole village lol), as it is a few thousand years of natural instincts being passed on - so no training required, just understanding of how instincts will relate to environment. Many stronger working lines will not naturally drink or eat anything unless it comes from the hand of someone who lives on the premises. Will allegedly take a .45 calibre bullet according to the Russians and National Geographic to stop them. 

The village people will not even walk along our fence line now, but cross to the other side of the road due to the dog's daily/nightly patrols. Have been labelled 'devil dogs'. Mainly due to size, dislike of strangers, and the fact the typical methods of holding up a hand/stick/throwing objects at them has no effect. One night a group of relatives (villagers) came with sticks to our house as they were in the temple and heard our dogs a few hundred metres away over the music. They said their bark was nothing they had heard before, hence why they came with weapons as knew something wasn't right. They ended up finding a couple of drunks on our farm land about 50m away from our fence line. 

As for the earlier posts about family members assaulting children. Sexual assault by family members are very common. Even in your most developed countries children are more likely to be sexually assaulted by family or someone they know than a stranger. It is just more known here due to the amount of gossip, whereas back home obviously majorly under reported and a better kept secret.  

Drugs. In my village I see the after effect of the drugs from a while back, so a lot of slow moving people who have fried their brains. Friendly, but fried. Not too many drugs going on now from what I see (but obviously it would be happening at the times I do not tend to go out). The strict policies of old and the one in the Philippines aren't really worth the amount of innocent people who end up getting caught up in them. The odd alcohol fight, but nothing worse than back home. Most fights are are by non-drunks. A dispute, a fight, a shake of the hand. A little bit emotionally immature seeing as it cant be solved by a simple discussion. Have your little cute teenage gangs, but usually they head into the city during festival times to find gangs of other villages to fight. Don't really bring the issues back into the village. 

Villagers tends to stick together. If any outsiders come to steal rice or the like, all the villagers get on their motorcycles and chase them down. Usually it is one or two families who want more influence than they have who cause trouble. My family are banned from sending our crop to be made into brown rice now due to one of the families (who have the machine). Apart from that and the odd threat which is filmed as we only interact with them with witnesses, the public apologies and threat of fine keep them at bay. Fine threats are better than jail threat it seems. Hurts more. Family is in politics so election times are a little bit more dangerous...hence the dogs, plus police outside the house, but that isn't very often. 

Could be issues further along the lines in the village though. Not much delayed gratification being taught, kids getting what they want when they want it from parents/grandparents. Can only lead to people not learning how to deal with disappointment/rejection/ frustration, and using violence as a coping mechanism. I am 28, before the arguments come about blaming new generation bla bla. I just talk about what I see.

Heads of villages are usually useless with these things. Sometimes a resident will listen to them just to stay on good terms (usually so they get picked by the head with special promotions that have quotas - example, if insurance companies come with promotions for only first 50 people picked by village head). But on the most part no one will listen to them. The head of village will always pass on the case to Tessaban anyway. I earlier stated to film the Tessaban meeting, but asking around I do not think that is quite legal, well the Tessaban lawyer will probably reference some hidden law why you cant anyway.

Regardless, an easier option would be to ask for the documented complaint to be photo copied and stamped/signed by Public Health Official. Once this has been done, they have to act on it by law. If they don't and you take the matter, free of charge, to the military tribunal, they will be in all sorts of trouble. Well, enough trouble for them to be scared of the place. 

Whether rural or city doesn't matter. I live in a rural area. If a sound complaint and the Tessaban doesn't have the relevant equipment to measure how loud it is at the source, and at the house of the person who made the complaint, they can obtain the equipment from the province office. If they do not provide the evidence at the tribunal, then again, a whole lot of trouble as they haven't followed procedure properly. Also it doesn't matter if the noise is being made 1 pm in the afternoon or 1 am in the morning. The Tessaban must go and investigate a complaint. The reason many Tessabans get by is purely on the ignorance of the person who is complaining. However, since the tribunals have come in and villagers have started spreading the information about them, many Tessabans have decided to actually follow some sort of procedure from the beginning. Of course, there will be exceptions. 

If a family thing (Thai wanting things their way), I have found the following helps.

Sit down and discuss the research. Then observe and discuss the videos of crash tests. With any luck you would have already found a decent straight talking Western thinking paediatrician (took me a couple doctors to get that). Physically take them to the paediatrician for a chat (my paediatrician asks me to bring them now if I encounter any different beliefs). Thai generally don't like to query doctors, plus it always sounds nicer coming from another Thai. 

The mother-in-law used to refuse car seats (so I never left the driveway with her in the car). After doing the above steps she not only puts my daughter in the car seat, but also wears a seat belt herself if she ever is in the car with us. She also took my side when another visiting family member wanted to not put my newborn son in a car seat when going home from hospital. 

Just did the same process regarding delayed gratification and learning disappointment. I also play the Buddhist card that they should not just listen to tradition or gossip, but should always try and improve themselves through research.  

The Thai family will stick up and follow your direction as long as it is clarified/taught to them properly. I cant blame the mother-in-law, she didn't have the chances we do re education. But well done to her for making the effort to change her ways. 

Breed of dog has nothing to do with it as all dogs are capable of harming/killing kids. Look at countries with dangerous dog legislation, they banned Pitbulls, but bite stats went up so are looking to allow them again. Roughly 427 dogs in my village, my two dogs are always targets as they are the only dogs that never socialise with the rest. However, they have the least chance of ever being attacked or attacking anyone due to never being allowed out without me. 

If the dog attacked your Poodle on your land or if your dog was leashed on public land then fair game to complain. If the dog attacked the Poodle when the Poodle was out of the gate and wasn't leashed then it is your own fault. We live in Thailand, the government doesn't hold our hand in every walk of life like back home, so you need to step up yourself to protect your own dogs. 

1 hour ago, Johnniey said:

My dogs are rarely outside my gated property. There's a big difference between a poodle type dog and a killer pitbull terrier. Anyway, it's the noise at night which is most annoying.

 

 

 

I don't really buy into the Pitbull bashing. But in the case of Thailand, with all the diseases around that dogs can pick up and give to both other dogs and humans, I don't think there is much of a difference whether it is a Pitbull type dog or Poodle type dog. The fact of the matter is all dogs should always be behind gates. Plus, it would help your case if you are seen as a responsible owner. 

Responsibility of the Local Health Officer (as one of the early replies stated). Would be helpful to get your dogs in line (behind gates) before complaining. And, yes, farang have a right to complain (many on here for some reason believe they do not).

Someone complained about my dogs. The officer (also the owner of the dogs) recorded a video. She only played the audio first. The person complaining said that is definitely the bark. Officer then showed the video of the two dogs sleeping as the barking was going on. 

Person complaining apologised and then withdrew the complaint (was more personal than actually being worried about the real culprit dog). It is more of a farang/Thai Visa myth that you shouldn't complain and it is better to move house (to more barking dogs). Thai people live quite happily with noisy dogs, but there is also no shortage of these sorts of complaints coming from the locals that are investigated by the relevant authorities.

To the negative people...What is the worst that can happen? You get a lazy official and things stay the same? The best that can happen? The problem is resolved. So why not try (can be an anonymous complaint)? To the super negative people who think the neighbour is going to kill you for complaining, well, if you live with such fear where something as small as this is so troublesome for you, then I would start to re-think if the country is really for you. 

Just now, tumama said:

 

Well from the time I intervened to the time I left her, she told me she wanted to press charges. The girl was scared to death. Never seen anything like it before except in horror movies. 

So let the officials handle it now. He will probably have to pay her and them more than he can afford. And they will tell him to stay away. Many on here call that corruption, but it is something, generally, all 3 parties are happy with and agree on to avoid court processes. 

Not much point getting more involved than you have to.

I stopped one once in the street back in Australia to help a girl. An old guy nearby who had worked in the emergency services his whole life spoke to me. He said don't bother intervening in relationship disputes. He was always getting called out to them and you soon learn on the job there is no point taking a beating because the girl always goes back to them the next day. 

Of course, if you are seeing a girl take a beating it is hard not to naturally help her. When I first arrived in Thailand I helped a girl. She was screaming, crying, thinking she was going to die etc. Got her and put her in the car, where the Mrs was. The Mrs told her, we will go to the police. She said no. Mrs said, my uncle is boss of the police, so I can make sure they will definitely help you. She outright refused to go to the police and instead (after 10 or so minutes) asked to be dropped off at a restaurant within walking distance of where the abuse took place in the first place.

I still would intervene, but don't bother taking it any further after she is safe. Well done for intervening, but it is just being a unnecessary hero to continue with it. There is systems (official and not official) in place to deal with these things, if she doesn't take them up then not much you can do. 

Although the food ideas sound good in theory, and may even work in practice, is it really such a good idea to willingly get a dog close enough to you to feed or have the dog follow you in a country with a rabies outbreak? Isn't that how the person died in Surin, feeding dogs? I am sure they were very friendly for the food also (which is when rabies can be risky, accidentally licking open wounds, non-biting so not worrying about interaction). 

Collared doesn't mean vaccinated, especially if the owners allow them to roam. One of many reasons why I refuse to ride scooters here, already enough distractions.

Personally, I would just speak to the neighbours. Almost on every thread people advise against it, but rarely have actually ever tried it. Every time I have done it (re burning, music too loud etc), it is met with an apology and the issues have been resolved.

The Mrs, and also her folks, like to have a lot of useless stuff laying around the house that makes it look a tad clattered, but the houses are cleaned everyday. Whereas back home, nowhere near as much stuff laying about the place, but by no means was the place cleaned as often.

We just added a storage space when we built the outdoor kitchen, so now inside is a win win.

Keep going through them at different speeds and find out the threshold. 

Camera fines are easy to get off if you have family/friends who are police, but as long as you receive the fine in the same province as they work. Outside of that province is more hassle than the fine is worth. 

7 minutes ago, TerryLH said:

How often does the government in San Diego say they need vaccinating?

I think all of America has now changed to 3 years. 

23 hours ago, Oxx said:

 

Perhaps you'd care to provide a few links to some peer reviewed articles in serious scientific journals that support your rather unusual view?

 

Rabies is an exceptionally important disease because it is one of a few diseases that can be passed from dog to humans, and is almost invariably fatal.  It's important that humans are protected against the risk of rabies from dogs.  Does giving dogs shots every 7 years provide the same level of protection to humans as giving the dogs the shots every year?

 Schultz, Ronald D, Duration of Immunity to Canine Vaccines: What We Know and What We Don’t Know, Proceedings – Canine Infectious Diseases: From Clinics to Molecular Pathogenesis, Ithaca, NY, 1999, 22. 

Distemper- 7 years by challenge/15 years by serology
Parvovirus – 7 years by challenge/ 7 years by serology
Adenovirus – 7 years by challenge/ 9 years by serology
Canine rabies – 3 years by challenge/ 7 years by serology

Dr. Schulz is still doing a lot of study to try and extend the law in the States re rabies due to the harmful effects of useless re-vaccination. It was his research that changed many places from 1 to 3 years to begin with. His research is also mentioned in the WSAVA vaccine guidelines (WHO for animals if you like). The one year booster vaccines was a recommendation made in 1978 with absolutely no scientific validation (as obviously testing vaccines on animals over long periods of time is an expensive and difficult study to wait for).

On a side note, even though the immune response will still be effective at 7 years, Dr. Schultz still continues to vaccinate his own dogs every 3 years due to his local laws. He says that the antibody levels block the booster just like maternal antibodies do in young pups for some vaccines, but it is the law. The other core vaccines he titers the puppy to find the best time to vaccine and never vaccinates again (obviously does annual titer testing).

1 hour ago, The manic said:

 "our Buddhist artifact thing in the front of our house "..Seriously?  You live here and don't know what it is called? Spirit house? Shrine?  Statue? What do you call that white wet grainy stuff people eat here? 

I really couldn't care less what it is called. The fact you understood and used similar words that could fit into the word I used anyway shows it was a bit of a pointless quote. Not to mention, irrelevant. 

The country is lottery mad. You could be in a middle of what is meant to be an 'important' meeting and the meeting will break to discuss the lottery. Many Thai will even plan their lives and buy expensive things like cars on the belief they will actually receive lottery money like they do a paycheck. 

Father-in-law doesn't drink or smoke, but does spend 8,000 baht a month on the lottery. He reckons he has a system, I obviously think it is complete rubbish but he does seem to win every third time or so. The wife used to buy the odd ticket, but does not play it anymore. Mother-in-law also refuses to play. 

The woman who blessed our Buddhist artifact thing in the front of our house suggested numbers to him, he didn't win so said he would never trust things like that again. But yes, people go off silly things like dreams, car license plates, house numbers etc, and then call all their friends to choose these numbers.

I guess it either gives people something to do/talk about, and others a lot of hope their lives will improve...also the gambling aspect for many.  

MIL built an outdoor kitchen and storage area where we live. If she had the means to spend money like it was nothing to build unnecessary houses then I have no doubt she would. She already has everything she needs so no expectations from me (other than keeping her grandchildren healthy). Although, she really appreciates getting flowers on her birthday. 

Probably many reasons people do it. Whether brownie points, relationship based on finances, no backbone to say no or purely it just coming down to a sense of family. Some families will help each other out more than others. When my mother and father divorced, her family (other than two cousins) were too scared to even bring up the subject so just completely ignored my siblings and I. After about 6 months they realised what they did was wrong and tried to reach out. I am not all that emotional, but I certainly feel more of a sense of family with my step-mother/family and mother-in-law/family than my real mother/family. Maybe others are the same so will do it for those reasons. 

 

I cant believe municipalities having a competition to minimalise garbage is so hard to believe. The Prime Minister and Anupong (Interior MInister) even attended the awards ceremony. The conferences leading up to the competition obviously looked at criteria, and ideas of how things would be achieved. Criteria focused on reduced weight (monthly tonnage), and innovative ideas with the push for limiting municipality bins. 

For example, in the municipality where my work is there are obviously many villages. The municipality chose one village to remove all bins from government buildings and public bins from streets. The direction they want to head in is to have a set time each village meets to dispose of their rubbish in the truck (Taiwan I think do a similar system, however, I am sure we are all aware of Thai discipline). 

Another municipality put in recycle bins (inside the property) made out of pvc piping and netting for households. 

A close friend of ours is in charge of a municipality not too far from us (she scored second in the country in the competition). She put in a bank system where the villages meet twice a month with all their garbage they can sell (recyclables etc). She made contact with an insurance company. The municipality sell the garbage and pay into life insurance for that villager over the year. 

All municipalities discussed with houses, private shops and companies about turning food into compost and fertilizer and obviously recycling/ways to limit garbage. The idea is to eventually only have the odd hazard bin available to the public in the long term.

So yes, there is a competition for every province (attended by the PM and Minister - not just local). There are also competitions set by other ministries. But my focus has always been on municipalities and the Interior Ministry (you brought up all the other variables with your Google searching and surface knowledge). 

The Interior Ministry is sick of subsidising so much waste disposal. Each municipality must pay to dispose of their waste (as many do not have landfills), the household fee is not enough so the Ministry pays it. That is why garbage has been the focus for all municipalities over the last couple years. 

I will not bother reading the response, as it will just be a reply of 'nonsense', 'you're misinformed'. 
 

Thought the common theme of this forum was people moved to Thailand to get away from their 'nanny state'.