wildewillie89

18 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

What’s wrong with having something because you like it?

 

Why is it okay to take something I like away because you don’t like it?

 

If someone feels safer and sleeps better at night because they have a weapon, why should it be taken from them?

I literally said liking guns (i.e. using them for sport), is a legitimate reason to own a gun. I never said I did not like guns either. I do like guns, I have been to ranges and I do see a use for them for certain rural jobs (e.g. farming) or people who participate in sport.

However, only those I would consider legitimate reasons of having a gun, not this notion of it will save my life. The use of them in a real life situation is ridiculous as the police stats and common sense shows. Those are stats where the gun is actually on the person, the situation generally has been in action for a while (not a total surprise) and the gun is ready to be discharged. A home invasion is the complete opposite of that, so a 18% (or 43%) hit rare will be significantly lower.  All these variables was why arming teachers was found to be such a ridiculous idea. For the rest of the arguments, people have been watching too many movies rather than actually experiencing/training for real life scenarios. 

No one would have issues with guns if people just said from the beginning 'I like guns'. If people locked their guns, went to the range, went home and locked them again. Absolutely no problems from anyone. It is when they think they have the capabilities of elite soldiers due to the fact they own a gun that people have problems. Why? As they are more likely to hit a neighbour than the person they are actually attempting to fire at, due to the hit rate being so low. 

1 hour ago, smotherb said:

I like having guns.

I think that is the point. You like guns. That is the main reason, any other reason is an afterthought as some people don't consider that a legitimate reason. I do consider it a reason if the gun is used legitimately for sport and locked away at all other times. All the rest will keep going in circles as the we see the science differently. I am looking at how the majority of people's bodies react to these types of situations (as the police hit rate stats/professional trainers view of those stats prove). Not to mention the planning, timing, layout of most houses in Thailand that would be hit by a home invasion. Unless personal, the only homes vulnerable are those without any deterrent (high fence, wall, dogs etc). Those vulnerable homes, a gun is utterly useless to someone if a home invasion occurs whilst they are in the shower for example, listening to music, or any other activity that makes noise/distraction, as no warning. Or simply if the intruders learn the routine of the person (as they often do even to steal fruit in Thailand). 

Like people have said, if someone needs a gun in the area they live it is better just to move. I could only ever see needing a gun in places where there are killings daily to weekly. Even my Mrs didn't feel the need to have a gun when walking around in a government uniform (prime target) in the insurgency down South where there are weekly killings. I am glad we finally got to the 'I like guns' though. 

11 hours ago, smotherb said:

I guess you have a limited imagination. There are many places to store weapons and magazines separately, yet away from children. Children are never too young to be told not to play with guns. And, yes, why don't you just carry it with you?  Of course, you can simply not have a gun and allow the intruders have their way. I don't have a gun here in Thailand, but I often wish I did.

If you are storing weapons and magazines separately, wouldn't that just add to the time to prepare a gun? The point of a gun in a real situation is you need it as fast as you can, and ideally even faster to compose yourself. The way this logic is being put forward is implying your average person has the speed/nerves of superman. Seeing as trained/experienced police officers who carry/familiarise themselves with guns on a daily basis don't come anywhere near this, I wonder what brings you to the conclusion that other people would be able to do this who go to gun ranges on a irregular basis. 

If you are 50 metres away outside, you would have to run into the house, get the gun, then run around to another part of the house to load the gun. Are we assuming the intruders are having a smoke break during this time? 

You cant carry it with you due to the simple fact it is illegal. Children are never too young not to be told? I completely agree with early education of children and guns, but as we all know, young children are not in full control of their faculties 100% of the time. Any specific examples of why you wish you had a gun here in Thailand? 

On 6/9/2018 at 12:05 PM, dick dasterdly said:

I assume that 'lumps' of meat are better - to clean their teeth.

Also to slow down their eating. 

Just now, jenny2017 said:

Did you get your information from your barber shop??

Only ever used a barber shop in Thailand. If I got my information from there I would have the same irrational fears. 

Anyone would think the world is over reading this thread. Should we all just top ourselves instead of waiting to be a victim of a murder. 

An idea, so people don't continue to live in irrational fear would be to either look at the official stats, or even make your own stats of crimes that have been made against you in the years you have been here and find a conclusion. If it says you are safe, then get out and enjoy the world. Or alternatively, go to the hair salon where I am sure they will still be gossiping/living in fear about a murder that happened 3 years ago. 

*Edit: no offence to the people who go to hair salons. Just participating in the ridiculous generalisations made about them to help a point.

13 minutes ago, billd766 said:

What do you do with it in the night? Sleep with it under the pillow?

I have only ever known one friend who has done this, but he was a white living in South Africa. He thought how ridiculous is this and moved his family to Australia. 

My Thai friends usually carry it in a bag. My father-in-law carries it in a bag everywhere he goes other than our house (as I do not allow it since having kids). My first meeting of him was having to move his gun off the front seat so I could sit down. It is locked away when we go to his house. I have another friend who just bought a gun. He gives out loans and keeps the land papers and vehicles until the interest/loans are paid back. He just bought a gun (due to the danger of his side business), which he takes everywhere, including his car. His kids refuse to use car seats and never listen to him. Accident (road or gun) waiting to happen. 

I asked him about his training, which consisted of first firing the weapon when he bought it. He seems to think he is capable. People watch too many movies, or never experience real life situations, so have clouded judgements of their capabilities. Interestingly enough, the same Thai people told me I was crazy to go down to the insurgency in the South as they are too scared, but think they will have the composure and skill to be able to deal with a traumatic event using a gun. Amazing logic.

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. 

4 minutes ago, The Deerhunter said:

But I never heard of anyone poisoning a pig. 

There is laws on numbers of pigs and the distance those pigs must be kept in Thailand to reduce things like poisoning occurring. I would have to double check as my memory fails me. However, if the pig owner made no efforts to control the noise or smell that came from the pig, then some people bypass making a nuisance complaint to the Tessaban and will just poison it. Best not to have pigs where houses are nearby. 

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. 
 

17 minutes ago, The Deerhunter said:

I can sure understand your feeling of vulnerability but you may be reading too much into it.  Unless there is some reason to feel personally concerned, this guy is now arrested and as long as you are not involved with his friends or family in a way that would put you in danger then maybe it is just an unpleasant coincidence that it was so close to you.

Agree.

On a side note separate from the above quote, are we looking at this case like women do in a hair salon (no disrespect), rather than looking at it more logically? Sometimes murders happen and sometimes they happen near where we live. Poisoning of animals happens regularly in Thailand - sometimes even by the government. 

Have had 2 murders in my Thai village that made national news headlines in the 2 and a half years I have been here. Mrs was interviewed about one of them by the news crews as was close to our house. Had nothing to do with my family, so no reason to be worried about living here. If we worried/looked into every single murder/animal poisoning or bad neighbours that went on in Thailand/world there wouldn't be too many places to live. 

In my opinion, if it isn't somewhere like some areas of Jamaica or areas in South America etc. where drug/gang violence is resulting in daily, weekly, monthly deaths in the immediate area (village), then it isn't too much to worry about, well at least not enough to disrupt your daily plans. Be polite, don't make enemies and there is no real reason to be concerned. Or move to the next place, which will have the exact same situation depending on how people see the world. 

1 hour ago, webfact said:

Colin said that the murderer is part of a drug family that is terrorising his once quiet village.

Other than the murder? Which happens everywhere as a result of drugs (I am assuming an isolated murder, i.e. not happening on a weekly basis). And the poisoning, which happens in most villages if dogs are loud or pigs are smelly (why there is laws relating to the keeping of these animals). What other things have the family been doing to terrorise? Just getting a bit of perspective, as it is all well and good to discuss it, but pointless if no possible solutions are discussed.

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.

1 hour ago, jvs said:

So in what way is uncle dealing with this?

As mentioned: 'should have been a warning'. He informed the relevant officer that he should have used his discretion a little bit better and given a warning/education for the petty offence instead. Although other interpretations of what happened probably wouldn't be too far off also.  

Thai officials now caught drink driving not only lose their job, but head to prison (not even killing anyone). The last few farang I have known who have drunk driven just paid a small fine. It is amazing how members on this forum think farang get such harsher treatments than what a Thai would get. Could be drink driving, neighbourhood issues or being served after a Thai at a 7/11, they will play the victim whatever the situation. Must be hard living here for them.  

More often than not, the family of the victim (if someone has died) are happy just to accept a payment and leave it at that. They do not seek justice like we do back home. It can be as something as simple as stealing a phone, if the person can pay compensation then that is the end of the matter. All parties are happy. 

Many families here wouldn't even understand how to seek what we consider justice. Many also would consider financial justice more useful to them than prison time. If the family is satisfied, and if the police are satisfied all parties are compensated/punished financially, then so be it. It is a different culture, some things we cannot change. 

From my understanding, the relevant minister was meeting/travelling a lot of Mayors and local offices. He was copping the same question over and over again about the time of local elections. He gave a response to end the questioning, the news jumped on it (resulting in use being here). However, as far as I am aware, local elections happening anytime before the central election are not part of the plan. 

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. 

Vet should be able to write up a sufficient homemade diet for you. A diet that is, one, yummy, and two, digestible. As obviously, losing weight or putting on too much weight are both a bit of a death sentence. I would watch the salt. Omega 3 I have heard is good for the heart. 

Either that or the vet should be able to recommend a commercial diet. Probably a lot of information online as it would be a relatively common issue.

 

There are punishments, and yes, I think they are more serious than if you kick a person. One of the officials at my wife's work loves dogs. One of the staff used to kick the office dogs. He said to him if I ever see you do it again I will be calling the police. The guy never did it again. 

In this case, surely the tourist has already disappeared, or is hard to find, so no point coming to TV...you would have had to have acted there and then. If the dog was leashed then the tourist would have had to go out of his way to kick it (so he has been cruel).

Don't get kicking dogs to protect yourself from rabies. Scare it away with a long bamboo stick and keep a distance. Kicking it is just giving the dog a chance to bite as you are entering its space.