connda

^^

We should ban cars first, as they are the biggest killer of people. Guns only killed 3.98 per 100,000. Deaths on U.S. roads were 12.3 per 100,000 (Thailand it was 19.6 per 100,000k).

http://en.wikipedia....ated_death_rate

(2002) Homicides in Great Britain involving a gun per 100,000 = 0.105 people

The 2002 OVERALL (not limited to guns) homicides in Great Britain were 2.1 per 100,000 people. http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Because firearms were pretty much outlawed in the U.K. people started using things other than guns (knifes, bats, sticks, stones) to kill one another. Yes, this is a truly compelling argument to outlaw firearms.

http://reason.com/ar...come/singlepage

Yes 2.1 per 100k in the UK for the year 2002, vs 5.6 in the USA. (I was talking about Great Britain, not the UK but I still don't see how those stats support your argument)

Quoted from - http://fleshisgrass....ate-and-weapon/

In the UK (population c. 60.5m) there were 765 reported incidents of murder for 2005-6 (Home Office, undated) – a rate of about 1.1 per 100,000.

In the US (population c. 298.5m) there were an estimated 16,137 homicides in 2004 (FBI, 2006a) – a rate of about 5.4 per 100,000. Of these, 10,654 were carried out with guns (FBI, 2006b).

So, more people per capita were murdered by killers with guns in the USA (3.56 per 100,000) than were killed by ALL means in the UK ( 1.1 per 100,000) for those years. How does that fit in with your view? Doesn't seem to suggest that British people are all stabbing each other to death as far as I can see (with spoons or anything else).

I've never been to the States, so I can't make a personal judgement on the law there but I have been in many British pubs at closing time and I would have been very uncomfortable if any of my fellow drinkers had been "packing heat", I can tell you.

It seems like many non-Americans think it's still the Wild West in the USA: Those gun-crazy Americans with their quick-draw holsters and a .45 Smith and Wesson dangling from their hips, ready at a drop of a hat to defend your manhood by seeing who can draw the fastest in a shootout. It's not that way gents.

In the States that I lived in, it's illegal to carry a firearm into an establishment that serves alcohol. Many of the people I know who carry don't even frequent bars and nightclubs -- their generally middle-class, family oriented folk. Actually, most of the people I know who carry are some of the most down-to-earth, sensible, grounded, educated, and law-abiding individuals that I know. These people pack: to protect themselves from criminals that are committing murders and other violent crimes with or without guns.

Even with the statistics you are offering, I like the odds better when I carry a weapon. Even if guns were outlawed, as submaniac pointed out, it probably would not dent the current statistics. Criminals would have guns and use them and everyone else would be a potential victim. We have sub-cultures in the US that are criminally violent and much larger as a percentage of the population than what you have in GB. Take the guns away and these sociopaths would still be killing each other (and innocent victims) at the same rate they are now. The only thing that would change is the weapon selection, and considering that these are criminals, it would probably still be guns.

Most of the Brits I've met are anti-gun, and that reflects in your laws. The will of the majority dictates the law of the land. I'd be uncomfortable living in your country. But it's my choice. Likewise, the US was founded on the right of individuals to bear arms. Throughout the majority of the country, most people support the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. It's the law of the land. If you would feel uncomfortable living in the US, then don't. It's your choice.

Really, there is no right answer here. You'll never turn me to your position, and I'll never turn you to mine. The best we can do is to agree that we disagree. I'm not going to disparage anyone for their opinion on this matter.

And if there is a legal way for me to obtain a firearm in Thailand for use on my wife's farm and land, I will.

^^

We should ban cars first, as they are the biggest killer of people. Guns only killed 3.98 per 100,000. Deaths on U.S. roads were 12.3 per 100,000 (Thailand it was 19.6 per 100,000k).

http://en.wikipedia....ated_death_rate

(2002) Homicides in Great Britain involving a gun per 100,000 = 0.105 people

The 2002 OVERALL (not limited to guns) homicides in Great Britain were 2.1 per 100,000 people. http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Because firearms were pretty much outlawed in the U.K. people started using things other than guns (knifes, bats, sticks, stones) to kill one another. Yes, this is a truly compelling argument to outlaw firearms.

http://reason.com/ar...come/singlepage

Yes 2.1 per 100k in the UK for the year 2002, vs 5.6 in the USA. (I was talking about Great Britain, not the UK but I still don't see how those stats support your argument)

Quoted from - http://fleshisgrass....ate-and-weapon/

In the UK (population c. 60.5m) there were 765 reported incidents of murder for 2005-6 (Home Office, undated) – a rate of about 1.1 per 100,000.

In the US (population c. 298.5m) there were an estimated 16,137 homicides in 2004 (FBI, 2006a) – a rate of about 5.4 per 100,000. Of these, 10,654 were carried out with guns (FBI, 2006b).

So, more people per capita were murdered by killers with guns in the USA (3.56 per 100,000) than were killed by ALL means in the UK ( 1.1 per 100,000) for those years. How does that fit in with your view? Doesn't seem to suggest that British people are all stabbing each other to death as far as I can see (with spoons or anything else).

I've never been to the States, so I can't make a personal judgement on the law there but I have been in many British pubs at closing time and I would have been very uncomfortable if any of my fellow drinkers had been "packing heat", I can tell you.

c

Can the 90 day be done via mail in Chiang Mai. If so, I'm thinking it might be a better choice than dealing with the immigration queues.

In my humble opinion, the UK and US should stop allowing Thai citizens from applying for citizenship until such time as the Thai government reciprocates.

It does already. I've been a Thai citizen for over a year now, originally American.

How many years did that take? How old are you? Are you part Thai?

I'm thinking that the bar is set way higher here in Thailand then the US or UK. I don't think the average 60 year old pasty-white farang like myself who has been married to a Thai for over 4 year, and speaks Thai but not fluently is going to be allowed to immigrate as much as I'd like to considering that this is where I live and I have no plans on returning to my home country.

But I'll concede that maybe that's my biased opinion. Set me straight if I'm way off base and there is no truth to what I just said You can PM me if you want...it doesn't have to be in this thread. Thanks.

Animal trainer: "No, our tigers (crocodiles, monkeys, snakes) are well-fed and they never bite."

Farang tourist: "I didn't have any wait at Suvarnabhumi immigration when I arrived. The smiling immigration officer whisked me through in less than 30 seconds and wished me a pleasant stay in the Land of Smiles!"

Farang tourist: "Thailand businesses just have exceptional, world-class customer service. They're all just so cheerful and helpful."

Any Thai: "I love speaking English and I enjoy learning more about Western culture!"

Tuk Tuk Driver: "Why certainly I have change for 100 baht."

Chiang Mai Tuk Tuk Driver: "I'm sorry sir, but it illegal for me to take you on a tour. But I can take you to the TAT licensed tour operator down the street -- for fee!"

7/11 employee: "Would you like a hot dog bun, some pickle relish, and some mustard to go with your Big Bite hot dog?"

Thai massage shop on Loi Kroi in Chiang Mai: "I'm sorry sir! We only give traditional Thai massages. No happy endings."

Thai Parliament: "It's good to see all members attending as we embark on creating a 2 year, 5 year, and 10 year economic plan for the future of our country."

In my humble opinion, the UK and US should stop allowing Thai citizens from applying for citizenship until such time as the Thai government reciprocates.

^^

We should ban cars first, as they are the biggest killer of people. Guns only killed 3.98 per 100,000. Deaths on U.S. roads were 12.3 per 100,000 (Thailand it was 19.6 per 100,000k).

http://en.wikipedia....ated_death_rate

(2002) Homicides in Great Britain involving a gun per 100,000 = 0.105 people

The 2002 OVERALL (not limited to guns) homicides in Great Britain were 2.1 per 100,000 people. http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Because firearms were pretty much outlawed in the U.K. people started using things other than guns (knifes, bats, sticks, stones) to kill one another. Yes, this is a truly compelling argument to outlaw firearms.

I'd love to see the stats comparing the murder rate between the US and Great Britain on a per capita basis. Then break it down by weapon.

I'm thinking pretty soon he Brits will have to eat with their fingers because everything else could be considered a dangerous weapon.

Heroin Addicts Stabbed and Killed with Spoon in Sussex. MPs Call for Ban on Spoons -- "Dangerous Weapons"

When the country you live in will not allow the average citizen to protect themselves with force equal to that as wielded by an "outlaw", you quickly will become a victim.

No such thing as "equal force" all that happens is that outlaws get bigger guns thats all.

Having lived in a country were carrying concealed firearms were the norm, and I carried a firearm for many years, it didnt matter even if you were carrying .44 Magnum because the "outlaws" were carrying AK-47's. (real 7.62mm fellows) and I can assure you an AK tops any handgun in a p*ssing match.

So based on your flawed logic...what would be the next step ?....allow everyone to carry assualt rifle to match equal force ?

Having lived in that sort of enviroment, I can assure you, banning firearms completely, and only putting them in the hands of the police (so they can shoot the "outlaws") is a sensible step.

I'd go one step further and not put them in the hands of most police. I think gun crime stats from Britain vs the US speak volumes on this subject.

However, I could only find figures that were ten years old with a quick google so I'm ready to stand corrected:

(2002) Homicides in Great Britain involving a gun per 100,000 = 0.105 people

(2001) Homicides in USA involving a gun per 100,000 = 3.98 people

So, ten years ago at least, you were nearly 38 times more likely to get murdered in the USA by somebody with a gun than you were in Great Britain.

Humm. That probably means you're less likely to get shot than die in a car accident in the USA

3.98 to 100000 odds? That's pretty good odds. Think I'll keep packing when I'm in the US, and I guess I'll never consider moving to Great Britain.

Two words.

Move - On

( Rather than try to work some problem that she likely doesn't even recognize, just move on and get one without issues. There's no shortage. )

Sorry, Winnie, talk is easy and easier said than done.

...perhaps the OP still loves his wife, even with all her faults?

Yeah. People nowadays seem to miss the point of a marriage. Nobody said it's easy. Maybe I'm old school, but I think that if you commit to marriage, you work though the issue. I consider it a moral commitment.

Too bad so many married couple think that it's OK to pull the nuclear option and destroy the marriage because they just can't be bothered to attempt to work through the issues. Talk to people who have been married 40, 50, or 60 years. They'll all tell you that they occasionally hit a wall, but they endeavored to get to the other side.

Yeah, there are beautiful, available lasses all over the place. But I'm not interested. I'll work with what I got: for better or for worse. I'm not saying there isn't a time to cut your losses, but I'm not there yet.

I have been going though a rough patch at the moment this comment just made perfect sense to me we are working though it a day at a time .

I guess i am not old school as i am 32 years old but i agree with your comment.

Good for you. You're one of the exceptions!

Many of the people posting here agree the wife has a problem and needs to seek psychiatric assessment. That's probably true, but no one likes to be told "you have a problem; you should go see a psychiatrist". That can be an intimidating process, especially if you've never been to a psychiatrist before.

That's why I made the suggestions I did in post #38, which seem to have been ignored by everyone. The OP can approach this as a joint problem -- there are problems with the relationship and both parties need to make changes. Then seek marriage counseling. Any competent marriage counsellor is going to insist on a medicial assessment for both parties, including a psychiatric assessment, especially after an initial meeting and learning the nature of the problems. They will have recommendations of where to go and who to see. That's more helpful than just saying "you're the one with all the problems and unless you do something about it, I'm leaving" and not providing any other guidance or support.

My advice is specific and actionable. No one else has actually told the OP specifically where to seek help.

Not ignoring you NancyL. That was good info that I am definitely considering. I appreciate the suggestion. Thanks!

I tried in the UK, trying to sort out the love of my life (UK wife of 20 years), she had medical problems and her consultant could not talk to me because of patient confidentiality reasons. All went pear shaped and end of story. Sadly.

It use to be that doctors would consider a husband and wife a family unit and information would be shared equally. Now the doctor can't talk to you about your own wife and vice versa?.

Doctor: "Your wife is dying in the next room."

You: "OMG! What is it. Can it be cured. What is the prognosis?"

Doctor: "Sorry. I can't talk to you. Patient confidentiality.........oh, we expect you to pay the bill."

Whatever county that is, if you haven't left, it's time.

It sounds like a mia-noi would be the obvious Thai solution.

Counseling by quacks and heavy mind-altering medication would be a psychiatric snake-pit that she might pull you into after her. It's often said here that there's a right way; a wrong way; and a Thai way, to do things.

Always take the Thai way.

In this case it would be a mia-noi.

That might be the shock-treatment she needs. Who knows?

All the best, Dude.

So, you are suggesting to a man with a moody, unstable and abusive wife (his words I think from the OP) to go and take a mia noi.

Hopefully, at some point before the wife snaps and starts sawing away at his penis with a meat cleaver, he will realize that this is not the best advice.

OP: you have my sympathy and I hope that you can sort out a course that is not disasterous for you. Personally, I do think that the biggest con that women have pulled on men throughout history, is that somehow we are responsible for how they feel. People should take ownership of their own emotions, and not blame others. "You make me sad/angry/unhappy" is the biggest cop out going - sadly however, its what we all buy into.

I actually do not buy into that. My moods are my own. I'm that only person responsible for fixing my emotions.

Unfortunately for wife, I tell her she is responsible for her own moods. Generally when she is in a "mood", I don't let her drag me down with her. That gives me the space to attempt to work through this.

"Tourist Friendly Image???"

That should be dispelled the moment a newbie tourist meets their first Thai immigration official: unsmiling on a good day; grumpy and non-so-subtlety aggressive on a bad (overworked) day. LMFAO

I see the last post was on March 11th.

"Hey! It rained...nevermind!"

Call off the search. Time to go back to putting their collective heads in the sand until next year.

I come from a country (Canada) which has stringent gun laws. Only criminals and police are allowed to have handguns in Canada, and I'm as afraid of the police as I am of the criminals.

Ian, Ian.... Handguns in Canada fall under the Restricted classification not the Prohibited as long as the barrel lentgh is over 4", is semi auto and doesn't shoot .32 or .25 (the vast majority of handguns are).

There is the law, and then there is reality. Over the past 15 years I know of at least 4 occasions where the RCMP killed men who were supposedly already in lock up and only drunk and disorderly. There is the airport "incident" where 5 big cops held a mentally handicapped tourist down and tasored him to death. Then there is a case a single officer going onto a private citizens land and killing a father and son for setting off noise makers. I can go on, but you get the picture. I've lost all respect for the so called Canadian Justice System. It's there only to provide high paying jobs for lawyers and judges.

Getting a handgun legally in Canada is frigging near impossible and so time consuming that it's just not worth it. Even if you spend the time getting the license there is no way you are allowed to use it outside your home. You have to get a separate license to carry it to and from a gun range on specific dates. If you were caught doing a little plinking (shooting targets) out in the wilderness somewhere the gun will be confiscated and you will be charged.

Meanwhile, back on the ranch, any criminal over the age of 10 can get handguns and automatic weapons through the black market from the US of A.

"If guns were outlawed, than only outlaws would have guns." -- and therein lies the problem.

Outlaws look for easy victims. When the country you live in will not allow the average citizen to protect themselves with force equal to that as wielded by an "outlaw", you quickly will become a victim.

However, with that said, most people that I meet from 'British Commonwealth' countries are some of the most anti-gun individuals that I have ever met. So if the country they live in outlaw firearms in the hands of the 'law abiding' populace, it is simply the will of the people being expressed through the laws of their government. That is what the majority within the country want. I can respect that.

Me personally? I'd rather live in a country with gun policies like Switzerland.

My general observations are that [judging by the map/pic] the worst burners are northern Thailand and central and eastern Burma and the fires seem to go back and forth over the borders and with no borders on the map/pic, it's hard to tell who is the 'winner' of the burning fields contest.......I just know that we are the loosers.

I use this map , it shows the international borders.

Man! It looks like that locals have set the entire SE Asia on fire. No wonder the air quality sucks.

Burma seems to be working overtime to burn up their entire country. Holy Smokes!!!

I have a Honda wave 125I

It too came with very small tires that I felt were unstable for my size and weight as well as the type of driving I do.

you can up grade to 70/90 front and 80/90 back without changing the rims like the new Honda wave 110 has,

Or like me, I went with a 80/80 donlop T900 front and 90/80 back tire but had to use larger rims. in all about 5000 baht. but for my 100kph + riding, 8 hours at a time day after day it was well worth it

Just curious. At 100kph on those tires, how does the ride feel. Does is feel more stable. I probably ride at 85kph average, but will accelerate to 100 to 110 to get around traffic quickly. But I don't like riding that fast because I'm always thinking about the tires.