connda

Thought I'd do a poll to see who is offended by the use of inter-country nicknames. I personally have never consider any of these "nickname" to be offensive. At least none of my British, Canadian, or Australian friends have every batted an eyelash when I've called them Brits, Canucks, and Aussie respectively. And I've never been offended by anyone calling me a Yank.

But now we'll find out what our TV expat community thinks.

I've purposely limited this to Commonwealth and ex-Commonwealth countries. And of course, us ex-pat Farangs in Thailand.

Have fun!

We've sure wandered a long way off the topic of self defense within your home in Thailand. However, I always did enjoy that simple explanation for the rules of cricket.

You're still not going to stop crime wherever you choose to live. Having an expensive high life style in an area where poverty is rampant is a sure way to make yourself a target. As already pointed out on this topic there is a direct correlation between poverty and crime. Add guns into the mix and the crimes are likely to become more serious.

Nicely put!

You Brits

OI! Enough of the name-calling, let's keep the discussion civil.

Fly, mate. Fly.

I'll give you one scenario . . . let's just make this one up as it would never happen.

Location; a post-office.

Nah, too mundane. Umm, a school. A high school. Two kids come to school and kill 13 kids, wounding 23 others and then kill themselves . . . with baseball bats.

Nah . . with a knife.

Nah . . two knives

Nah . . . a fork (isn't that a favourite example of the pro-gun lobby?)

Two duvets and a eider down pillow?

"Brit" is a disparaging term? I use Brit to refer to all my British friends. Never had one tell me that was in insult. You crack me up dude! Ha ha ha! Your pulling my leg. That was good!

But anyway, what do you think about the study. Interesting stuff, huh? I need to take a look at the Thai homicide rates and see if they also correlate.

To all the posters, thank you for explaining the rather complicated and convoluted British system to me.

Next step is explaining the rules of cricket to you . . .

So what you're saying is that the US has a higher homicide rate because of guns? Yes? No?

Of course - and to dispute that would be to fly in the face of logic and reason.

It's time to fly in the face of logic.

Reseach by Daly, et.al, show a significant correlation between "income inequality" and homicide rates. (Daly, Martin; Wilson, Margo and Vasdev, Shawn. (2001) "Income Inequality and Homicide Rates in Canada and the United States" Canadian Journal of Criminology 43: pp.219-36)

This chart will not size correctly, but you can find image at http://www.equalityt...s/figure-1.png.

If you look at this graph you'll notice that the Canadian and American data points are grouped in a manner that show Canada with a lower homicide rate and America with a higher homicide rate. The X axis on this chart is income inequality within the general population. Canada has lower income inequality than American; Canada has a lower homicide rate than America.

You Brits have been postulating that the stats show that "guns" are the factor driving the higher homicide rates. This study indicates it is a totally unrelated set of factors.

Using the statistics published by your "Home Office", there is no significant decrease in the homicide rate as a result of banning guy ownership. It would be nice to have data points from the "Home Office" or another source from 1993 through to the present, but based on the one data point of 2002 = 1.05, the data looks uniform:1978 = 1.09; 1981 = 1.12; 1983 = 1.11. Guns were outlaws in 1997 and effectively did not alter the overall homicide rate.

So essentially homicides increase as income inequality increases. Take guns out of the equation and homicides stay uniform. This indicates that those people prone to violence change their weapons of choice to that which is readily available, then they continue killing. So instead of getting shot, you get bludgeoned to death or stabbed.

Taking guns away for the general populace simply disarms the "law abiding" citizens who may wish to protect themselves.

We'll probably see if this research is valid over the next 5 to 10 years. Income inequality seem to be accelerating world-wide. The rich get richer -- the middle class and lower class take the brunt of austerity. Crime accelerates. Will homicides?

^^

Yeah, what's up with cricket. All I know is there is a word "googly" in it. So a guy throws a ball at some sticks, and another guy tries to hit the ball with a bat before the ball hits the sticks? Is that how it works?

Well, you asked for it . . . but don't take the piss because baseball is a direct descendant of cricket, only boring as . . .

Positions

Rules, a very, very abridged version

+1

555

But the Thai Banks supported by the government will tell you there is no inflation:

All you "little people" out there -- there is no inflation. It's all in your mind. See! We have a paper issued by the government saying there is no inflation. It's all in your head "little people". And your empty stomach? That's all in your head too.

Of course there is no inflation. If there was - officially - the central bank issued debt would become unserviceable. As long as there is no inflation, the government keeps spending big, government officials rake their 10 to 30% off the top, banks win by "loaning" huge sums of money to the government, bank executive make obscene bonuses -- the average middle and lower class Thai get shafted.

Considering that the average bank exec, politician, and upper-level bureaucrat probably never sets foot in a market to buy food and everyday consumer goods, they can easily ignore the fact that many of these items have jumped 10, 20, 30 per cent or more in the last couple of years -- I've seen it and it affects me. I can only imagine how it is affecting someone making 8k to 15k baht per month.

So it will be a "big surprise" that "nobody could have seen coming" when the next influx of red shirted protesters surge into Bangkok and other cities complaining about income disparity and the inability to adequately care for their families. We might actually start seeing some "orange shirts" out there when the middle class break ranks and start dying there yellow shirts "red".

^^

Did you not read the other posts? This is the homicide rate with a firearm. This is not the OVERALL homicide rate; the British homicide rate has not changed at all after the banning on guns took effect. It is not possible to make a similar comparison in the United States because the United States has never in its history banned firearms.

I've got some interesting research to post this evening. Can't do it now, got to go work out.

Actually, I'll post this before I go workout. What's the significance of this chart? What does it mean?

Homicides -- Can - US1.bmp

To all the posters, thank you for explaining the rather complicated and convoluted British system to me.

Next step is explaining the rules of cricket to you . . .

So what you're saying is that the US has a higher homicide rate because of guns? Yes? No?

Of course - and to dispute that would be to fly in the face of logic and reason.

^^

Yeah, what's up with cricket. All I know is there is a word "googly" in it. So a guy throws a ball at some sticks, and another guy tries to hit the ball with a bat before the ball hits the sticks? Is that how it works?

And why does every BBC television show--with the possible exception of Top Gear and Dr. Who--suck?

These chaps brought us Monty Python too. They can't be all that bad

^^

Did you not read the other posts? This is the homicide rate with a firearm. This is not the OVERALL homicide rate; the British homicide rate has not changed at all after the banning on guns took effect. It is not possible to make a similar comparison in the United States because the United States has never in its history banned firearms.

I've got some interesting research to post this evening. Can't do it now, got to go work out.

I'm going to end it here considering the interesting people who are popping out of the woodwork.

Thanks to those of you who have offered positive suggestions and those of you that PMed me personally. I appreciate it.

And what about you, Buster?

Are you God's Gift to Women?

You come on like a blameless little Goody Two-Shoes.

You've had your Fifteen Minutes of Fame. Now give your wife a chance to defend herself. Let's hear her side of the story.

You wouldn't be the first self-righteous, mealy-mouthed, humourless slimebag to drive a woman into a state of terminal bitchiness.

Let your wife post a response and bring this farang-Thai soap opera to a timely end.

Sorry you didn't take your meds today.

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.

Please wake up you are married to a Thai who you give money too sorry. She if you can stop giving money to her

I think you are troll or afraid to get moving

Be happy

What? If my wife was a pasty white women this would be different? Like Western women don't marry for money (security)? That's a pretty narrow viewpoint -- and a rather ugly bias.

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.

So what you're saying is that the US has a higher homicide rate because of guns? Yes? No?

Thai Parent: "Nong! Get off the computer and do your chores!"

Thai Teenager: "Mae! I'm finished with my homework. Are there any chores that need to be done?"

I don't know what part of thailand you live in but Thais actually read quite a lot, bookshops are actually doing very good with Thai language books. so of course they may not read nietzche or kilkegaarde because its not in they scholar cursus at the contrary of european countries ( or truman Capote and John Fante for the american cursus) ... but they do have good authors like Piram Suda for instance who was nominated for the nobel prize of literature few years back...

Pile of rubbish all round, very very few Thais read extensively, I'd say less than 1% read by choice more than ten hours per year. Many farang don't read much either, especially in recent generations, but I don't know anyone back home who doesn't read at least a few books per year - that's real books, hundreds of pages of just words, not comic books or glossy magazines.

Over the years I've accumulated about half a shipping container's worth of books, and hope to one day open a second-hand book/coffeeshop. Most Thais when encountering my collection will ask something along the lines of "I can help you get rid of those", and I found out they mean sell them to the scrap recycler for pulping by the kg!

Regarding Pira, the Nobel Committee does not publicize the identities of any nominees for a period of fifty years after voting. There is no way to know who was nominated for a given Nobel Prize, and just because someone in a position of sufficient prestige in Thailand nominated him doesn't mean he's all that great.

OK for entertainment and learning about what the culture of Isaan used to be like, but not world-class from a literary POV.

I don't wish this to be deemed critical but in nearly eight years i don't remember ever seeing a thai read a book.

Just an observation so please don't bother to flame!

Just go to a bookstore. There are loads of Thais in the comics and sappy romance sections. Older folk in the Thai equivalent to the X-file section and horoscopes, Tarot, palm reading, and other sort of divination to assess one's luck. A few brainy types in the Computer section. Everyone else in the magazine section.

I don't mind having a rational civilized discussion on the subject.

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).

What I am saying is that the homicide rate does not correlate to gun ownership.

If guns are outlawed, people will commit homicide with alternative weapons.

This is a compilation of English "home office" (whatever that means) statistics on homocide:

http://scienceblogs....ional-00028.php

the statistics are as follows:

1978 1.09

1979 1.28

1980 1.26

1981 1.12

1982 1.25

1983 1.11

1984 1.24

1985 1.25

1986 1.33

1987 1.37

1988 1.29

1989 1.25

1990 1.32

1991 1.42

1992 1.37

1993 1.31

In 1997, guns were outlawed in Britain (and frankly I don't know the difference between Britain, Great Britain, and the U.K.)

Per your statistics

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.

So how did the banning of guns affect anything? Before the ban on gun ownership the homicide rate was 1.3 per 100k, now it's about 1.1 per 100k. The overall homicide remained essentially unchanged.

The following is the homicide for Switzerland from 2000 to 2011:

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Switzerland 0.96 1.19 1.19 1.00 1.07 1.01 0.80 0.68 0.71 0.66 0.66

In Switzerland every single male is legally required to maintain at his home a fire arm to age 30 (or age 34 in the case of officers) in order to serve in the national militia.

Switzerland's homicide rates are lower than U.K./Britain/England (whatever it is you folks call it---that island in the Atlantic).

My point is: gun ownership has nothing to do with homicide rates, and by banning guns people will only switch to killing with something else.

Furthermore, while you may say that the U.S.'s homicides are 4 times of "Britania", the U.S.'s homocide rates are still relative low compared to other countries:

U.S. homicide rate is 4.8 per 100k, that's still relatively low:

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Interesting figures but you've essentially ignored my point, which was that armed police officers are not necessarily a good thing.

I'd also like to to add, that you seem to be implying that prior to the 1997 Firearms Act, the laws concerning gun ownership in the UK and the USA were similar, which as I am sure you already know they were not. If you want to have a rational discussion then please don't bend the facts to suit your agenda. If you are truly interested in the effects of gun control laws on homicide rates with guns, you need to take into account the 1920, 1937 and 1968 Firearm Acts as well as various other pieces of legislation.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong but you are definitely not looking at the subject objectively.

(Your pithy little comments regarding the various administrative areas that make up the United Kingdom and apparent pride in not knowing what the Home Office and the UK actually are, make you sound more like an ignoramus than somebody who is genuinely interested in having a "civilised" discussion on the subject by the way.)

I consider submaniac's stats to be a valid, alternate viewpoint -- and an interesting counter-point to your own. And I don't see anything in his posts that personally attacks the credibility of any other poster -- unlike your referral that he may be an ignoramus. So when you don't agree with someone, you revert to name-calling? That's pretty sad.

^^

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."