Living in a quiet Issan village.

[malagateddy]

Thailand's not so bad lads..guns..how many in the UK in hands of organised crime..PLENTY..ditto stabbings..muggings..house breaking..car theft..and of course drugs...etc etc.
Parts of many UK cities and towns are " wasted" due to crime

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[The manic]

Just now, smotherb said:

Try reading the stats; and realizing how many guns there are. Sure accidents happen, but few accidents occur with experienced gun users. I have often lived in areas where you needed a gun and I left when I wanted to.

 

 

Trying reading the stats and not the ideological commitment to guns. I reiterate: if you live in a neighbourhood anywhere in the world where you feel you need a gun its not life it's fear and paranoia...just not civilised. BTW. I like guns and shoot on a regular basis.

[The manic]

Just now, malagateddy said:

Thailand's not so bad lads..guns..how many in the UK in hands of organised crime..PLENTY..ditto stabbings..muggings..house breaking..car theft..and of course drugs...etc etc.
Parts of many UK cities and towns are " wasted" due to crime

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

You forgot hammers, acid and mopeds..all used as weapons but no high school hammer massacres. Gun crime, especially mass shooting became virtually non existent in Australia once possession was made illegal.

[Wang Lalker]

10 hours ago, smotherb said:

No, the sun does not shine every day and it does get hot and windy. However, you are right, there are no soi dogs and there are too many beautiful girls.

ok i admit it, i attract bad news from far and wide. nothing else has changed about the place except i am now there so therefore the place i am in just has to be the best place on the planet to be. all the bad news see this and moves in for the duration . being a hansum charismatic foreigner does have its drawbacks, perhaps you not being likewise endowed can give some tips?

[grkt]

18 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

My pickup is 17 years old, my wifes car is 27 years old. I figure if anybody came to rob us they would probably leave money behind to help us out.

 

And how old is your wife ?

 

?

 

 

[NetJunkie]

10 hours ago, The manic said:

You forgot hammers, acid and mopeds..all used as weapons but no high school hammer massacres. Gun crime, especially mass shooting became virtually non existent in Australia once possession was made illegal.

 

Gun possession has nothing to do with mass shootings, there is far far more to it than that. Try reading this article on Switzerland.

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2

[mogandave]

I had a 22 rifle when I was 13-14 years old, as did most of the kids I knew.


I don’t think it’s the guns, I think it is a fundamental breakdown in respect for authority and personal responsibility.

I looked at the Australia stats a few years back and it looked like the big reduction in gun deaths came from suicides.

It is amusing the same people that want to take away guns are promoting doctor assisted suicides.

[Blue Muton]

23 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

It’s much worse in Bangkok, here they FEED the dogs and EAT the pigs!!!

 

That's nothing, I've heard that in Pattaya they cattle truck both dogs and pigs quite regularly.

[lvr181]

36 minutes ago, mogandave said:

I don’t think it’s the guns, I think it is a fundamental breakdown in respect for authority and personal responsibility.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[wildewillie89]

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. 

[wildewillie89]

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. 

[billd766]

5 hours ago, grkt said:

 

And how old is your wife ?

 

?

 

 

 

53 if you really want to know.

 

I have known her 25 years, been married 18 of them and we have a son who will be 14 in 6 weeks time.

 

Enough information for you?

5 hours ago, mogandave said:

I had a 22 rifle when I was 13-14 years old, as did most of the kids I knew.


I don’t think it’s the guns, I think it is a fundamental breakdown in respect for authority and personal responsibility.

I looked at the Australia stats a few years back and it looked like the big reduction in gun deaths came from suicides.

It is amusing the same people that want to take away guns are promoting doctor assisted suicides.

 

Why is it "amusing the same people that want to take away guns are promoting doctor assisted suicides"? They only want to kill themselves and nobody else.

 

The law should be changed to permit that.

 

It is MY life and not that of a doctor or a court to keep me alive against my will.

[BritManToo]

30 minutes ago, wildewillie89 said:

If I could reach for a gun in seconds then so could children.

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.

[billd766]

31 minutes ago, wildewillie89 said:

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. 

 

Thank you for a common sense logical answer.

 

IMHO if you really and truly need to have a gun to protect yourself you are probably living in the wrong place at the wrong time and should seriously consider moving some where safer.

 

TBH I feel much safer living in rural Thailand than I would if I lived in the UK.

 

From what I read in the local paper back in the UK elderly and disabled people are prime targets for assault, robbery, home invasions etc.

[billd766]

6 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.

 

That is assuming you can firstly get a permit to buy a gun and secondly get another permit to carry it outside the house.

 

I think if you carried it openly on the streets of any big city the cops would be on you quicker than flies on a turd, and you may end up wounded or dead along with innocent bystanders.

 

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

[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.

[wildewillie89]

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.

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

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

My Thai mates carry theirs in those belly bags slung over their shoulder.

That's what they're for.

 

I don't carry in Thailand but I did for several years back home, shoulder holster with jacket over the top.

[bkk6060]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

My Thai mates carry theirs in those belly bags slung over their shoulder.

That's what they're for.

 

I don't carry in Thailand but I did for several years back home, shoulder holster with jacket over the top.

I wasn't going to say anything, but if some wonder why they carry those bags......

[mogandave]

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.

Yes, people with stupid children, particularly stupid children they are unable to control should not have loaded guns laying around.

[soalbundy]

5 hours ago, wildewillie89 said:

I think that would be quite illegal here.

especially for a foreigner, you are a threat to national security, they don't take kindly to it.

[mogandave]

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. 

Guns have been kept safely in homes with children for well over a hundred years.

[soalbundy]

8 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Guns have been kept safely in homes with children for well over a hundred years.

 

 

apart from the odd accident one reads about.

[mogandave]

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. 

There are fools that argue seatbelts kill people, which is true. There are people that get stuck in the vehicle because of the seatbelt and drown or burn to death.

There are also fools that argue helmets kill people, which again is true, because a few people get there necks broken with the strap.

I assume everyone not a fool understands there is an upside and a downside to everything.

As was previously mentioned, London surpassed New York in murder rates for a least a few months. They London murders are by stabbing, and the same people that were going to stop murder by banning guns, are now looking at regulating knives.

Guns and knives are not the problem.

[soalbundy]

6 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

There are fools that argue seatbelts kill people, which is true. There are people that get stuck in the vehicle because of the seatbelt and drown or burn to death.

There are also fools that argue helmets kill people, which again is true, because a few people get there necks broken with the strap.

I assume everyone not a fool understands there is an upside and a downside to everything.

As was previously mentioned, London surpassed New York in murder rates for a least a few months. They London murders are by stabbing, and the same people that were going to stop murder by banning guns, are now looking at regulating knives.

Guns and knives are not the problem.

 

Modern life with all its stress isn't as good as it's made out to be, stressed out children and adults who can't take it anymore, I prefer a low tech country life. 

[mogandave]

apart from the odd accident one reads about.

A lot more kids are poisoned than shot.

More kids drown in the US than are killed in gun accidents, and there are a lot more guns than pools...

Like I say, people with stupid children should not have guns in the home. They should also get rid of poisons and fill in the pool.

[StreetCowboy]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Guns have been kept safely in homes with children for well over a hundred years.

 

 

No they haven’t.  More Americans are killed by armed toddlers than by Islamic terrorists

[StreetCowboy]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

There are fools that argue seatbelts kill people, which is true. There are people that get stuck in the vehicle because of the seatbelt and drown or burn to death.

There are also fools that argue helmets kill people, which again is true, because a few people get there necks broken with the strap.

I assume everyone not a fool understands there is an upside and a downside to everything.

As was previously mentioned, London surpassed New York in murder rates for a least a few months. They London murders are by stabbing, and the same people that were going to stop murder by banning guns, are now looking at regulating knives.

Guns and knives are not the problem.

 

Yes they are.  

[smotherb]

23 hours ago, The manic said:

Trying reading the stats and not the ideological commitment to guns. I reiterate: if you live in a neighbourhood anywhere in the world where you feel you need a gun its not life it's fear and paranoia...just not civilised. BTW. I like guns and shoot on a regular basis.

From your antiquated spelling, I suspect you are from a nanny state which took away your guns. So,  I will just consider those statements as your opinion and nothing more. However, for you to think I only read drivel from sources with an ideological commitment to guns shows your lack. Try to think objectively for just a minute. How do gun accidents happen? A large part are from people playing with guns which were not thought to be loaded or firing a gun in close proximity to others and not realizing people were about. Anyone with thorough gun familiarity and proper gun safety training would not assume either situation. 

[chickenslegs]

33 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

No they haven’t.  More Americans are killed by armed toddlers than by Islamic terrorists

God help us if the Islamic terrorists start arming their toddlers.