5 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Maybe just use common sense and NOT go to those places???

You mean the downtown areas where much shopping and paperwork is done? Also some areas where friends live.

14 hours ago, Yagoda said:

The Supreme Court disagrees. Thats their job, they know more than you, so you lose.

You think the Clarence Thomas, Epstein sponsored yacht trips so ol boy didn't have to see his fat wife was the first time the supreme court was compromised? Smith and Wesson probably sponsored a massive party, vote our way.

11 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Yeah I have been studying the gun world myself after years away. No sense having 10 P 08s in a safe while living in Thailand, better to sell them and use the cash. Prices are stupid these days.

I wont get back into all sorts of toys, just a basic kit: Seecamp for back pocket, a 1911 or two, 357 or 44 revolver depending on where I end up, Colt M4, good bolt gun. My last two hunting guns were a Winchester 54 and a Sako AV, Id probably just get similar.

Oh and a .22 4 inch S&W 18

11 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Yeah I have been studying the gun world myself after years away. No sense having 10 P 08s in a safe while living in Thailand, better to sell them and use the cash. Prices are stupid these days.

I wont get back into all sorts of toys, just a basic kit: Seecamp for back pocket, a 1911 or two, 357 or 44 revolver depending on where I end up, Colt M4, good bolt gun. My last two hunting guns were a Winchester 54 and a Sako AV, Id probably just get similar.

Oh and a .22 4 incu

14 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Yeah I have been studying the gun world myself after years away. No sense having 10 P 08s in a safe while living in Thailand, better to sell them and use the cash. Prices are stupid these days.

I wont get back into all sorts of toys, just a basic kit: Seecamp for back pocket, a 1911 or two, 357 or 44 revolver depending on where I end up, Colt M4, good bolt gun. My last two hunting guns were a Winchester 54 and a Sako AV, Id probably just get similar.

Oh and a .22 4 inch S&W 18

You forgot the Derringer !

On 6/3/2026 at 3:46 PM, richard_smith237 said:

• The Second Amendment was written in 1791 for a world of muskets, not modern semi-automatic firearms.

• The claim that "more guns make us safer" is not supported by international evidence.

• The United States has one of the highest levels of civilian gun ownership in the world and also suffers far higher rates of gun deaths than most developed nations.

• Countries with strict gun laws such as Japan, the UK, Australia and Singapore have dramatically lower rates of gun homicide and mass shootings.

• Australia tightened gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre. Mass shootings virtually disappeared for decades and gun deaths fell significantly.

• If "only criminals would have guns" were true, countries with strict gun laws should be drowning in armed crime. They are not.

• Criminals obtain guns more easily when guns are widespread throughout society. Reducing supply makes illegal access harder.

• The existence of a luxury Colt pistol celebrating Jesús Malverde, a figure closely linked to narco culture, undermines the idea that the firearms industry is purely about self-defence and public safety (which is implied in your comments).

• Gun manufacturers profit from selling more guns. Public safety is not their primary business model.

• The United States has more civilian-owned guns than people. If widespread gun ownership created safety, America should be one of the safest countries on Earth. It isn't.

• The evidence from other developed countries is simple: fewer guns generally means fewer gun deaths.

Hard to disagree with anything you said, even though as an old Texas boy and gun-lover I'd be inclined to pack a popgun, were I back in exciting Norteamerica. At the University of Texas I owned a handsome 1911, although I never saw any need to carry it to class - a rash decision perhaps in view of the 1966 Texas Tower sniper affair.

My first time to visit LoS was in 1968, after spending years in Japan, as I was invited down by a Thai architect former boyfriend who had graduated from U.T. with an M.A. around the same time I did.

In my quest to tune into the mood of the country, I tried to put my finger on the discreet, smiling, non-confrontational atmosphere of Bangkok, as I felt it was somehow familiar. Then it hit me: this is just like Texas, where you speak softly to strangers, avoid getting in their face and keep your cool: you assume that anyone you meet might well be packing a heater, and behave accordingly. Yell at the wrong driver or bump into someone hard on a sidewalk and they'll have you looking down a barrel.

In Bangkok it was street-food sellers, motorcycle taxi drivers, even neighbors: how often did I have someone offer to sell me a handgun, a temptation I stoutly resisted as I suspected that a foreigner caught shooting a local, even in self-defense, would have no defense.

There was a really fancy, cool gun retailer I used to pass, with all sorts of expensive firearms arrayed like fashion accessories, where a mean-looking tough would be loitering about the doorway: the bouncer, obviously. Amusingly, the shop was just a few steps away from a prison.

Riding in a smart new sedan through Bangkok, with an elegant middle-aged woman, an executive in a multinational corporation: she reaches for a tissue and knocks the box onto the floor, revealing a pearl-handled snub-nosed .38. "Lūk n̂xy k̄hxng c̄hạn" (ลูกน้อยของฉัน) she giggles. "My little baby".

Yep: a lot like Texas.

9 hours ago, Priorexpat said:

You think the Clarence Thomas, Epstein sponsored yacht trips so ol boy didn't have to see his fat wife was the first time the supreme court was compromised? Smith and Wesson probably sponsored a massive party, vote our way.

So you are alleging that the Supreme Court was bribed by gun manufacturers for the ruling. Got it

Welcome new member 5555555555555555

9 hours ago, Jim Blue said:

You forgot the Derringer !

Toy. No toys. NO TOYS! No FNs, Daewoos, Blaser Double rifles, Swede 1894 Carbines, SIG AMTs, SIG 210s, K-38s, K-22s, Lahtis, Llungmans, Tommy Guns, M1s, M2s, MG34, MG42, Springfields, Winchester 73, 86, 92, 94, 95; Galilis Uzis, Mausers, SMLEs from 4 countries, Colt SAAs and of course

Mauser Lugers, Krieghoff Lugers, Simpson Lugers, Erfurt Lugers, Black Widow Lugers, Russian Capture Lugers, Dutch Lugers, Swiss Lugers, 1920 Rework Lugers, Artillery Lugers, Interarms Mauser Lugers......

But i did leave off the toy list Browning High Powers.

ProTip: Milspec ball only in Lugers

Edited June 5Jun 5 by Yagoda

9 hours ago, Priorexpat said:

You think the Clarence Thomas, Epstein sponsored yacht trips so ol boy didn't have to see his fat wife was the first time the supreme court was compromised? Smith and Wesson probably sponsored a massive party, vote our way.

I have a put you in the category of a low information leftie.

15 minutes ago, TedG said:

I have a put you in the category of a low information leftie.

He writes like Tug LOL

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2026/06/04/gun_safety_violent_crime_drops_as_more_americans_pack_heat_1186651.html

"After the Supreme Court struck down a New York state law in 2022 which had sharply limited the number of people who could carry concealed weapons, six states, including California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, were forced to make it easier to get a concealed handgun permit by eliminating arbitrary discretion and establishing objective rules on training and other qualifications. “This dangerous decision will make America a less safe country,” Democratic New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy warned. Those states did, indeed, see an enormous increase in the number of permits issued. In New Jersey, the number of concealed carry permit holders increased from 1,212 in 2022 to 57,245 in 2025. In Hawaii, the total has now gone from zero to 4,000.

Violent crime, however, has fallen in all six states."

3 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Toy. No toys. NO TOYS! No FNs, Daewoos, Blaser Double rifles, Swede 1894 Carbines, SIG AMTs, SIG 210s, K-38s, K-22s, Lahtis, Llungmans, Tommy Guns, M1s, M2s, MG34, MG42, Springfields, Winchester 73, 86, 92, 94, 95; Galilis Uzis, Mausers, SMLEs from 4 countries, Colt SAAs and of course

Mauser Lugers, Krieghoff Lugers, Simpson Lugers, Erfurt Lugers, Black Widow Lugers, Russian Capture Lugers, Dutch Lugers, Swiss Lugers, 1920 Rework Lugers, Artillery Lugers, Interarms Mauser Lugers......

But i did leave off the toy list Browning High Powers.

ProTip: Milspec ball only in Lugers

Thanks Yagoda ...I had forgoten one or two

on that list !!!

1 minute ago, Jim Blue said:

Thanks Yagoda ...I had forgoten one or two

on that list !!!

Want more? Boom heres more off the top of my head, its like collecting stamps or clocks, recognize any names LOL

S&W Schofield, Lemon Squeezer, Combat Masterpiece, M&P, 1917, Model 27, 28, 29, Aircrewman; P-38s marked byf or cyq, Colt Lightning, Colt Official Police, Colt Detective Special, Colt Cobra, Colt Boa (one just sold for like 25K), Valmet 76, Russian SKS, Swede M41B, AWP 308, Drillings, doubles, sidelocks, boxlocks, blowback locking lug barrel bushing Petter system trunion FNC, FN CAL, FN 5.7, Tradewinds Husky, Golden State Arms, Numrich Arms, Bannermans, Interams, Sarco, M1917, LW Seecamp, Austin Behlert, Wayne Novak, Bill Wilson, Mitch Wer-Bel, Fleming....

On 6/4/2026 at 5:59 PM, Yellowtail said:

People that do not like guns just want to take them away from people that do like guns.

Four times as many alcohol related deaths as firearm related deaths.

60% of all reported incidence of domestic violence are alcohol related.

75% of all reported incidence of rape are alcohol related.

35% of gun suicides are alcohol related.

30% of gun homicides are alcohol related.

I don't drink, let's get rid of the booze.

Your repetitive false equivalence is tedious, and profoundly unintelligent - you again make a very strong argument that people such as yourself should not be permitted anywhere near a gun !!!

"Alcohol kills more people than guns" is not an argument in favour of guns. It's an argument that alcohol causes harm.

By that logic, no problem can ever be addressed unless it is the single biggest problem in society. It's an astonishingly weak line of reasoning.

The question isn't whether alcohol causes harm. It clearly does.

The question is why, among comparable developed nations, the United States experiences dramatically higher firearm death rates than its peers. Pointing at alcohol doesn't answer that question. It's just an attempt to change the subject.

And "people who don't like guns want to take them away from people who do" is equally lazy. I don't particularly like nuclear waste, asbestos or lead in drinking water either. Public policy isn't determined by whether people "like" something. It's determined by weighing benefits against costs.

The fact remains that there is no way to polish the US firearm mortality statistics. They are objectively terrible by developed-world standards.

On 6/3/2026 at 3:17 PM, unblocktheplanet said:

If guns were outlawed, only criminals would have guns.

“If guns were outlawed, some criminals would still have guns—but overall access to guns might decrease, along with some forms of violence.”

Nuance WHOOSH over your head

Conservatives don't understand nuance.

Your value system only understands brute force, money and power.

Your POV isn't encumbered with the complex facts, which are often messy.

Simple Minds Need Simple Slogans®

See? I just invented a slogan for your ilk

On 6/4/2026 at 7:05 PM, novacova said:

And ~40000 traffic deaths every year and ~700000 deaths every year from diet related diseases and illnesses, all preventable for the most part without infringing on anybody’s birthright. So why not first put up a fuss about those two issues? This is just a subject that gets inflamed by the media hysterics. And it would probably be a good idea to let law enforcement do their job in the blue communities.

The existence of other preventable causes of death isn't an argument against reducing gun deaths. By that logic, we shouldn't fund cancer research because heart disease exists, or improve road safety because cancer exists. Society is perfectly capable of tackling multiple causes of preventable death at the same time.

The US sees around 3.1 million deaths per year. Millions die from heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's, accidents, and other causes. Enormous resources are already invested into reducing those deaths through medical research, public health campaigns, food safety regulations, seatbelt laws, vehicle safety standards, drunk driving enforcement, and countless other initiatives.

The difference is that cars, food, and medicine all serve essential purposes. Cars are a necessary part of modern life and we continuously work to make them safer. Food is necessary for survival and there is ongoing debate and regulation around improving the food industry. Diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's are the subject of massive research efforts because nobody wants people dying from them.

Guns are different. A gun's primary purpose is to injure, disable, or kill. That's literally what it was designed to do. It doesn't take decades of medical research to understand how to reduce gun deaths. The solutions may be politically controversial, but the principle isn't complicated.

Pointing to the 700,000 annual deaths from diet-related illness or 40,000 traffic deaths doesn't make gun deaths less real. Every avoidable death deserves attention. We should improve road safety, fund cancer research, tackle obesity, fight Alzheimer's, and reduce gun violence. These goals are not mutually exclusive.

"Other people die from other things" has never been a convincing reason to ignore a preventable cause of death.

On 6/3/2026 at 4:40 PM, LosLobo said:

Guns have been the leading cause of death among younger Americans (aged 1–19) since 2020, according to CDC data.

In most other countries, the leading cause is motor vehicle accidents, reflecting how cars have become a necessary part of modern life.

Guns are not, except perhaps for those who feel they need to use them to compensate for insecurity or perceived inadequacy.

Guns are necessary when you need one to degend yurself or your family which heaven forbid should never happen to us, but it does happen to people.

11 minutes ago, NewGuy87 said:

Guns are necessary when you need one to degend yurself or your family which heaven forbid should never happen to us, but it does happen to people.

This is the part of the argument I've never fully understood.

People in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, Germany, France, and dozens of other developed countries generally don't feel the need to carry firearms or keep handguns ready to defend their families. Yet somehow millions of families live perfectly normal, safe lives.

What exactly is the threat you're preparing for?

A home invasion? An armed kidnapping? A violent burglary? These things do happen, but they are statistically rare events for most people. If you genuinely believe there's a significant chance you'll need to engage in a gunfight to save your family, then you're effectively describing a society so dangerous that armed guards, panic rooms, and security compounds would be rational precautions too.

That's what strikes many outsiders as odd. The mindset seems to assume that at any moment a criminal could burst through the door, point a gun at your spouse or children, and you'll need to draw and fire within seconds. That sounds less like normal life and more like a scene from The Purge.

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Your repetitive false equivalence is tedious, and profoundly unintelligent - you again make a very strong argument that people such as yourself should not be permitted anywhere near a gun !!!

"Alcohol kills more people than guns" is not an argument in favour of guns. It's an argument that alcohol causes harm.

By that logic, no problem can ever be addressed unless it is the single biggest problem in society. It's an astonishingly weak line of reasoning.

The question isn't whether alcohol causes harm. It clearly does.

The question is why, among comparable developed nations, the United States experiences dramatically higher firearm death rates than its peers. Pointing at alcohol doesn't answer that question. It's just an attempt to change the subject.

And "people who don't like guns want to take them away from people who do" is equally lazy. I don't particularly like nuclear waste, asbestos or lead in drinking water either. Public policy isn't determined by whether people "like" something. It's determined by weighing benefits against costs.

The fact remains that there is no way to polish the US firearm mortality statistics. They are objectively terrible by developed-world standards.

Calling me stupid is a really effective argument. I'll have to write that down.

Your argument that Europeans do not like guns and voted to have them taken away is another great argument as well.

You guys are voting to have your free speech rights taken away as well, yes? The left wants to take our free speech rights away as well. For the greater good don't 'cha know.

In the US, a lot of people like guns, and a lot of people do not like guns. If the number of people than do not like guns significantly outnumber the people that do like guns, then they can amend the second amendment and take the guns away. It is really quite simple.

Every right Americans enjoy has some number of people that are against it.

Virtually every person murdered with an assault rifle is reported in the New York Times. You know what the New York Times does not report? the 30-50 times as many people murdered with handguns, why? Because nutters with AR-15s are generally white, while criminals using handguns generally are not.

You know what else the New York Times will not report on? The number of people who protect themselves with guns every day.

Why it no one howling to prosecute existing gun laws, and or beef up penalties for gun laws already on the books? It is easy to make laws, it is difficult to enforce laws. When someone violates their parole or probation by being in possession of a firearm they are often not sent to prison, or back to prison.

The federal government cannot keep drugs off the street, out of the schools, or even out of the prisons. They cannot enforce existing gun laws, but we are to believe that they will find ferret out and eliminate all guns.

Banning guns will get guns out of most law-abiding citizens, but it will do little to take guns from criminals. If guns are outlawed, gun deaths would no doubt go down, just as if alcohol were criminalized, alcohol related deaths would go down. But it not without cost.

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

This is the part of the argument I've never fully understood.

People in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, Germany, France, and dozens of other developed countries generally don't feel the need to carry firearms or keep handguns ready to defend their families. Yet somehow millions of families live perfectly normal, safe lives.

What exactly is the threat you're preparing for?

A home invasion? An armed kidnapping? A violent burglary? These things do happen, but they are statistically rare events for most people. If you genuinely believe there's a significant chance you'll need to engage in a gunfight to save your family, then you're effectively describing a society so dangerous that armed guards, panic rooms, and security compounds would be rational precautions too.

That's what strikes many outsiders as odd. The mindset seems to assume that at any moment a criminal could burst through the door, point a gun at your spouse or children, and you'll need to draw and fire within seconds. That sounds less like normal life and more like a scene from The Purge.

Why should guns be taken away from people that like guns?

Reducing the speed limit to 30 MPH would save as many lives as people murdered with firearms.

24 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The existence of other preventable causes of death isn't an argument against reducing gun deaths. By that logic, we shouldn't fund cancer research because heart disease exists, or improve road safety because cancer exists. Society is perfectly capable of tackling multiple causes of preventable death at the same time.

The US sees around 3.1 million deaths per year. Millions die from heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's, accidents, and other causes. Enormous resources are already invested into reducing those deaths through medical research, public health campaigns, food safety regulations, seatbelt laws, vehicle safety standards, drunk driving enforcement, and countless other initiatives.

The difference is that cars, food, and medicine all serve essential purposes. Cars are a necessary part of modern life and we continuously work to make them safer. Food is necessary for survival and there is ongoing debate and regulation around improving the food industry. Diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's are the subject of massive research efforts because nobody wants people dying from them.

Guns are different. A gun's primary purpose is to injure, disable, or kill. That's literally what it was designed to do. It doesn't take decades of medical research to understand how to reduce gun deaths. The solutions may be politically controversial, but the principle isn't complicated.

Pointing to the 700,000 annual deaths from diet-related illness or 40,000 traffic deaths doesn't make gun deaths less real. Every avoidable death deserves attention. We should improve road safety, fund cancer research, tackle obesity, fight Alzheimer's, and reduce gun violence. These goals are not mutually exclusive.

"Other people die from other things" has never been a convincing reason to ignore a preventable cause of death.

I mentioned a few times the necessary steps the US can take to at least reduce gun deaths from criminals, and they should be implemented immediately as one death of an innocent is too many. What else can be done that is logical?

Armed guards will stop many, especially in schools, along with metal detectors and doors locked from the inside besides those guarded.

Mandatory gun safes will save lives in owners homes, where a young child not yet educated on guns might have access.

No straw sales, and only sales from licensed dealers, whether at stores or gun shows, with the background check, can prevent some from handing the guns over to a criminal, and if they do, held responsible for any crimes committed by them.

No sales under age 21, all guns and not only handguns, letting those wanting to purchase a gun grow up 3 more years.

No magazines over 5 rounds in all semi autos.

A mandatory psychological before gun sales, which can help with some who aren't wrapped too tight.

Guns primary purpose is to kill yes, but most of that done in the US is animals hunting. Target shooting is fun and doesn't hurt anyone, and self defense use can save lives where they might have been lost to a criminal with a gun, who will always have them no matter what happens. Americans will never give up their guns, but there is a definite problem that needs to be curtailed , immediately.

The obvious answer is to require all citizens to be armed with open carry 24/7.

2 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

I mentioned a few times the necessary steps the US can take to at least reduce gun deaths from criminals, and they should be implemented immediately as one death of an innocent is too many. What else can be done that is logical?

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Why should guns be taken away from people that like guns?

Because, unlike most consumer products, their primary purpose is to injure, incapacitate or kill. That's literally what they were designed to do.

"I like them" may be an honest argument, but it's not a particularly strong one when discussing public policy.

The fact that people enjoy something does not automatically outweigh the risks and costs associated with making it widely available. That's especially true when the object in question was designed from the outset to project lethal force.

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Reducing the speed limit to 30 MPH would save as many lives as people murdered with firearms.

You really don't understand the concept of false equivalence, do you?

Cars are heavily regulated because they save lives and serve an essential transport function. We accept licensing, registration, insurance, speed limits and safety standards because they reduce harm.

So comparing gun regulation to speed limits isn't an argument against regulation. It's an argument for it.

If you want to compare cars and guns, at least use an equivalent comparison.

A car's primary purpose is transportation. A gun's primary purpose is to project lethal force.

The equivalent isn't an ordinary car being driven normally. It's a car being driven at 100 mph through a city centre, or 60 mph through a crowded shopping mall. In that scenario, the car is no longer being used as transport - it's being used as a weapon.

That's the false equivalence that gun advocates and you continually miss. One object is designed primarily to move people around. The other is designed primarily to injure, incapacitate or kill.

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

The obvious answer is to require all citizens to be armed with open carry 24/7.

No, the obvious answer is not to turn every shopping centre, school, restaurant and petrol station into an armed camp.

A far more sensible approach would be to restrict civilian ownership to firearms with clear and legitimate purposes such as hunting, farming, pest control and organised sport shooting.

People don't routinely walk around carrying bows, crossbows, spearguns or hunting rifles because those tools have specific purposes. Yet somehow we've normalised civilians carrying handguns in supermarkets and keeping AR-15s in their vehicles.

The burden should be on demonstrating a genuine civilian need, not inventing increasingly far-fetched scenarios to justify carrying lethal weapons everywhere.

A society where everyone is armed 24/7 is not the solution. It's an admission that the problem has already won.

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

No, the obvious answer is not to turn every shopping centre, school, restaurant and petrol station into an armed camp.

A far more sensible approach would be to restrict civilian ownership to firearms with clear and legitimate purposes such as hunting, farming, pest control and organised sport shooting.

People don't routinely walk around carrying bows, crossbows, spearguns or hunting rifles because those tools have specific purposes. Yet somehow we've normalised civilians carrying handguns in supermarkets and keeping AR-15s in their vehicles.

The burden should be on demonstrating a genuine civilian need, not inventing increasingly far-fetched scenarios to justify carrying lethal weapons everywhere.

A society where everyone is armed 24/7 is not the solution. It's an admission that the problem has already won.

I'm old and frail, for me to have a chance in any combat situation, I'll be needing a gun.

I'd be more than happy to walk around with an AR-15 slung over my shoulder.

Edited June 8Jun 8 by BritManToo

Don't take guns away then we can see this every week.

14 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

This is the part of the argument I've never fully understood.

People in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, Germany, France, and dozens of other developed countries generally don't feel the need to carry firearms or keep handguns ready to defend their families. Yet somehow millions of families live perfectly normal, safe lives.

What exactly is the threat you're preparing for?

A home invasion? An armed kidnapping? A violent burglary? These things do happen, but they are statistically rare events for most people. If you genuinely believe there's a significant chance you'll need to engage in a gunfight to save your family, then you're effectively describing a society so dangerous that armed guards, panic rooms, and security compounds would be rational precautions too.

That's what strikes many outsiders as odd. The mindset seems to assume that at any moment a criminal could burst through the door, point a gun at your spouse or children, and you'll need to draw and fire within seconds. That sounds less like normal life and more like a scene from The Purge.

Over a million yearly each year in the US, many armed with guns, knives or pipes. A gun is the best defense against these, especially for a trained user woman.

It's not the society that's dangerous by any means but there is a criminal element in all countries, and the US has quite a few. Japan has only about 18,000 home invasions yearly, although it's a much smaller country. The UK about 200,000, France 217,000, Australia 200,000, New Zealand very small has about 60,000, Germany 75,000, and Singapore less than 200. No guns allowed and still they have trouble. The UK does have over 50,000 knife attacks yearly, no guns, so no chance of stopping those from happening. The US is comprised of people from all countries, all who could own guns with a green card.

Most US citizens will never see a gun crime, let alone be invaded, but when it does happen, a gun could mean the difference in going to a funeral for a family member, and eliminating a criminal that has no business entering your home.

if I could own a gun here I would, as many gun crimes happen each day in Thailand, and very rarely by a foreigner. It's getting worse here every year, and there are mass shootings that have happened in Thailand for a very long time.

What can be done to stop gun crimes besides using guns? Besides what I suggested, which has also been suggested to those living in the US? People don't want to be a statistic, so they buy guns, hoping they'll never have to use them for self defense.

7 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I'm old and frail, for me to have a chance in any combat situation, I'll be needing a gun.

I'd be more than happy to walk around with an AR-15 slung over my shoulder.

Why do you think you're going to end up in a "combat situation" in the first place?

Are you really that unpopular in person?

Are you really proposing that 250 million US adults should be routinely carrying AR-15s in public?

Because that level of insanity isn't an argument for gun rights. It's an argument for why the rest of the developed world looks at the US gun debate and thinks it's lost the plot.

People who dream of walking around with an AR-15 slung over their shoulder are often the poster boys for stricter gun laws.

58 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

This is the part of the argument I've never fully understood.

People in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, Germany, France, and dozens of other developed countries generally don't feel the need to carry firearms or keep handguns ready to defend their families. Yet somehow millions of families live perfectly normal, safe lives.

What exactly is the threat you're preparing for?

Well, I have been violently assaulted numerous times, including by groups and with weapons.

I have friends who have been victims of serious assaults too, including being stabbed, and one losing an eye.

Someone in my family was killed with a pool cue and i have known women in my extended social circle to be sexually assaulted and raped.

I have also had my house burgaled while we were asleep.

And there are many more defenseless victimes in the news in european counties that you can read about

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

If you genuinely believe there's a significant chance you'll need to engage in a gunfight to save your family, then you're effectively describing a society so dangerous that armed guards, panic rooms, and security compounds would be rational precautions too.

This part of your argument makes no sense.

It is also statistically unlikely that you'll get HIV or die in a motorbike accident, but people use condoms, wear helmets and wear seat belts.

People who can swim also wear life jackets under various circumstances and people even wear helmets riding bicycles, despite the chances of death being rare.

People also take the precaution of going for various screenings and health check ups when it is highly unlikely anything will be found.

Actually, assaults are quite common. I probably don't know a single guy that hasn't been violently assaulted a few times in his life.

1 hour ago, NewGuy87 said:

Well, I have been violently assaulted numerous times, including by groups and with weapons.

I have friends who have been victims of serious assaults too, including being stabbed, and one losing an eye.

Someone in my family was killed with a pool cue and i have known women in my extended social circle to be sexually assaulted and raped.

I have also had my house burgaled while we were asleep.

And there are many more defenseless victimes in the news in european counties that you can read about

I sure think you live in the wrong neighbourhood, are perhaps agressive in your intentions and actions, and certainly hang out in bad places with bad people.

These things don't happen to normal people!

As you can see, guns were of no use whatsoever in preventing these actions.

1 hour ago, NewGuy87 said:

Well, I have been violently assaulted numerous times, including by groups and with weapons.

I have friends who have been victims of serious assaults too, including being stabbed, and one losing an eye.

Someone in my family was killed with a pool cue and i have known women in my extended social circle to be sexually assaulted and raped.

I have also had my house burgaled while we were asleep.

And there are many more defenseless victimes in the news in european counties that you can read about

I'm genuinely sorry those things happened to you, but the plural of anecdote is not statistics.

Nobody is denying that violent crime exists, nor that people can be assaulted, stabbed, burgled or worse in countries with stricter gun laws.

The question is whether widespread firearm ownership improves outcomes at a societal level.

You're presenting a collection of personal experiences and using them to justify a national policy affecting hundreds of millions of people. That's not how public policy works.

For every example you've given, I could point to school shootings, shopping mall shootings, domestic murders, accidental shootings and firearm suicides that are far more common in the United States than in comparable developed countries.

The issue isn't whether individual tragedies occur. They do, everywhere.

The issue is that the US experiences dramatically higher firearm death rates than its peer nations, and there is no way to explain that away with anecdotes.