Farangs With Guns!

[thaiflyer1]

Nice rebuttal of his arguments there thaiflyer1, were you ever on a debating team in school

Hey it was 2 o'clock in the morning, the rebuttal was Chang fuelled.

[stroll]

....i did nod off half way through it.

Pssshh. so have I. But the part I read was very good and hit the hammer on the nail, so so speak.

[Payne]

Good discussion! I guess that I prefer braces and suspenders as the Americans used to say.

Dogs are good for alerting one to intruders. We have a couple with a warning sign on the gate. But, if the worse comes to the worse, I keep a couple of weapons under lock and key. One is a 12 gauge shot gun and the other a .38 handgun. Both weapons are licensed by the Thai police, and, of course, I hope never to have an occasion to use either.

Don't forget that in the event of a major wind storm, earthquake, or civil disturbance, it could become necessary to defend one's home and family. Such an eventuality is thankfully remote in Thailand (unless one currently dwells in the deep South); but stranger things have happened elsewhere. e.g. 9/11.

[RamdomChances]

Nice rebuttal of his arguments there thaiflyer1, were you ever on a debating team in school

Hey  it  was  2 o'clock  in  the  morning, the  rebuttal  was  Chang  fuelled. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh if its a "chang rebuttal" then it quite good, I've done some "sang som rebuttals" in the past and had to take a holiday for 10 days

So I suppose the moral of this tale is, if you can walk up to someone and use lethal force, then a gun is probably your thing, otherwise, you should consider alternatives.

I though the idea of the gun was you did'nt have to walk up to them

[Pudgimelon]

Seems like everyone on this board seems to be against guns.  I just wanted to share my experiences based on gun ownership.  I have had two incidents in my lifetime where a gun has saved at a very minimum my property and quite possibly my life.

In both of the cases you mentioned, the gun was never discharged, in which case, a REAL gun was not needed to protect yourself. A realistic replica would have done exactly the same job and you would have protected yourself just as effectively.

I'd just like to point out that if the beggar in the second example had any brains (or had been truly crazy) he would have started wrestling with you right there. How is your brother going to protect you with a shotgun then? It's a SHOTGUN! He tries to blow a hole in the beggar and he'd quite likely hit you with the spread.

Also, if the beggar is at the doorway, and you fire a shotgun out an open door, you're a frigg'n irresponsible person. Do you realize just how far those shot pellets can travel? You're just as likely to hit some poor sap out walking his dog as you are some beggar in your doorway.

Likewise, in the motorcycle inicident, you mentioned that several other people had taken refuge in that area. Given that, you'd again be very irresponsible to discharge a weapon in that area. Do you think those people want you endangering their lives just to protect YOUR property? You don't have that right! Your right to protect yourself and your property does not supercede the rights of others to LIVE.

You can not guarantee with 100% certainty that ONLY the bad guys would get shot (if they decide to scuffle with you before you get the gun out, how can you say you'd be able to draw the weapon, aim it and fire it with 100% accuracy? Are you living in a John Woo movie?). So again, discharging a weapon in that situation would be totally irresponsible.

I agree with you, flashing a piece probably would deter most thieves, but then again, it might also encourage some (since your gun is worth money too) or worse, they may decide to back off, and then shot at you from a distance. Or whatever, the point is not to debate the plausibility of various possible outcomes, the point is to show that there ARE alternative outcomes, and quite a few of them are BAD.

You presented two outcomes which ended favorably, but what I'm suggesting to you is that even though the outcomes were good, there is still an unacceptable amount of risk to you and innocent bystanders when a gun is involved in any altercation.

Let me give you an example: A few years ago during New Year's Eve, my girlfriend and I were dancing in a club when all of a sudden, a fight broke out near us. As we stood watching the scuffle from the dance floor, I noticed one guy beating another guy over the head with an object. It took me a few seconds, but then I realized that the object was a gun! And it was pointed right at us! If that weapon had fired, it could have killed me and/or my girlfriend or injured any number of people in that crowded nightclub.

THAT is the reality of gun ownership in America (and I'm sure in many other countries). People are IDIOTS when it comes to handling a weapon, and quite often brandish it in irresponsible displays of machismo. A simple fist-fight suddenly becomes a life-or-death situation. The gun ELEVATES the risk leave in any confrontation, it NEVER reduces it.

Your confrontations ended well, but that doesn't change the fact that the gun elevated the RISK level in both examples. Take, for example, the beggar-at-the-door story. You and your brother could have easily hustled the guy out the door, and even pounded him a bit for being obnoxious. It's two-on-one odds and unless the guy is a homeless Chuck Norris, I'm pretty sure you could have handled the situation without a gun.

Your brother bringing a shotgun to the party changes that though. Suddenly, it's a life-or-death situation. Wait, let me rephrase that, because I know someone's going to point out that you can kill people with your fists, feet, or kitchen utensils. Yes, that's very true, but generally speaking it's a LITTLE bit harder to do so, right? So bringing a gun into a fight makes it a "sudden-life-or-death" situation. You've narrowed the reaction time between thought (to kill) and action (kill) to a simple finger twitch, and unless you are a HIGHLY-TRAINED individual, that's not a good thing.

Imagine there was some sort of cosmic insurance agent who went around insuring the lives of people involved in bad situations. I'm pretty sure his rates would be MUCH, MUCH higher for any fight involving a gun, than for a fight involving fists and feet.

You do have a right to protect your personal property, however, you are not a cowboy, even though you lived in Texas. Your right to protect yourself and your property does not give you carte blanche to endanger yourself, others, and yes, even the robber (last I checked, robbery did not carry a death sentence. so if the state cannot kill someone for robbery, why can you?).

Don't anyone make the mistake of assuming I'm anti-gun. Like I've said, I owned guns myself and I think they are a great part of rural American culture. However, I am against stupid gun ownership, I am against urban gun ownership, I am against buying guns for the sole purpose of shooting another person (even if that purpose is "self defense"), and I am against untrained, itchy-fingered amateurs packing heat and sharing the same streets as me.

I almost got gunned down in a bar fight simply because some jerk thought it'd be cool to pistol-whip someone. And unless you can guarentee that everyone who gets a concealed-carry permit is going to behave themselves in a responsible, rational manner AT ALL TIMES, I--for one--will not feel "safer" in public knowing that armed vigilantes are roaming the streets looking for excuses to brandish their guns and live out their Clint Eastwood-wannabe fantasies.

[Ajarn]

Before I moved here, and when I was attending university, I drove yellow cab at nights to pay my tuition... I carried a .25 semi-auto pistol with me for protection because cab drivers are killed in San Francisco, too.

The problem that soon presented itself was my temper. I realized that it might just be too easy to pull the trigger, even though I'm a pretty self-controlled guy, physically. But just like those times when I've tossed a punch, that bursting forth could just as easily pulled a trigger. Like hitting someone, consequences are not the motivation or even a part of the thinking sometimes...

Besides, it's almost impossible for a driver to get the jump on a passenger using a gun to rob you. And most of the drivers that were killed never saw it coming...

I stopped carrying the gun after 1 month... Never had an occasion after that where I needed it, either.

[c130nav]

You and your brother could have easily hustled the guy out the door, and even pounded him a bit for being obnoxious. It's two-on-one odds and unless the guy is a homeless Chuck Norris, I'm pretty sure you could have handled the situation without a gun.

Really? Now all of a sudden I the criminals right to injury me is more important than protecting myself? If the situation had been handled with fists as you would have it then there definetly would have been injury. This injury would most likely be to the intruder but that doesn't mean that he couldn't have gotten a few puches in on me. It also doesn't mean that he wasn't armed. How am I to know that he doesn't have a knife on him. Had my brother and I started fist fighting with him and he pulled a knife two inicent people could have died or at least been seriously injured. In this case noone was injured and that beggar will think twice when confronting someone in their own home.

Also, if the beggar is at the doorway, and you fire a shotgun out an open door, you're a frigg'n irresponsible person. Do you realize just how far those shot pellets can travel? You're just as likely to hit some poor sap out walking his dog as you are some beggar in your doorway.

Remember this wasn't a croweded shopping center that this incident took place. It was my familes home. If I had a Dog it could just as easily have mistaken the incident and attacked the "poor sap" instead of the beggar. Had I used a taser I could have missed and fired it into the "poor Sap" causing him a heart attack.

You don't have that right! Your right to protect yourself and your property does not supercede the rights of others to LIVE.

Your right to drive a car does not supercede the rights of others to live. I am willing to bet that automobile deaths outnumber gun deaths by far. Using the same logic thatat means that even if a family member of yours needed medical treatment to prevent injury or death you shouldn't be allowed to drive them to the hospital because you are superceding others rights to live.

Now I am not saying that guns are completly safe and are an infallible way of defeding ones property or life. What I am saying is that a properly trained individual can effectively do this most of the time without injury to themselvs or others. I am also saying that in the two incidents that I was in I am convinced that another means of protection would have at a minimum injured one the parties. You mentioned the nightclub incident. This type of thing I don't condone. I don't find it reasonable to start a fight with somebody at a club and resort to any weapon let alone a gun to solve it. These are the types of incidents that make good arguments for gun control. This argument isn't about that. Instead its about wheather or not a gun is a viable means to protect oneself. The basic answer is that it is. The question comes down to this. If somebody was injurying/raping/killing somebody that you loved and noone was around to help you what would you want for your defense. For me I want the sure thing.

[stroll]

Someone raping your wife or daughter in your home makes a persuasive emotive image to make your point. What are the chances of this ever happening?

By contrast, you have already used guns in incidences a long way from that scenario, and you intend to continue doing so in future. The line between a threat justifying the use of a gun and somebody using it inappropriately can be fine at times, in your examples I'd say you overstepped the boundaries already, and in most Western nations you would have a criminal record by now.

Guns belong in the hands of trained and authorised personnel during their duty.

[c130nav]

I'd say you overstepped the boundaries already, and in most Western nations you would have a criminal record by now.

Please explain to me why in any country where it is legal to carry a firearm why I would have broken a law? Someone forcefully entering your home with the intent to harm or rob you is not enough to show a weapon? A group of individuals approach you in the middle of the night in a secluded area with the intent on robbing you is not enough reason to show a weapon? Its a good thing people like you are not in charge of creating laws since all law abiding citizens would be in jail and criminals would rome free. I mean after all my right to defend myself does not supercede their right to harm me.

Guns belong in the hands of trained and authorised personnel during their duty.

Again this isn't a gun control thread. I agree that most people that have guns are irresponsible with them but that isn't the point. Its about whether or not a gun is an effective tool in protecting oneself and or property. You can argue that in certain situations a different type of weapon or deterent would be better suited. This may be true but I don't plan to carry around a batman like utility belt full of different gadgets for all types of situations. Instead I carry a gun with the training and knowledge to use it responsibly and as safe as possible. Some people may feel that another type of device is better for them and it probably is for them. Basically before you go out and buy a gun you need to know yourself and your abilities. If you, liked metioned before about the taxi driver, happen to be the type of person that would just as easily shoot someone as punch them then you shouldn't carry a gun. If you're the type of person who would buy a gun and not become familiar with it let alone practice with it then a gun might not be for you. On the other hand if you're an individual with proper training and judgement then a gun could be an effective tool to protect your self and your property.

[p1p]

What is the IQ requirement for being a supermoderator, or doesn't it matter?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nobody over 65 permitted, we do not wist to compeet wid our deer Preznid

[Aikido]

We do own a gun althought it is in my wifes name, the reason I bought it was whilst I was back in the blighty someone tried to break in whilst my wife was on her own. must say Ive never had any probs when Im there, I believe they are not issuing gun permits anymore with the recent probs but I coud be wrong,

our gun cost 50,000 baht small price to pay for peace of mind.

[stroll]

I'd say you overstepped the boundaries already, and in most Western nations you would have a criminal record by now.

I mean after all my right to defend myself does not supercede their right to harm me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know about Texas, but in the places I have lived, nobody has the right to harm you. You have a right to defend yourself with means appropriate to the threat posed. In Europran countries I have lived, this does not include the use of any offensive weapons, gun licenses for the purpose of selfdefense are a very rare thing for high risk professions. You may get away with scaring a beggar off with a tazer, but this is about the limit.

Owning and/or carrying a gun may enhance a personal sense of safety for oneself, but it puts others at risk, as has been pointed out already, it rarely is the appropriate nor most effective tool, licensed or not. Unless, of course, you believe a beggar putting a foot in the door deserves to be shot. Or are you telling me you would put the gun away if it didn't scare the guy off?

People do make misjudgements, and others' actual safety supercedes your subjective sense of safety.

[paulfr]

Interesting topic ...

Alternatives;

Mean, loud dog

Electric fence

Alarm system

Leave the TV on

I have to say I am still unsure about what is right for me.

I certainly would get proper training if I bought a gun.

But here is a dilemma I fear ...

If you get the low down on this thief, and you have to shoot;

If you only injure him, he may come back for revenge.

If you kill him, his family may want to return for payback even more so.

So the only time you'd be clear of mind is if you knew it was

kill or be killed. Not a very pretty situation.

Also not likely to happen as a thief just wants money.

But the original poster lives in a terror area, so his thinking may

be it will come down to kill or be killed. For him better safe than

at the mercy of irrational idealogues.

[c130nav]

Unless, of course, you believe a beggar putting a foot in the door deserves to be shot. Or are you telling me you would put the gun away if it didn't scare the guy off?

I hope my brother wouldn't have put the gun away if he didn't get scared off. I mean the guy was trying to force his way into my house so that he could harm me. I was and am still not sure if he had a weapon or not but his goal was to inflict damage on me. I would have hoped that my brother would have shot him before he could get to me. I mean I don't want to die or go through life disfigured because some scum was pissed at me for not giving him a hand out. At this point I am not violating his personal rights becuase he has become a violent criminal with intent to harm me personally. If your perogative is to go to peoples homes and force your way in to physically assult them then you should realize that there is a possibility that the owner may have a gun and be willing to use it on you.

[Ice Treasure]

The yanks simply insist on their constitutional right to shoot each other, whereever they are...

I have not felt the need to have any weapon at all in 46 years, against the advice of friends, and it has served me well up to now. There are more effective and less violent  ways to secure your property, otherwise, I agree with Ajarn, we don't need paranoid triggerhappy guys with a leaning towards alcohol or worse here.

Stay in the US, or volunteer for Iraq!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Imagine nice dig picture here......

Prettier than a beretta as well. I remember some crazy old dude used to drink in teh HHH pub in CM frequently carried a gun. Seemed he was scared of some gay guy.

Ah Thailand. Wonderful one minute... the next.. who knows

[Pudgimelon]

Someone forcefully entering your home with the intent to harm or rob you is not enough to show a weapon?

See, but you did not have to USE the weapon. You merely showed it. In which case, a nice quality replica would have done the job just as nicely. No need to endanger yourself or others with a real gun, right?

Don't get me wrong, I'm no bleeding heart. If some guy breaks into your house, then by all means, injure the heck out of him, he deserves it. But I do have a problem with you setting yourself up as judge, jury and executioner. I have no doubt that you believe yourself to be infallible (or at least justified in threatening lethal force in both examples you gave), but as a SOCIETY, it is not a good situation to have civilians taking the law into their own hands.

since all law abiding citizens would be in jail and criminals would rome free. 

This is a typical counter-argument, but if you really look at in the harsh light of REALITY, it doesn't hold water.

First off, as I said before, most criminal get their guns FROM civilians. For every gun bought in America, one is stolen. That's a fact.

So if you take the guns out of the homes, where will the criminals get their guns? From police stations? Maybe in a pseudo-war-zone like South Thailand they'd do that, but not anywhere else.

I mean after all my right to defend myself does not supercede their right to harm me.

Nobody's saying that.

You have a right to defend yourself. But that doesn't mean you have a right to possess nuclear weapons to defend yourself from communist invasion, correct? In other words, some types of "self-defense" you leave up to the state because you live in a civil society and you rely on the police and military to protect you from lawlessness and violence.

So you do have a right to defend yourself, but I don't believe you should have the right to endanger society as a whole in the process.

Again this isn't a gun control thread.   I agree that most people that have guns are irresponsible with them but that isn't the point. Its about whether or not a gun is an effective tool in protecting oneself and or property....On the other hand if you're an individual with proper training and judgement then a gun could be an effective tool to protect your self and your property.

Who are these mythic people you speak of who get properly trained to use their firearms? That contradicts EVERY statistic on gun ownership ever published.

Simple fact: PEOPLE DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE GUNS!!

You mentioned in another post that your "right" to possess an automobile is similar to your "right" to possess a gun. But any law enforcement person will tell you that you don't have a right to drive a car, it's a privilege, and one that can be taken away if you behave irresponsibly.

Also, you get almost daily practice driving a car, so even if you are unlicensed, you still quite skilled at operating a motor vehicle. How many people practice with their guns on a daily (or even monthly) basis?? How many people take situational self-defense and conflict resolution courses?? How many people are raised in a 'gun culture' that teaches respect for the weapon and proper 'gun manners'??

YOU, may be just such an individual, but the fact is, MOST people are not like you!!

So the notion that a gun is an "effective" tool for personal protection in the hands of a "properly-trained" individual, IS A DELUSION. A very small percentage of gun owners bother to go through the kind of training you'd need to properly and safely handle the weapon (much less fire it in a crisis situation).

And more importantly, no matter how "properly-trained" you are and no matter how responsible a gun owner you are, that won't mean S--T after that gun has been stolen out of your home.

So when you are figuring out the "effectiveness" of a firearm to protect property and life, don't forget to factor in the COLLECTIVE risk you contribute to society as a whole by buying a weapon that will most likely be stolen and used against someone else.

Here's some interesting tidbits for you, straight from the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics:

During the 1987-1992 period, offenders fired their weapons in

17 percent of all non-fatal handgun crimes, missing the victim

four out of five times

Get that? Not only did attacker NOT shot at their victims most of the time, they also MISSED four out of five times!! And that's the ATTACKER, they have the advantage in most cases since they are initiating the encounter, and even they can't hit what they are aiming at 80% of the time!! What makes you think a rattled and panicked defender is going to fair much better? And don't give me any "I've got nerves of steel" crap. I'm sure you do. But can you say EVERYONE does??

...approximately 1 percent of all violent crime victims used a firearm in an effort to defend themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000

victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft attempted to defend their property with guns. In most cases victims defending themselves with firearms

were confronted by unarmed offenders or those armed with weapons other than firearms. During the six-year period, about one in three armed victims faced an armed offender. BJS estimated that more than 340,000 crimes annually

involved firearm thefts. During the period almost two-thirds of such losses occurred during household burglaries and almost one- third in larcenies. The survey does not report on thefts or burglaries from stores or other businesses.

Add to that this little tidbit:

Almost half the defendants in federal courts who were charged with a possession offense... ...were charged with using a firearm during the commission of a violent offense.... and .... 68% of inmates in federal prisoners reported obtaining the firearm used in the offense that resulted in their imprisonment from a source like a burglary, drug dealer, fence or the black market.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that those statistics from the federal system would be similar to the stats from state and county courts. So then let's do the math (in 1992 numbers):

Firearms used in self defense = 80,000 incidents per year (less than 1%)

Firearms stolen = 340,000 weapons EACH YEAR

Firearms used to commit a crime = 1,000,000 incidents per year (11%)

Stolen/illegal firearms used to commit a crime = 680,000 incidents per year

So be my guest, buy that gun to make YOURSELF FEEL safe. But the REALITY is that you make EVERYONE ELSE LESS safe.

One final tidbit for you:

A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury

Hmmmm.......

Put that all together and you get this:

Putting a firearm in your home means that SOMEONE will be almost NINE TIMES more likely to be injured/threaten with that gun (after it's been stolen out of your home), than you will be "saved" by it in self-defense (and even then, 20% of the time, you'll STILL get injured).

[Pudgimelon]

PS. I mis-remembered the numbers on gun theft (it's been over 4 years since I read that survey. I corrected the number in my original post, but even though i was wrong about the amount, I was correct about the percentage, which is what I meant to point out anyway.

[Boon Mee]

Someone raping your wife or daughter in your home makes a persuasive emotive image to make your point. What are the chances of this ever happening?

By contrast, you have already used guns in incidences a long way from that scenario, and you intend to continue doing so in future. The line between a threat justifying the use of a gun and somebody using it inappropriately can be fine at times, in your examples I'd say you overstepped the boundaries already, and in most Western nations you would have a criminal record by now.

Guns belong in the hands of trained and authorised personnel during their duty.

Those are the operative terms here - "trained" & "authorized".

Depending on the community in which you live (US) a concealed hand gun permit can be obtained only after completing the required safety class and passing an exam.

To my knowledge, there's no greater instance of shootings after these laws were passed than before. Responsible folks will be responsible whether they carry a handgun or not. Remember, guns don't kill people - people do.

What's next? Ban knives?

[igotworms]

If or when I decide to live here permanently...I will indeed purchase a gun to protect my home. This is Thailand. Thugs and crackheads roam around inflicting harm without consequence. This is the wild, wild East. This is gun country.

I come from a peaceful nation, who per capita, is probably one of the most 'armed' nations in the world. We also have one of the lowest gun fatality rates in the world. All it takes, is an educated person who is not only trained in handling a gun, but is who is also well practised.

However, I can understand the anti-gun folk's logic. Do we really want all the Billy-Bobs and road-kill eating-trailer trash of the world brandishing guns at the first sign of conflict? Heck no. There should be some sort of IQ test or common sense test issued when someone tries to purchase a gun. However, I'm confident in my ability to safely store a gun, and will not hestitate to purchase one when the time is right.

[RamdomChances]

If or when I decide to live here permanently...I will indeed purchase a gun to protect my home.  This is Thailand.  Thugs and crackheads roam around inflicting harm without consequence.  This is the wild, wild East. This is gun country. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Must be a different Thailand from the one I live in then

[davethailand]

If or when I decide to live here permanently...I will indeed purchase a gun to protect my home.  This is Thailand.  Thugs and crackheads roam around inflicting harm without consequence.  This is the wild, wild East. This is gun country. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Must be a different Thailand from the one I live in then

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And me!

I think he's been watching too much TV.

[QUOTE]

Dave, why do you own a rottweiller?

[Boon Mee]

If or when I decide to live here permanently...I will indeed purchase a gun to protect my home.  This is Thailand.  Thugs and crackheads roam around inflicting harm without consequence.  This is the wild, wild East. This is gun country. 

Must be a different Thailand from the one I live in then

Must be talking about "Yaa Baa". Don't think crack has made it to Thailand yet. Hope it never will...

[meemiathai]

Dave, why do you lock your doors?

[davethailand]

The honest reason is because my idiot partner could'nt take care of it so I took her from him, you know what I mean, people that don't realise that a dog like a Rottwieler is gonna get big and eat alot.

I should'nt say this but my wifes shitsu is braver than the Rotty.

[igotworms]

Say what you will. You know as I do, this land is ungoverned. Next time you step outside, take a long look. There are no institutions of protection here. This place is lawless.

But, we are all at the mercy of our own perception. For some, the term, 'ignorance is bliss' aptly applies.

[meemiathai]

Is there no better place else to go then?

[igotworms]

If or when I decide to live here permanently...I will indeed purchase a gun to protect my home.  This is Thailand.  Thugs and crackheads roam around inflicting harm without consequence.  This is the wild, wild East. This is gun country. 

Must be a different Thailand from the one I live in then

Must be talking about "Yaa Baa". Don't think crack has made it to Thailand yet. Hope it never will...

I use the term 'crackhead' in a general sense. Yes, I'm aware it refers to crack cocaine addicts. But in this case, you can insert ya-ba, glue, paint, gasoline, solvents or sang som freaks as 'crackhead'.

[davethailand]

I know what your saying, I've been here 3 years trouble free, Lucky I know but thats one choice people make before they choose to live here.

[igotworms]

Is there no better place else to go then?

Does it always come down that? That's everyone's answer here. If you don't like it, get the &lt;deleted&gt; out. Well, some of us choose to be here, while others are stuck here. Some of us don't really have a choice.

Hey guys and gals, whatever gets you through the day. As they love to say here, up to you. Just be honest with yourself. Things may not be as bad as it seems and perhaps I'm blowing things well out of proportion. Maybe I'm just overly paranoid, or chronically pessimistic, but I'm by no means naive. All I know is, I say these things as a religious war is brewing up in the south, a megalomaniac is at the helm, and the nation is either behind him or absolutely oblivious either way. This is what frightens me, as it should you too.