Farangs With Guns!

[meemiathai]

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 <deleted> 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.

No offense meant, just curious.

[davethailand]

At the end of the day theres nothing wrong with being over cautious.

[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 <deleted> 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.

No offense meant, just curious.

None taken.

To answer your question, I have no idea. If not home, perhaps New Zealand? Seems like a safe and beautiful place to me.

[meemiathai]

I really hope I would never have to live in a place where I would need a gun.

I think people from different origins have different thoughts.

From where I come from (HK), not even the criminals want to own guns!

[igotworms]

At the end of the day theres nothing wrong with being over cautious.

I think that's all we can do.

[meemiathai]

New Zealand certainly is one of the best places to live on earth. provided one has enough $$$.

[QUOTE]

davethailand,

I was led to believe that Rottweillers were now illegal in Thailand due to them killing and maiming too many Thai children.

I was also led to believe that Rottweillers were banned in most European countries, due to their liking of killing things.

Yet you do not advocate the owning of guns, yet you own a lethal killing machine, why dont you just buy a gun?

[RamdomChances]

davethailand,

I was led to believe that Rottweillers were now illegal in Thailand due to them killing and maiming too many Thai children.

I was also led to believe that Rottweillers were banned in most European countries, due to their liking of killing things.

Yet you do not advocate the owning of guns, yet you own a lethal killing machine, why dont you just buy a gun?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You were led to belive wrong then, cos they are 'nt

[davethailand]

If the Rottwieler fails in its job I will, or maybe another Rotty, Anyone who tries to get in my house will loose something.

[c130nav]

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).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what you're saying is that a replica would have done the same thing. Well what if in both cases the other parties had weapons and decided to use them. I imagine you would feel pretty stupid in the hospital holding your replica. As far as the your ideas on gun control, I am all for it. As I mentioned before no guns=no gun deaths.

You say that I should have beaten up an intruder to my home. My question is how am I supposed to do this? Am I to assume that he doesn't have a gun himself? You have to admit that if he had a gun and I came at him with a baseball bat or tazer I would lose. I would probably end up dead in that case. This wasn't just a case of somebody breaking in to get the VCR he wanted to harm me. Of course I would love to avoid all confrontations in life but sometimes this isn't the case. In this instance I can't imagine how showing a gun is over the top. I can see if my brother had just shot him with no warning or without him physically threating me that would be too much. This however didn't happen. My brother gave him a plain warning and he complied solely on the fact that he was holding a weapon.

[davethailand]

Congratulations, You've just won the longest post of the day award.

[Nam Kao]

Ajarn, I loved those peace signs, they are so cute ! Oh my! Where did

you get them, I must plaster them all over my body, it'll feel groovy man.

Who needs guns, just show those mean people you have peace signs and

they understand and leave you alone. This so cool being a Liberal

[meemiathai]

You have to admit that if he had a gun and I came at him with a baseball bat or tazer I would lose. I would probably end up dead in that case.

What if he had an AK-47 instead of a gun? Would you need a rocket launcher to cope with the situation?

[QUOTE]

davethailand,

I was led to believe that Rottweillers were now illegal in Thailand due to them killing and maiming too many Thai children.

I was also led to believe that Rottweillers were banned in most European countries, due to their liking of killing things.

Yet you do not advocate the owning of guns, yet you own a lethal killing machine, why dont you just buy a gun?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You were led to belive wrong then, cos they are 'nt

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you will find that the breeding and importing of Rottweillers was made illegal about 2 years ago, due to them being more dangerous than a gun as no license was needed to keep these killer dogs.

[Boon Mee]

New Zealand certainly is one of the best places to live on earth. provided one has enough $$$.

If you like to pay big-time taxes!

[RamdomChances]

davethailand,

I was led to believe that Rottweillers were now illegal in Thailand due to them killing and maiming too many Thai children.

I was also led to believe that Rottweillers were banned in most European countries, due to their liking of killing things.

Yet you do not advocate the owning of guns, yet you own a lethal killing machine, why dont you just buy a gun?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You were led to belive wrong then, cos they are 'nt

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you will find that the breeding and importing of Rottweillers was made illegal about 2 years ago, due to them being more dangerous than a gun as no license was needed to keep these killer dogs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think I'm not

[QUOTE]

davethailand,

I was led to believe that Rottweillers were now illegal in Thailand due to them killing and maiming too many Thai children.

I was also led to believe that Rottweillers were banned in most European countries, due to their liking of killing things.

Yet you do not advocate the owning of guns, yet you own a lethal killing machine, why dont you just buy a gun?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You were led to belive wrong then, cos they are 'nt

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you will find that the breeding and importing of Rottweillers was made illegal about 2 years ago, due to them being more dangerous than a gun as no license was needed to keep these killer dogs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think I'm not

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think if you read this link you may learn something about why it is now illegal to import killer Rottweillers into Thailand.

http://www.rottweiler.net/forums/archive/index.php/f-16.html

You will also find that most countries are banning these unlicensed killing machines.

[RamdomChances]

davethailand,

I was led to believe that Rottweillers were now illegal in Thailand due to them killing and maiming too many Thai children.

I was also led to believe that Rottweillers were banned in most European countries, due to their liking of killing things.

Yet you do not advocate the owning of guns, yet you own a lethal killing machine, why dont you just buy a gun?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You were led to belive wrong then, cos they are 'nt

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you will find that the breeding and importing of Rottweillers was made illegal about 2 years ago, due to them being more dangerous than a gun as no license was needed to keep these killer dogs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think I'm not

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think if you read this link you may learn something about why it is now illegal to import killer Rottweillers into Thailand.

http://www.rottweiler.net/forums/archive/index.php/f-16.html

You will also find that most countries are banning these unlicensed killing machines.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are 250 links on the first page, which one are you refering to?/

[QUOTE]

davethailand,

I was led to believe that Rottweillers were now illegal in Thailand due to them killing and maiming too many Thai children.

I was also led to believe that Rottweillers were banned in most European countries, due to their liking of killing things.

Yet you do not advocate the owning of guns, yet you own a lethal killing machine, why dont you just buy a gun?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You were led to belive wrong then, cos they are 'nt

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you will find that the breeding and importing of Rottweillers was made illegal about 2 years ago, due to them being more dangerous than a gun as no license was needed to keep these killer dogs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think I'm not

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think if you read this link you may learn something about why it is now illegal to import killer Rottweillers into Thailand.

http://www.rottweiler.net/forums/archive/index.php/f-16.html

You will also find that most countries are banning these unlicensed killing machines.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are 250 links on the first page, which one are you refering to?/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Link 140, Thailand bans imports of Rottweilers.

There are also about another 100 links of countries that have banned these killer dogs, but of course you are the expert on this subject and have stated that rottweillers are not banned from Thailand.

Do you own any of these killer dogs?

Or do you own guns?

[stroll]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Curious, isn't, that those advocating gun ownership insist they are responsibly acting citizens with an accurate sense of judgement, while others are ignorant to the level of dangers or at best naive. Yet they think it to be a reasonable, measured response to point a shotgun at a beggar and consider Thailand a lawless place in which they need to protect themselves with a gun.

On the other hand, the 'ignorant' ones, like myself, are numerous and have walked through lifewithout being harmed, even in such ungoverned, lawless places like Thailand, in which survival necessitates preparing yourself to use guns against potential threats.

I agree, we are at the mercy of our perception, specially the irrate, paranoid gunnuts who bring about the very incidences they aim to prevent.

Please do not come to Thailand.

[stroll]

Remember, guns don't kill people - people do.

What's next?  Ban knives?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

People not in possession of lethal offensive weapons are much less likely to kill.

Knives which classify as an offensive weapon are banned already in most European countries. Carrying one will incur a fine or worse, using one for whichever reason a prison sentence.

[Boon Mee]

Remember, guns don't kill people - people do.

What's next?  Ban knives?

People not in possession of lethal offensive weapons are much less likely to kill.

Knives which classify as an offensive weapon are banned already in most European countries. Carrying one will incur a fine or worse, using one for whichever reason a prison sentence.

Right...remember though when they take away a citizen's guns, only the bad guys will have firearms.

We're not living in a "perfect" world. There is real evil out there. If you fail to prepare, you're preparing to fail.

[RamdomChances]

davethailand,

I was led to believe that Rottweillers were now illegal in Thailand due to them killing and maiming too many Thai children.

I was also led to believe that Rottweillers were banned in most European countries, due to their liking of killing things.

Yet you do not advocate the owning of guns, yet you own a lethal killing machine, why dont you just buy a gun?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You were led to belive wrong then, cos they are 'nt

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you will find that the breeding and importing of Rottweillers was made illegal about 2 years ago, due to them being more dangerous than a gun as no license was needed to keep these killer dogs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think I'm not

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think if you read this link you may learn something about why it is now illegal to import killer Rottweillers into Thailand.

http://www.rottweiler.net/forums/archive/index.php/f-16.html

You will also find that most countries are banning these unlicensed killing machines.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are 250 links on the first page, which one are you refering to?/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Link 140, Thailand bans imports of Rottweilers.

There are also about another 100 links of countries that have banned these killer dogs, but of course you are the expert on this subject and have stated that rottweillers are not banned from Thailand.

Do you own any of these killer dogs?

Or do you own guns?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Link 140 does not go anywhere, if you follow it through, its just a header "Thailand bans imports of Rottweilers".

No I don't own any Rottweilers or guns, I've got two "allegedly" thai/doberman pups, but dont know how much doberman is in them, does'nt look like a lot.

If you think Rottweilers are baned here just take a walk aroung chatukuk weekend market in BKK, there are loads for sale.

So your still wrong

[jackr]

I agree, we are at the mercy of our perception, specially the irrate, paranoid gunnuts  who bring about the very incidences they aim to prevent.

Who's being paranoid now??? Wanting to protect one's family is not being paranoid, it's being practical in todays environment.

Please do not come to Thailand.

Why? Are you one of those burglar/terrorists who's going to get shot when trying to break into my home?

[Ajarn]

Ajarn, I loved those peace signs, they are so cute ! Oh my!  Where did

you get them, I must plaster them all over my body, it'll feel groovy man.

Who needs guns, just show those mean people you have peace signs and

they understand and leave you alone.  This so cool being a Liberal 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well,all I can say is, the proof is in the pudding. I've lived here fulltime for almost 20 years under my values which have worked fine for me without the need for a firearm... Life here has been good and properous for because of my values. I am financially independent enough to live anywhere i the world I want, and I still choose here, for me. It ain't everyone's cup of tea, to be sure. I've known many many people who haven't survived Thailand very well, but, for me, this is my Home forever.

At least it hasn't turned me into someone with an attitude such as yours, thank God

[Ajarn]

Remember, guns don't kill people - people do.

What's next?  Ban knives?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

People not in possession of lethal offensive weapons are much less likely to kill.

Knives which classify as an offensive weapon are banned already in most European countries. Carrying one will incur a fine or worse, using one for whichever reason a prison sentence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Knife/weapon possesion in public can land you in the Monkey House here, too

[ray23]

This certainly is an interesting post and presents exactly the same conflicts it does in the good old U.S. of A.

These are the personal experinces I have had in Thailand, with guns.

One a drunk or a person high on drugs, farrang not a Thia, stuck one in my face and threatened me in Pattaya over a traffic dispute. Needless to say he became a traffic expert at that juncture. I talked my way out, lucky. I didn't lose my cool I'm a retired cop from the states. Had I lost my cool I would probably have been killed on the spot.

An American Citizen residing in Nong Kia was shot to death, two months ago. This happened in his home. It had all the ear markings of a contract killing. Did this guy live in a manner that might bring this upon him, yes. Would a gun in the house have made any difference, I don't know but I doubt it. He was shot to death on the stairs leading to his house, upon arriving at his home.

Are there times, that a firearm in the home may save of life, yes. But the truth is the majority of us will never be in that circumstances.

My experience with hand guns are that they are made to kill people. Personally I have never owned a television that was worth killing some one over.

Most of the shootings that happen in the states are the result of hot tempers coupled with drugs or alcohol and the firearm be handy. The second is accidents people unfamiliar with firearms and discharging the weapon by mistake. Last is premediated assault.

Even with my experience, I never carried a gun when I had so much as one beer to drink. Not an activity, where your judgement should be clouded in any form.

I don't live in Southern Thailand, I would have to weigh the circumstances to determine if I needed that type of protection. If I did choose to do that I would insure that any person within my household was instructed in firearms safety.

I truly believe that one should give a lot of thought to owning a handgun, they are not meant to protect property they are meant to kill people.

My humble thoughts

Ray.

[Pudgimelon]

Do you own any of these killer dogs?

Or do you own guns?

Your analogy is a bad one.

First off, if you bothered to read any of those posts, you'd see that pretty much everyone who has direct experience with Rottweillers knows that they are a great breed of dog (and not some "killer", like you or the alarmist media might paint them).

Also, I don't believe I or anyone else specifically said that a Rottwieller was the only kind of dog you could get.

In fact, I'm quite sure that I said that ANY dog would suffice to help protect your home from burglary. Simple fact: robbers HATE noise, and in case you didn't know already, Chihauhaus make A LOT of noise.

Are you going to try to tell us that a Pekingese is an "unlicensed killing machine"??

Come on, be serious. Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, don't try to stretch a few sensationalized dog mauling deaths into some universal fact about a particular breed of dog, and definitely don't try to apply that to an argument about guns, because it just doesn't hold up.

It is VERY true that Rottwiellers are a difficult breed to raise, and only a committed and knowledgeable owner should attempt raising a Rott. But the same can be said of Border Collies, so what's your point?

If someone wants to "defend" their property and feels they need a BIG dog to do it (unnecessary, but if it makes them feel safe, that's their choice), then they can get an "easier" breed for their home. A nice, mentally-stable mutt mix of Shepard and Retriever should do the trick.

So first off, your point about "dangerous" breeds being comparable to guns is irrelevent, since it's not necessary to get a difficult breed to defend your home. A nice, loud Scottie or Beagle will send burglars scurrying away just as quickly as a 200 pound Rott.

And secondly, your argument falls apart completely when you examine the statistics. There are millions of Rottweillers and other potentially dangerous dogs (Pit Bulls, Shepards, Dobermans, Mastiffs, etc...) out there, but the cases of dog maulings are quite rare when you compare them to the THOUSANDS of gun deaths and injuries every year. So even if you are right to say that it is risky to put a Rott in a home, it is FAR more risky to put a gun in that same home.

[Pudgimelon]

Right...remember though when they take away a citizen's guns, only the bad guys will have firearms.

We're not living in a "perfect" world.  There is real evil out there.  If you fail to prepare, you're preparing to fail.

You know, part of the problem with writing such long rants is that sometimes I make perfectly brilliant points, that really hammer home what I'm trying to say, but nobody reads them because they are buried in the rest of my rant.

Sigh.....

Anyway, I've already soundly trounced this viewpoint, but I'll restate it here for those who missed it.

The argument that: "if you take away guns from the citizen's, then only the bad guys will have guns", is complete, 100%, Grade-A, stinky BULLS--T!!!!

It is a FACT that 68% of all guns used in felonies are STOLEN.

It is a FACT that while 400,000 guns are purchased legally each year, 340,000 are STOLEN every year.

And it is a FACT that your gun is MORE likely to injure someone else than defend you. It will either be used during a felony after its been stolen, or accidentally discharged by a child, or used against a loved one (or self) in a fit of rage or dispair. That's FACT. The odds of you successfully using a weapon to defend yourself are MICROSCOPIC when compared to the odds of that same weapon harming an unintended victim.

So to restate your viewpoint CORRECTLY: "If you take guns away from the common citizen, then the bad guys won't have any place to GET THEIR GUNS"

Guns in the home = guns eventually on the streets in the hands of felons, that is FACT.

It doesn't matter how responsible or well-trained you are, if you buy a gun, you increase the odds in your community that some innocent person is going to be a victim of that gun. Period.

[dfwbkk]

I just don't think that guns are that effective as a protection  :-

1 Most houses gets broken into when you're not there

2 If someone breaks in they would usually run away upon hearing someone in the house

3 Unless the gun/ammunition is kept readily available it's pretty useless

4 Statistically you are more likely to either use it on or be shot by a family member, than a criminal

5 Drinks, arguments and depressions don't really mix with guns

All in all I'd rather take my chances than have a gun in the house

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Spot on (except for some corrected spelling)...I rest my case...

/// dfw