Bringing A Handgun Into Thailand From Usa

[HorseDoctor]

He has a family and 4 kids.

4 more reasons not to have a gun in the house.

4 more reasons TOO have a gun in the house. Be responsible enough to teach them about the gun and let them know its not a toy. Over all its your responsibility as the man of the house to protect your family. A gun in the house is a good thing if your responsible enough to manage it.

Or woman !!

Yes , look at Canada, no facist laws on ownership , more guns per capita than US with a fraction of the gun violence.

It's the US violent media culture that kills people.

I think the Thai law regarding foreigners unable to own guns should be challenged. It's racist

As I mentioned in an earlier post....foreigner is the operative word on the issue of owning a firearm in Thailand.

I would pose the same question I asked about a foreigner (a tourist) owning a firearm in the US....Can a tourist in Canada legally purchase and own a firearm for the duration of their stay without any legal status in Canada ?

I don't know bout Canada on that issue , but in US a legally entered foreigner has every single right as a citizen, exept one, if being deported you do not have right to free counsel .

[Soutpeel]

He has a family and 4 kids.

4 more reasons not to have a gun in the house.

4 more reasons TOO have a gun in the house. Be responsible enough to teach them about the gun and let them know its not a toy. Over all its your responsibility as the man of the house to protect your family. A gun in the house is a good thing if your responsible enough to manage it.

Or woman !!

Yes , look at Canada, no facist laws on ownership , more guns per capita than US with a fraction of the gun violence.

It's the US violent media culture that kills people.

I think the Thai law regarding foreigners unable to own guns should be challenged. It's racist

As I mentioned in an earlier post....foreigner is the operative word on the issue of owning a firearm in Thailand.

I would pose the same question I asked about a foreigner (a tourist) owning a firearm in the US....Can a tourist in Canada legally purchase and own a firearm for the duration of their stay without any legal status in Canada ?

I don't know bout Canada on that issue , but in US a legally entered foreigner has every single right as a citizen, exept one, if being deported you do not have right to free counsel .

No they dont, they can't vote, they can't claim social security and I am sure there is a whole lot of things they cant do..

On the issue of owning a firearm in the US, I am sure you need to have a social security number as part of the registraion process ?, so as a foreigner, entering the US, as a toursit, they would not have one..correct ? so how could they purchase a firearm legally?

This same logic applies to Thailand, the vast majority of farangs in Thailand are here as "perpetual tourists" whether here retired, working etc, this obviously excludes those Farangs who have PR or citizenship who have legal staus in Thailand

[bassmaster50]

Most firearms regulations in US are decided by individual states. There are states where foreigners can legally purchase rifles and shotguns. Handguns are another matter and more heavily restricted. As for the guy who wants to know what to do with all the judges, politicians, etc., I can think of several suggestions. I have a sense of humor too.

It is true not all Americans think alike. Some of them think like sheep also.

As for the crime rate in Canada, I have been there many times. There is not much there worth stealing.

[Goyave]

... As for the guy who wants to know what to do with all the judges, politicians, etc., I can think of several suggestions. I have a sense of humor too.

Yep. That might be interesting, but probably much less than a detailed description of what is your ideal form of society.

It is true not all Americans think alike. Some of them think like sheep also.

As for the crime rate in Canada, I have been there many times. There is not much there worth stealing.

I hope that it is just a sample of your good sense of humor, isn't it? By the way, following your "logic", every nation should be granted the right to have weapons of mass destruction... just in case a bunch of heavily armed foreign burglars try to break in their country.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Goyave

[bassmaster50]

It was a joke about Canada. My mother's family are Indians from Canada, actually. As for the "logic" about contries having WMD for burglars, that just doesn't make any sense at all. I said only I will protect my home if someone breaks in. What does this have to do with weapons of mass destruction? As for government, I spent my whole life in military and law enforcement , so I myself was an agent of government. I believe in democracy and would die defending it, and though no system is perfect, I do not know of a better one. And as for judges, lawyers and politicians, they are the main reasons I am now retired and sitting here writing on this computer. But on the other hand, I am enjoying my retirement here in Thailand, so maybe I should thank them.

[Goyave]

... As for the "logic" about contries having WMD for burglars, that just doesn't make any sense at all. I said only I will protect my home if someone breaks in. What does this have to do with weapons of mass destruction? ...

It's a pity that you don't see the logic in this. Iraq (for instance) and most countries in the world are denied the right to have WMD to defend themselves (= their home) against aggressors (= burglars or other criminals).

[dingdongrb]

... As for the "logic" about contries having WMD for burglars, that just doesn't make any sense at all. I said only I will protect my home if someone breaks in. What does this have to do with weapons of mass destruction? ...

It's a pity that you don't see the logic in this. Iraq (for instance) and most countries in the world are denied the right to have WMD to defend themselves (= their home) against aggressors (= burglars or other criminals).

That's right, and don't forget it, only the biggest boys get to carry the biggest toys.....

(But with enough $$$$ and influence we will be glad to sell you some.)

[Moonrakers]

... As for the "logic" about contries having WMD for burglars, that just doesn't make any sense at all. I said only I will protect my home if someone breaks in. What does this have to do with weapons of mass destruction? ...

It's a pity that you don't see the logic in this. Iraq (for instance) and most countries in the world are denied the right to have WMD to defend themselves (= their home) against aggressors (= burglars or other criminals).

Surely you are not suggesting that countries like Iraq should have WMD's?

[Goyave]

... As for the "logic" about contries having WMD for burglars, that just doesn't make any sense at all. I said only I will protect my home if someone breaks in. What does this have to do with weapons of mass destruction? ...

It's a pity that you don't see the logic in this. Iraq (for instance) and most countries in the world are denied the right to have WMD to defend themselves (= their home) against aggressors (= burglars or other criminals).

Surely you are not suggesting that countries like Iraq should have WMD's?

Read my previous posts and you should certainly guess what my answer would be. But those who are against increased gun control implicitly (even unknowingly) approve this idea. If you agree that an individual has the right to protect his/her home and family with a firearm, every country should be entitled to use any mean that is thought being appropriate in order to do the same for its territory and nationals.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Goyave

[MKAsok]

If you agree that an individual has the right to protect his/her home and family with a firearm, every country should be entitled to use any mean that is thought being appropriate in order to do the same for its territory and nationals.

Spurious analogy alert!

[Goyave]

If you agree that an individual has the right to protect his/her home and family with a firearm, every country should be entitled to use any mean that is thought being appropriate in order to do the same for its territory and nationals.

Spurious analogy alert!

I don't think so. Can you develop? In both cases, it's about regulation and trust (or distrust) in legitimate authorities to maintain peace and order.

[MKAsok]

I don't think so. Can you develop? In both cases, it's about regulation and trust (or distrust) in legitimate authorities to maintain peace and order.

I can see your point from a purely theoretical point of view, but you just stated some key words yourself concerning practical application: 'legitimate authorities.' What are they and who defines them (particularly with regard to potential theocracies the Middle East)?

[jdinasia]

Ahhhhh it's ok for some .. but not all

hasn't this dog been beaten to death?

[JimsKnight]

If you agree that an individual has the right to protect his/her home and family with a firearm, every country should be entitled to use any mean that is thought being appropriate in order to do the same for its territory and nationals.

Spurious analogy alert!

Not really, the whole concept of banning guns was and still is to hand over liberty from the individual to the state.

All well and good but the state isn't going to come charging to the rescue in time when the enemies at the door.

[MKAsok]

Ahhhhh it's ok for some .. but not all

hasn't this dog been beaten to death?

Dunno. Has it? Probably... It's getting off topic anyway...

[Goyave]

I don't think so. Can you develop? In both cases, it's about regulation and trust (or distrust) in legitimate authorities to maintain peace and order.

I can see your point from a purely theoretical point of view, but you just stated some key words yourself concerning practical application: 'legitimate authorities.' What are they and who defines them (particularly with regard to potential theocracies the Middle East)?

Heard about United Nations with its Security Council (and their mandates and resolutions) for instance? Not a perfect system, but as another poster said previously about democracy, it's probably the best that we can have in these times...

Now, don't try to divert us from the real debate there. Someone who is against regulations on firearms for individuals could not seriously deny nations the right to defend themselves with WMD if they wish. Most WMD are typically dissuasive weapons...

Edited October 29, 2008 by Goyave

[jdinasia]

is there ANYTHING about Thailand in the last few pages?

[Kerryd]

If you agree that an individual has the right to protect his/her home and family with a firearm, every country should be entitled to use any mean that is thought being appropriate in order to do the same for its territory and nationals.

And what about those countries that have used those same weapons on their own citizens ? And against neighbouring countries ? And those that have openly, publicly called for the annihilation of other countries ?

Who decides what is "appropriate" and what isn't ?

Apparently Saddam thought using chemical weapons against the Kurds in Iraq was appropriate, and was thought to have tried to fire similar weapons at Israel during the first Gulf War.

The Junta in Burma seems to think that rifles, clubs, assaults and rapes are appropriate methods to use on their own citizens (one could say the same for the Sudan and some other governments).

Different countries have different views on what is considered "appropriate" when it comes to self defense. In Canada, you are allowed to use force appropriate to the situation (apparently, if someone attacks you with a large butchers knife, you could use something similar or smaller to defend yourself, but Lord help you if you use something bigger. Even if someone attacks you with a knife, and you are in fear for your life, if you shoot him, you'll likely be the one being charged by the police.).

If nobody had firearms (aside from the police/military), would society be a safer place ? Apparently not in places like Britain where they are having to ban knives due to all the stabbings and murders. What next, baseball bats and rolling pins ?

Someone said long ago that an armed society is a polite society. I don't think that quite holds true in today's society anymore. Too many nut-jobs out there willing (and desperate enough) to take a chance. But even most nut-cases would (likely) prefer to rob a place/person that they knew was unarmed and unable to defend themselves, rather than try a place where the owner (armed or not) was willing to defend themselves.

But, there is a problem with too many people being armed as well. Far too many of them are clueless, careless and complete idiots in some cases. They'd be a bigger danger to themselves and their families than any would be intruder.

It's like driving a car. Some people are learned, considerate and safe drivers. Others shouldn't be allowed on the road at all. Letting them drive is almost the same as letting them wander around with a loaded weapon, except is it (generally) easier for them to get a hold of a vehicle.

[MKAsok]

Now, don't try to divert us from the real debate there. Someone who is against regulations on firearms for individuals could not seriously deny nations the right to defend themselves with WMD if they wish. Most WMD are typically dissuasive weapons...

I'd like to continue but, unfortunately, this isn't the 'real debate' here (it's about bringing firearms into Thailand or something, or smoking bans, can't really remember), so I'm going to bow out here...

[Swanky]

It begs the question....why would anyone want to bring a gun to Thailand or anywhere unless they mean to use it ? I don't respect violence or gun ownership for the wrong reasons.

[dingdongrb]

is there ANYTHING about Thailand in the last few pages?

Hmmmmmm......... I think the mods are over in section 4....

[Goyave]

...If nobody had firearms (aside from the police/military), would society be a safer place ? ...

Yes. I believe. As I believe that it is better not to allow certain countries to have WMD if you haven't understood my point already. I was playing the "devil's advocate" to make certain people understand that regulations are necessary... at every level: for individuals and nations.

It might be obvious for you that a specific country could be a threat (at one time of its History) to others but how can you guarantee that your usually amiable neighbor won't get really angry against you because of a trifle and then kill you with his legally-owned gun? Individuals getting really upset and turning crazy (for a few minutes or more) are not that rare. It certainly happens more often than WMD being used for anything else than dissuasion purposes.

Military and law enforcement forces are usually more trained, have a better self-control and are better prepared to face dangerous situations than the average fellow. I trust them in democratic countries. And I also feel more safe in democratic countries where gun ownership is the exception, not common practice.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Goyave

[Goyave]

is there ANYTHING about Thailand in the last few pages?

I stop here for this thread.

[GayGordon]

It begs the question....why would anyone want to bring a gun to Thailand or anywhere unless they mean to use it ? I don't respect violence or gun ownership for the wrong reasons.

Im with you,.guns scare me and i wouldnt want to mix with the people that might/would use them,. .....i think id feel just as bad if i shot someone or they shot me, either way,....

[grim]

So what then if somebody does try to break in, is he going to shoot/kill them??

The vast majority of break ins are opportunist and if rumbled then the burgulars are very very likely to simply run because they do not want to be caught. And anybody who shows a gun raises the stakes.

Maybe it is just the way it is done in the UK but myself and the vast majority of Brits that I know would not want a gun in the house.

Instead he should invest in a big dog, burgular alarm, baseball bat or even a pet goose (Seriously, they are noisier than any guard dog)

here here, this sound like a bit of a rash plan. much better to invest in conventional security - dogs, locks, gates etc

last thing your mate wants is probs with the law for possession of firearms, let alone using the gun

[vision25]

Gun ownership has solved the Crime Problem in the US - It would work just as well in Thailand.

Thats true, states with very strict gun laws have very high crime rates and those which allow ordinary decent people to defend themselves have much lower crime rates.

The reason being of course is that criminals don't want to take the risk of getting shot.

[Moonrakers]

Gun ownership has solved the Crime Problem in the US - It would work just as well in Thailand.

Thats true, states with very strict gun laws have very high crime rates and those which allow ordinary decent people to defend themselves have much lower crime rates.

The reason being of course is that criminals don't want to take the risk of getting shot.

I there was me thinking that Americans not understanding sarcasm was a stereotype.

[barcelonatio]

Here's a quote from the cult cartoon series "Family Guy"

"It's not guns who kill people, it's dangerous minorities who kill people" (HA!)

I would add:

"It's not guns who kill people, it's stupid idiots who have a gun in the first place who kills people".

The thought of having a gun in a non-gun culture such as Thailand is insane. If you are such a right wing Republican that MUST have a gun ... a fake one would have the same effect.. just wave one at someone in the middle of the night and they will be so fast out of there the problem will be solved. Invest in locks and security measures instead.

[vision25]

I there was me thinking that Americans not understanding sarcasm was a stereotype.

Two points;

I'm British.

I prefer the facts over illogical emotion.

Burglars, muggers, rapists and the like would be much less likely to offend if their intended targets acquired the habit of protecting themselves.

[jdinasia]

Vision .. your lack of knowledge about the US is astounding

and global .... go back and try that in Eng