Bangkok Gun Shops: What's Inside And Why Tourists Can't Buy

[KRS1]

Ever heard of a knife or baseball bat? Should they outlaw knives and baseball games too? I can stick my ball point pen up your nose and kill you also, should we all switch to crayons instead? If i was a Ninja i could probably kill you with my bare fingers, ehh you get the point.

...

I could kill more people in one day with a truck than a gun can and have more fun doing it.

Do you really want to continue these silly arguments and pointless comparisons...

Obviously, there's a clear difference between guns and the other means you've cited...

When was the last time anyone heard of people getting killed in a drive-by pen in the nose spree?

Guns allow indiscriminate, multiple killing from a distance and give the average unarmed victim has relatively little way to defend themselves... They also allow for the regular and recurring (marginally) unintended killing of total innocent bystanders in all kinds of situations.

At least with knives, baseball bats, ballpoint pens or what have you, the perpetrator is pretty much going to be limited to one victim at a time in close physical proximity... The would-be victim at least has a somewhat better chance of escaping and/or defending themselves. The wounds, if inflicted, are probably less likely to be fatal.

I would have rather taken my chances with a drunk Thai policeman throwing knives, baseball bats or rocks off the overpass in a drunken rage vs. shooting his gun.

And likewise, if the Thai cop who just shot his 6 colleagues had only been armed with an knife, do you think just perhaps a few more of those guys would have survived by overcoming and disarming their psycho colleague before he had a chance slash/stab them all to death... I'd say that's a near certainty.

So let's stop with this foolishness, please...

do you think that criminals would respect police out hear if they were armed with knives.

guns keep the peice. In England people love a drunken brawl. sometimes ends with knives baseball bats broken legs and arms. i bet these things would happen less if they knew that there was a serious prospect that someone could get shot.

Not that anyone should be carrying them but maybe one in a car near by.

personally i would prefer street fights to end with a wipe of blood off the face then down the pub loser buys the drinks.

my point is that people tend to respect people more out hear. I wonder if one reason why a Thai thinks very carefully before they fight another Thai as it could be to the death.

sample .. a thai man fights a Thai man then knocks him down. The thai man who lost ocmes back later and shoots the winner of the fight.

the other sample a thai man fights a thai man knocks him down then shoots him to stop him getting vengance. Maybe this is why the Thais try to clear things before it escualtes which probably is an unlying reason why Thai people are peacefull and try to clear things before they go for the kill

Your right, life in Thailand is very cheap.

[KRS1]

How many criminals have gun permits?

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society. But, a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation--and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Marko Kloos

That settles it, next time i go somewhere with bargirls im bringing my watergun and telling them to leave me alone or else.

Seriously thought, that was a well written well thought out post.

[rijb]

Credit goes to Marko Kloos.

[PoodMaiDai]

Any of you know how much a Mossberg 500 sells for in one of the Bangkok shops?

[wolf5370]

Guns Kill.

It is their primary function.

It's rather foolish to think that you might not need one.

I was attacked by feral dogs 15 years ago in Northern California. The next time I went to my ranch, I had a Glock 19 with me.One round over the poochies heads and they were gone.

Let's see.. then there was the mountain lion that I thought was the neighbor's dog one night, as I tried to entice it to eat some chicken with me. Closer examination awakened me from my Eau De Vie Poire William fantasy, that the neighbor's dog had come to visit. Closed the bottle...went inside the house for a while.

I no longer own any weapons. Mostly by choice, but also because of theft. This should be a big consideration for anyone living in LOS. The possibility that you may be shot with your own weapon is greater than zero in provinces fueled by YaaBaa, (crank for you Californians).

There is a very large King Cobra living around our house. I have never killed an animal with a weapon. Snakes are of great benefit when you are overrun with mice. I have no desire to kill it and could probably convince it to leave if I could ever figure out where he/she hangs out. Still, this does not mean I would not like a weapon to even the odds in the event the snake wanted to have it's way with me in the biblical sense.

Guns are a pain in the ass...if you take it with you.. it owns you..

Had a crazed man tell me he was going to kill me once. He meant it. My .357 was within a meter of my reach, yet had I gone for it.. he would have dropped me with a small axe, like rice under an Isan scythe. I immediately embraced the man and apologized for whatever indiscretion he felt I had bestowed upon him. Guns can be a rapid ending to a long story.

To say that people are stupid for owning them is like telling a mechanic he is stupid for using metric tools on a Mercedes. There is a time and place for everything.

If Christine LaGarde's predictions are correct, I would highly suggest you invest in a magnum, short barreled shotgun and 50 rounds of deer slugs, because if the world economy collapses...you're going to need it Coolio, just not in Thailand.

Erm King Cobras don't eat mice - they eat other snakes, that eat mice.

Someone up above mention European studies showing non-gun nations versus gun nations (i.e. top percentile versus bottom percentile) - and looked at thr murder rate. This is a typical myopic study, if I say the percentage of people dieing from Alzheimer's is lower in smokers, then that m,ust mean smoking is good for you? (couldn't be because smokers are more likely to die of cancers, low immunity to disease and other smoking-related mediacal issues and thus watering down the statistics). Britian is a gunless (officiially at least) nation - even sporting gun ownership is banned for many weopon types with strict carrying and storage controls (even airguns) - yet there have been people who commit mass muder in the streets and school with illegal weopons - Dunblane for example.

I used to shoot in competition (military) many years ago - and a speople who have been around guns know, they are nasty things designed to kill people and things (or paper targets ). However, they are here - the Genie is out of the bottle and has been for centuries. The bad guys can get weapons, the police (here at least) carry them (even the UK now has armed response units at every major cop-shop) because the bad guys have them, Joe Public is at a distinct disadvantage! However, with owning (or using) a gun comes responsibility - having a WP or a job should not be the defining factor, taking a gun course (independant fixed charge) to know how to use it safely/carry it/look after it/store it/etc, having a suitable place to lock it away (separate from the ammo) and possibly a pychiatric report and mental health report (any previous mental issue that should preclude owning a weapon) would be good too - these are much better deciders (along with the CRB check of course).

I actually am confused by the WP requirement - how does this help - why does it matter if a person ups and leaves the country (he can't take the gun with him for starters) - having a job makes him less likely to use it on someone else? (compare the stress of commuting through BKK to a stress-filled day at the office - to a retiree sitting in his garden drinking iced beer and reading a book - mmmm). The only thing I can think of is that there is a fear the non-WP person will buy a legal gun and sell it to a bad guy (but the bad guy can buy it anyway? or get another Thai without a record to buy it for him) - is that in all honesty a likely scenarion? Seems odd to be. I had insurance turned down once, not because I am unwell or old (just 40 and perfectly fit thank you) but because I didn't have a WP and their head office (the sales girl called) said one was required - when I asked why, she said that they told her that without it I could leave the country - I said WITH it I could also leave the country, and what did it matter if I had already paid for the insurance in advance (as I always do - and as this policy required) as if I left the country they would have a years policy money and I would no longer be a risk. So, there certainly is something magical here with a WP.

[wolf5370]

Ever heard of a knife or baseball bat? Should they outlaw knives and baseball games too? I can stick my ball point pen up your nose and kill you also, should we all switch to crayons instead? If i was a Ninja i could probably kill you with my bare fingers, ehh you get the point.

...

I could kill more people in one day with a truck than a gun can and have more fun doing it.

Do you really want to continue these silly arguments and pointless comparisons...

Obviously, there's a clear difference between guns and the other means you've cited...

When was the last time anyone heard of people getting killed in a drive-by pen in the nose spree?

Guns allow indiscriminate, multiple killing from a distance and give the average unarmed victim has relatively little way to defend themselves... They also allow for the regular and recurring (marginally) unintended killing of total innocent bystanders in all kinds of situations.

At least with knives, baseball bats, ballpoint pens or what have you, the perpetrator is pretty much going to be limited to one victim at a time in close physical proximity... The would-be victim at least has a somewhat better chance of escaping and/or defending themselves. The wounds, if inflicted, are probably less likely to be fatal.

I would have rather taken my chances with a drunk Thai policeman throwing knives, baseball bats or rocks off the overpass in a drunken rage vs. shooting his gun.

And likewise, if the Thai cop who just shot his 6 colleagues had only been armed with an knife, do you think just perhaps a few more of those guys would have survived by overcoming and disarming their psycho colleague before he had a chance slash/stab them all to death... I'd say that's a near certainty.

So let's stop with this foolishness, please...

do you think that criminals would respect police out hear if they were armed with knives.

guns keep the peice. In England people love a drunken brawl. sometimes ends with knives baseball bats broken legs and arms. i bet these things would happen less if they knew that there was a serious prospect that someone could get shot.

Not that anyone should be carrying them but maybe one in a car near by.

personally i would prefer street fights to end with a wipe of blood off the face then down the pub loser buys the drinks.

my point is that people tend to respect people more out hear. I wonder if one reason why a Thai thinks very carefully before they fight another Thai as it could be to the death.

sample .. a thai man fights a Thai man then knocks him down. The thai man who lost ocmes back later and shoots the winner of the fight.

the other sample a thai man fights a thai man knocks him down then shoots him to stop him getting vengance. Maybe this is why the Thais try to clear things before it escualtes which probably is an unlying reason why Thai people are peacefull and try to clear things before they go for the kill

Criminals don't respect the police here anyway - not because of their weapons, but because they are as corrupts as the criminals are and can be bought off for any crime with enough cash to do so. Having grown up in England, I can tell you that if the bar drinkers had guns, then they would almost certainly use them in a brawl - the problem there is to do with binge and excessive drinking in short timescales - being wasted on a weekend is basically a peer group requiement. I have seen drunks in my home town in England put peoples heads through window shop front glass windows, bottled in the face, gallsed, beaten with pool cues and balls and bars stalls etc - if they has a loaded weapon it would get used. Even with no fight I would gurantee the traffic lights and signs (and even local Indian takeaways etc) would get blown to bits every Saturday night! Scum culture that is bred in Britian these days needs some serious work to fix (if it is possible still) and arming the thugs is not the answer.

I agree that in the UK it is much more likely to be a hot-blooded shooting or a drunken accident that a cold blooded revenge attack - I think mostly becasue Thais generally never seem to look at what repurcussions of their actions are, where the sobered up vengeful Brit will fear going to prison. I guess there is also the possible confidence in getting away with it here too!

[Asa]

I don't see any reason why anyone would need to carry a gun, except for those with legal entitlement due to their professions. And the least why any sensible tourist would want to buy guns in Thailand. I have few handguns from my father, and that were brought in from states. All are locked up at home, I would take them out to my bedside at night, and occasionally to shooting range. I don't go where there are risks. Never have problem with others, I just walk away from it.

Carry a gun will only invite trouble to yourself. Both from the authority, and the crooks.

[eriksen]

Ever heard of a knife or baseball bat? Should they outlaw knives and baseball games too? I can stick my ball point pen up your nose and kill you also, should we all switch to crayons instead? If i was a Ninja i could probably kill you with my bare fingers, ehh you get the point.

...

I could kill more people in one day with a truck than a gun can and have more fun doing it.

Do you really want to continue these silly arguments and pointless comparisons...

Obviously, there's a clear difference between guns and the other means you've cited...

When was the last time anyone heard of people getting killed in a drive-by pen in the nose spree?

Guns allow indiscriminate, multiple killing from a distance and give the average unarmed victim has relatively little way to defend themselves... They also allow for the regular and recurring (marginally) unintended killing of total innocent bystanders in all kinds of situations.

At least with knives, baseball bats, ballpoint pens or what have you, the perpetrator is pretty much going to be limited to one victim at a time in close physical proximity... The would-be victim at least has a somewhat better chance of escaping and/or defending themselves. The wounds, if inflicted, are probably less likely to be fatal.

I would have rather taken my chances with a drunk Thai policeman throwing knives, baseball bats or rocks off the overpass in a drunken rage vs. shooting his gun.

And likewise, if the Thai cop who just shot his 6 colleagues had only been armed with an knife, do you think just perhaps a few more of those guys would have survived by overcoming and disarming their psycho colleague before he had a chance slash/stab them all to death... I'd say that's a near certainty.

So let's stop with this foolishness, please...

do you think that criminals would respect police out hear if they were armed with knives.

guns keep the peice. In England people love a drunken brawl. sometimes ends with knives baseball bats broken legs and arms. i bet these things would happen less if they knew that there was a serious prospect that someone could get shot.

Not that anyone should be carrying them but maybe one in a car near by.

personally i would prefer street fights to end with a wipe of blood off the face then down the pub loser buys the drinks.

my point is that people tend to respect people more out hear. I wonder if one reason why a Thai thinks very carefully before they fight another Thai as it could be to the death.

sample .. a thai man fights a Thai man then knocks him down. The thai man who lost ocmes back later and shoots the winner of the fight.

the other sample a thai man fights a thai man knocks him down then shoots him to stop him getting vengance. Maybe this is why the Thais try to clear things before it escualtes which probably is an unlying reason why Thai people are peacefull and try to clear things before they go for the kill

Your right, life in Thailand is very cheap.

I like this post... it rings true... if you really have a beef then its not a game... I feel the same way..

[eriksen]

How many criminals have gun permits?

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society. But, a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation--and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Marko Kloos

That settles it, next time i go somewhere with bargirls im bringing my watergun and telling them to leave me alone or else.

Seriously thought, that was a well written well thought out post.

Very good... do you write for politicians? you do have a knack... I am not arguing for or against..as I hear both sides..

[eriksen]

Any of you know how much a Mossberg 500 sells for in one of the Bangkok shops?

cmon, spit it out!!

what is it

how much?

[rijb]

Very good... do you write for politicians? you do have a knack... I am not arguing for or against..as I hear both sides..

Credit goes to Marko Kloos.

[skippybangkok]

I don't see any reason why anyone would need to carry a gun, except for those with legal entitlement due to their professions. And the least why any sensible tourist would want to buy guns in Thailand. I have few handguns from my father, and that were brought in from states. All are locked up at home, I would take them out to my bedside at night, and occasionally to shooting range. I don't go where there are risks. Never have problem with others, I just walk away from it.

Carry a gun will only invite trouble to yourself. Both from the authority, and the crooks.

Spot on.

Don't have one, but am looking to get one for home. Want to be sure that I can protect my family at night to the extent possible. Would never take it out, last thing you would want is some road rage interferring with your judgement

[sushi5734]

I wouldn't mind having a handgun for occasional target practice and it would be reassuring to have one for home defence, but I think the risks are exaggerated, yes there guns out there, I heard an orchestra of gunfire during the lunar eclipse a few weeks ago, but providing you don't mix with dodgy characters Thai and farang alike, then you're fairly unlikely to be facing down armed intruders in your house, if you want to protect your family a smoke alarm is probably a better first step in this country!!!!

I would be interested to know how much a glock .45 is and how much .45 acp rounds are? Prices for .40 or 9mm woud be great if anyone has that info?

[Pikey]

Any of you know how much a Mossberg 500 sells for in one of the Bangkok shops?

cmon, spit it out!!

what is it

how much?

I don't know about a Mossberg but 2 years ago here in Chiang Mai, I (the wife) bought a Remington 870 Express for the disgustingly exhorbitant price of 37,000THB which included the licence fee which if I remember was in the hundreds of baht. Bear in mind that in the US, the same gun would retail at something like 12,000THB or less. Out of the box, the gun immediately jammed and I "honed" the top end of the barrel to get the cartridge ejector mech working properly, then got the whole thing powdercoated as the factory bluing was crap and started rusting despite being oiled. Now it's fine and is on hand for home defence and time at the shooting range. BTW, a box of 25 "00" cartidges will run you 800 - 1200+ THB depending on brand.

Hope this helps.

Pikey.

[BigC]

about 15 years ago, at my former home in the US, someone entered my house uninvited. He had just opened the front door and had come inside and was in an obvious agitated state of mind. I told him to leave my house and he cursed at me. I had returned from a deer hunting trip earlier that day and my rifle and handgun (.357) had not been cleaned and stored as of yet and were within easy reach. The rifle was not loaded but the .357 was. I grabbed if and pointed it at him (about 3 meters away) and told him not to move. I called the police and, within minutes, 3 police cars pulled in front of my home. they ran to my house, carrying shotguns. They ran in and grabbed the intruder and threw him to the ground,cuffed him and put him in the back of a police car. The police told me they had been looking for him. Shortly before he had entered my house, he had been involved in a drug deal (crack) and something had gone and he had shot someone and then run.

What would have happened if I had not been armed? That will never be known. Perhaps I should have asked him in for tea and crumpets and to wait for the police to arrive and, being a polite young man, he would have had his tea and waited patiently for the police to arrive. But, I doubt that very seriously. The expression on his face, seeing a .357 pointed at him, told me he was going nowhere. The police told me later than his pants were wet and it was not water either. He had also thrown the gun he had used before away.

I have used guns since I was a kid, starting with my Dad's .22 rifle. I have had training with different weapons in the military and regularly went target shooting and hunting. Guns are a tool, no better and no worse than the person using them. They have been around for 100's of years and the technology is basically the same, expanding gasses pushing a lead pellet out a barrel.

A writer for the Washington Post was very anti gun and wrote articles about it regularly. In Washington DC, personal gun ownership was illegal (and also the murder capital of the US at the time). The writer for the Post had an intruder in his home and, shot him. Hmmmm, an anti gun staff writer not only owned and illegal gun but used it.

i agree with your post but i am still no closer to owning a gun in my name legally in Thailand in the south. I kmow my Thai misses is able to get 1 but it is not the same. my gun my responsablity. i would not like to take out a gun belonging to someone else because then if i have to use it then it invloves the person who it is registered to which is not balanced.

Problem is that anyone can get a gun without a licence. having a licence makes peopl easyier to catch should they use legal guns in an illegal manor

[khunkeith]

about 15 years ago, at my former home in the US, someone entered my house uninvited. He had just opened the front door and had come inside and was in an obvious agitated state of mind. I told him to leave my house and he cursed at me. I had returned from a deer hunting trip earlier that day and my rifle and handgun (.357) had not been cleaned and stored as of yet and were within easy reach. The rifle was not loaded but the .357 was. I grabbed if and pointed it at him (about 3 meters away) and told him not to move. I called the police and, within minutes, 3 police cars pulled in front of my home. they ran to my house, carrying shotguns. They ran in and grabbed the intruder and threw him to the ground,cuffed him and put him in the back of a police car. The police told me they had been looking for him. Shortly before he had entered my house, he had been involved in a drug deal (crack) and something had gone and he had shot someone and then run.

What would have happened if I had not been armed? That will never be known. Perhaps I should have asked him in for tea and crumpets and to wait for the police to arrive and, being a polite young man, he would have had his tea and waited patiently for the police to arrive. But, I doubt that very seriously. The expression on his face, seeing a .357 pointed at him, told me he was going nowhere. The police told me later than his pants were wet and it was not water either. He had also thrown the gun he had used before away.

I have used guns since I was a kid, starting with my Dad's .22 rifle. I have had training with different weapons in the military and regularly went target shooting and hunting. Guns are a tool, no better and no worse than the person using them. They have been around for 100's of years and the technology is basically the same, expanding gasses pushing a lead pellet out a barrel.

A writer for the Washington Post was very anti gun and wrote articles about it regularly. In Washington DC, personal gun ownership was illegal (and also the murder capital of the US at the time). The writer for the Post had an intruder in his home and, shot him. Hmmmm, an anti gun staff writer not only owned and illegal gun but used it.

i agree with your post but i am still no closer to owning a gun in my name legally in Thailand in the south. I kmow my Thai misses is able to get 1 but it is not the same. my gun my responsablity. i would not like to take out a gun belonging to someone else because then if i have to use it then it invloves the person who it is registered to which is not balanced.

Problem is that anyone can get a gun without a licence. having a licence makes peopl easyier to catch should they use legal guns in an illegal manor

As the former radio talk show host, G. Gordon Liddy used to say "being a convicted felon (Watergate Break in) I am not allowed to own a firearm. However, Mrs Liddy own 27 guns"

[Oberkommando]

There's only thing more pathetic than an idiotic Thai with a gun, and that's a Westerner living in Thailand that owns one.

[JAG]

Perhaps not the subtlest way of making a very valid point OberK!!

Just take a minute to look at the way some of the more, shall we say, uninhibited, westerners behave here, and then imagine them tooled up!

Edited February 25, 2012 by JAG

[Reasonableman]

The mind boggles! Uninhibited tools, no less! That sounds so very TVF.

Perhaps not the subtlest way of making a very valid point OberK!!

Just take a minute to look at the way some of the more, shall we say, uninhibited, westerners behave here, and then imagine them tooled up!

[Bakeman]

PRO-guns for trained people. As a retired military member and civilian police officer I wish they didnt have guns in Thailand but its too late. Have you read the news lately? Its a pretty easy decision for if you hate weapons dont get them for you probably couldnt use them and would only harm you further but if you like weapons be responsible for it only takes one wrong decision to ruin your life.

To not have a means of defense if the occasion ever arises is tragic but to have a means of defense when faced with an armed assailant is priceless even if your weapon is never used.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Bakeman

[spidermike007]

I was recently assaulted. The thai folks that helped me deal with it, all asked if I had retaliated after, which Inhad not. The thai goombah was forced to pay me afterwards, and he lost considerable face, which was nice. They all agreed, that as a fareng, there are few ways to get away with assaulting, or retaliating against a thai. However, all agreed that if you are threatened or attacked at your home, or on your property, you could get away with nearly anything. Likewise, if you assaulted or threatened someone on their property, they could get away with more, than if they were off their property. An important distinction to remember as a fareng living in LOS.

[BigC]

Has anyone who is of uk nationality managed to purchase a gun legally in their own name outside Bangkok and has anyone bought one in Bangkok u can pm me if u want to keep it hush hush

[NewlyMintedThai]

I was recently assaulted. The thai folks that helped me deal with it, all asked if I had retaliated after, which Inhad not. The thai goombah was forced to pay me afterwards, and he lost considerable face, which was nice. They all agreed, that as a fareng, there are few ways to get away with assaulting, or retaliating against a thai. However, all agreed that if you are threatened or attacked at your home, or on your property, you could get away with nearly anything. Likewise, if you assaulted or threatened someone on their property, they could get away with more, than if they were off their property. An important distinction to remember as a fareng living in LOS.

The laws are exactly the same for "ferangs" as for Thais.

[FiscalFizz]

Don't mind me guys, American, coming through. BTW- Yes, this is LEGAL in the good ol US of A.

" Ohhh, I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free.... To shooooooot a gun big enough, to chop down a full grown tree"

hehe.

[scorecard]

I was recently assaulted. The thai folks that helped me deal with it, all asked if I had retaliated after, which Inhad not. The thai goombah was forced to pay me afterwards, and he lost considerable face, which was nice. They all agreed, that as a fareng, there are few ways to get away with assaulting, or retaliating against a thai. However, all agreed that if you are threatened or attacked at your home, or on your property, you could get away with nearly anything. Likewise, if you assaulted or threatened someone on their property, they could get away with more, than if they were off their property. An important distinction to remember as a fareng living in LOS.

-

Edited March 3, 2012 by scorecard

[scorecard]

Don't mind me guys, American, coming through. BTW- Yes, this is LEGAL in the good ol US of A.

" Ohhh, I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free.... To shooooooot a gun big enough, to chop down a full grown tree"

hehe.

Hope your not located near my family.

[scorecard]

I was recently assaulted. The thai folks that helped me deal with it, all asked if I had retaliated after, which Inhad not. The thai goombah was forced to pay me afterwards, and he lost considerable face, which was nice. They all agreed, that as a fareng, there are few ways to get away with assaulting, or retaliating against a thai. However, all agreed that if you are threatened or attacked at your home, or on your property, you could get away with nearly anything. Likewise, if you assaulted or threatened someone on their property, they could get away with more, than if they were off their property. An important distinction to remember as a fareng living in LOS.

The laws are exactly the same for "ferangs" as for Thais.

-

Edited March 3, 2012 by scorecard

[scorecard]

Quote:

"I was recently assaulted. The thai folks that helped me deal with it, all asked if I had retaliated after, which Inhad not. The thai goombah was forced to pay me afterwards, and he lost considerable face, which was nice. They all agreed, that as a fareng, there are few ways to get away with assaulting, or retaliating against a thai. However, all agreed that if you are threatened or attacked at your home, or on your property, you could get away with nearly anything. Likewise, if you assaulted or threatened someone on their property, they could get away with more, than if they were off their property. An important distinction to remember as a fareng living in LOS."

As stated many times before, the Thai law on this subject is the same for Thai people as for farang who are in Thailand. As it is in any country in the world.

Can you imagine that American, German, Japanese, Australian citizens etc., resident in their own respective countries would allow / accept a law which said 'locals' cannot kill / maim people who happen to be on their 'property' but visitors to that same country can do this?

Total rubbish.

There is no law which says that it's OK for farang, or Thai, to kill or maim people because they are on 'your property'.

Please folks, don't believe everything you read on webboards.

Edited March 3, 2012 by scorecard

[scorecard]

How many criminals have gun permits?

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society. But, a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation--and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Marko Kloos

That settles it, next time i go somewhere with bargirls im bringing my watergun and telling them to leave me alone or else.

Seriously thought, that was a well written well thought out post.

What language are you people talking?

[pattayadingo]

Just out of curocity, is there any game hunting in Thailand, birds etc...?

Never heard about any hunters butwhat do I know?

From what I recall the King made an edict regards the killing of birds some years ago when they were in massive decline from being slaughtered. But I stand to be corrected on that.