Self-Defense Within Your Home

[pastitche]

Be careful about protecting the roof. Every single break-in in the area where I live has been through the roof.

But how many times were the occupants inside?

[submaniac]

You proclaim your Thai nationality but admit to your US upbringing where the pro gun lobby is far more powerful than elsewhere. Please accept that there are members on here who do not accept that gun ownership is a worthwhile social value or constitutional right. Multiple murders by legal gun owners are far more common in the US than in countries where possession of such lethal weapons is more strictly controlled.

Whilst there is an emotional response to "what can I do if burglars break into my home, when my wife and children are sleeping?" , the chances of that are small. Most break-ins take place when there is no-one in the house and a gun is just another valuable item to steal

You're entitled to have your opinion on any matter that you want; it is your God given right and I don't challenge that. If you want to debate your opinion with me, if it is in a civilized manner I certainly don't mind that either. (Not to say that I think your post is uncivilized in any way.) The reasons for my opinions on gun control have already been made in the previous 9 pages so I don't think it is necessary to rehash the debate.

In regards to both Thailand and the United States, both have laws which allow firearms ownership which is directly opposite to your belief and in favor of those who share opinions similar to myself.

[Soutpeel]

A gun in your home, under lock and key - Yes.

A gun in a holster, under your jacket - No.

Just my opinion.

Kinda defeats the object of having a firearm then

How many times did you see James Bond jumping up getting the key to his gun safe while some was trying to break into his room ?

Real men sleep with their firearm under their pillows...

Edited March 24, 2012 by Soutpeel

[Sing_Sling]

A gun in your home, under lock and key - Yes.

A gun in a holster, under your jacket - No.

Just my opinion.

Kinda defeats the object of having a firearm then

How many times did you see James Bond jumping up getting the key to his gun safe while some was trying to break into his room ?

Real men sleep with their firearm under their pillows...

Real men don't need guns

[silsburyhill]

I would also like a ‘safe-room’ as per the movie.

Dear God. Just go home. Or move to Switzerland.

[inthepink]

A gun in your home, under lock and key - Yes.

A gun in a holster, under your jacket - No.

Just my opinion.

Kinda defeats the object of having a firearm then

How many times did you see James Bond jumping up getting the key to his gun safe while some was trying to break into his room ?

Real men sleep with their firearm under their pillows...

You do realise that the James Bond films are fictional, right?

The point, for me, is that if people keep guns in their houses rather than under their jackets, I have the luxury of being able to decide whether I wish to be in close proximity to them when they are armed. Keeping it under lock and key when you are not there is a good idea unless you wish to help arm local criminals. You can of course keep it under your pillow when you are there if you like - whatever gets you through the night.

[klikster]

Just be a bit careful about taking the p*ss toward them -- some are the real deal.

so what ? they are not navy seals anymore and have no more rights than a tuk tuk driver over here

They might decide to give you some training -- after you have exercised your "rights", of course. You want to p*ss off a Navy Seal, active or ex, go for it!

[wana]

Just be a bit careful about taking the p*ss toward them -- some are the real deal.

so what ? they are not navy seals anymore and have no more rights than a tuk tuk driver over here

They might decide to give you some training -- after you have exercised your "rights", of course. You want to p*ss off a Navy Seal, active or ex, go for it!

i have recieved military training myself and also boxed for many years but i have no right to beat up people in bars with it just because i can

[BigJohnnyBKK]

Dear God. Just go home. Or move to Switzerland.

Where very low levels of violence coincide with the fact that every male adult has an automatic rifle provided by the government in the closet.

[inthepink]

Dear God. Just go home. Or move to Switzerland.

Where very low levels of violence coincide with the fact that every male adult has an automatic rifle provided by the government in the closet.

Don't you think that's more likely to do with the economic conditions? I mean, there are areas of the UK with very low levels of violence and quite violent areas, but the firearms laws are applied uniformly across the country as far as I am aware.

To clarify: Switzerland, where a low rate of unemployment coincides with low levels of violence.

Edited March 24, 2012 by inthepink

[Sing_Sling]

It's more than just that, of course - it is a healthier society in pretty much every way . . .

[BigJohnnyBKK]

I am sure you are aware of the historical significance of the country to which we are referring, you do after all speak English.

First time I've heard a Brit admit that Yanks speak English.

Historical significance = "we used to be significant"

So was Athens, so was Rome.

Not long from now the world will be full of Yanks bemoaning the tail end of their decline and fall. The trend is toward a single world culture, and in the long term I'm afraid it's not looking good for the West. . .

[inthepink]

I am sure you are aware of the historical significance of the country to which we are referring, you do after all speak English.

First time I've heard a Brit admit that Yanks speak English.

Historical significance = "we used to be significant"

So was Athens, so was Rome.

Not long from now the world will be full of Yanks bemoaning the tail end of their decline and fall. The trend is toward a single world culture, and in the long term I'm afraid it's not looking good for the West. . .

I'm not championing Britain as the centre of the world, our history is not something I bang on about in unrelated topics. However, whilst Great Britain may not be significant in a military sense any longer or in territories held, it is still significant as a financial trading centre. In any case, I only mentioned its significance (past or present) because I thought physical size was not that relevant. Now I am aware of submaniac's tastes in music, he can say what he likes as far as I'm concerned - it's all good.

This is all a long way from self-defence in the home though.....

Edited March 24, 2012 by inthepink

[BigJohnnyBKK]

Dear God. Just go home. Or move to Switzerland.

Where very low levels of violence coincide with the fact that every male adult has an automatic rifle provided by the government in the closet.

Don't you think that's more likely to do with the economic conditions? I mean, there are areas of the UK with very low levels of violence and quite violent areas, but the firearms laws are applied uniformly across the country as far as I am aware.

To clarify: Switzerland, where a low rate of unemployment coincides with low levels of violence.

I would speculate that economic prosperity as well as low levels of violence are both the effect of a great bunch of people getting together a rational society and committing to keeping it that way, rather than just letting everything fall apart with a "I've got mine bugger the rest" attitude in many other developed countries.

In such a context, widespread gun ownership helps to prevent crime - can you imagine how stupid you'd have to be to go on a rampage holding up convenience stores there?

[inthepink]

I think that's a very simplistic way of looking at the financial affairs of a country but that's not a discussion for this thread. On the subject of holding up convenience stores...well you might be stupid to attempt it but you'd be sure to have the weaponry on hand to do it if the mood took you. I don't know when the Swiss introduced their current firearms laws but from my recollection of history lessons at school, they were not too keen on using weapons in any kind of useful way 70 years ago.

You cannot simply say that widespread gun ownership in this context helps to prevent crime and expect to be taken seriously. You have no evidence that gun ownership is the reason for low crime in Switzerland. As I said earlier, I don't hold any strong views on the subject but I do object to people making fallacious statements in order to promote their own world view.

Edited March 26, 2012 by inthepink

[connda]

Wow. You guys still at it over here.

Once you realize that:

No one in the anti-gun camp is going to change the mind of anyone in the pro-gun camp,

and

No one in the pro-gun camp is going to change the mind of anyone in the anti-gun camp,

...then Bob's your Uncle and it time to go home.

It really doesn't leave much to talk about unless you're the type of person who enjoys slamming your head against the wall multiple times for the sheer fun of it.

By the way, I had my answer about 7 pages back. Everything else has been bemused entertainment, sort of like poking at a scorpion with a stick just to see how riled you can get it. After the initial amusement wears off, it's time to do something else. But I gotta admit, punching the buttons on the anti-gun crowd has kept us entertained for almost 2 weeks. Think I'll put my cowboy hat on and go shoot some targets tomorrow. Bye bye ya'll.

Edited March 26, 2012 by connda

[bangkokrick]

The five iron is my second line of defense. Here is my first line, that's my 45 KG dog playing tug of war with me.

Any particular reason that it's a 5 iron. Is that your best club?

[inthepink]

Wow. You guys still at it over here.

Once you realize that:

No one in the anti-gun camp is going to change the mind of anyone in the pro-gun camp,

and

No one in the pro-gun camp is going to change the mind of anyone in the anti-gun camp,

...then Bob's your Uncle and it time to go home.

It really doesn't leave much to talk about unless you're the type of person who enjoys slamming your head against the wall multiple times for the sheer fun of it.

By the way, I had my answer about 7 pages back. Everything else has been bemused entertainment, sort of like poking at a scorpion with a stick just to see how riled you can get it. After the initial amusement wears off, it's time to do something else. But I gotta admit, punching the buttons on the anti-gun crowd has kept us entertained for almost 2 weeks. Think I'll put my cowboy hat on and go shoot some targets tomorrow. Bye bye ya'll.

Why do you have to divide people into pro-gun and anti-gun groups? Isn't there any room for a middle ground....i.e. people like me (who I'm sure you are lumping in with what you call the "anti-gun crowd" out of laziness and perhaps an unwillingess to admit that there might be more than two sides to an argument) who are neither for nor against gun ownership?

[Sing_Sling]

Wow. You guys still at it over here.

Once you realize that:

No one in the anti-gun camp is going to change the mind of anyone in the pro-gun camp,

and

No one in the pro-gun camp is going to change the mind of anyone in the anti-gun camp,

...then Bob's your Uncle and it time to go home.

It really doesn't leave much to talk about unless you're the type of person who enjoys slamming your head against the wall multiple times for the sheer fun of it.

By the way, I had my answer about 7 pages back. Everything else has been bemused entertainment, sort of like poking at a scorpion with a stick just to see how riled you can get it. After the initial amusement wears off, it's time to do something else. But I gotta admit, punching the buttons on the anti-gun crowd has kept us entertained for almost 2 weeks. Think I'll put my cowboy hat on and go shoot some targets tomorrow. Bye bye ya'll.

Why do you have to divide people into pro-gun and anti-gun groups? Isn't there any room for a middle ground....i.e. people like me (who I'm sure you are lumping in with what you call the "anti-gun crowd" out of laziness and perhaps an unwillingess to admit that there might be more than two sides to an argument) who are neither for nor against gun ownership?

For the same reason he thinks he is 'punching buttons' in a discussion . . . he seems a master debater.

[VocalNeal]

I have an acquaintance who once had a man armed with a rifle in his bedroom. I never asked the outcome. He now has an electric security fence which keeps intruders out. His wife does now have a pistol and he bought a shot gun. Both on the advice of and sold by the police.

I believe he bought a clay pigeon launcher and practices occasionally in his yard. It is quite a large yard.

Anyone within earshot knows he has a shotgun!

Anecdotal:

I was told once if you do decide you need to shoot and intruder in your house, god forbid, after the fact shoot at least one round into the ceiling.

"I fired a warning shot but the intruder did not respond" Apparently it is impossible to tell which shot was fired first.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

On the subject of holding up convenience stores...well you might be stupid to attempt it but you'd be sure to have the weaponry on hand to do it if the mood took you.

That mood would be - suicidal?

I don't know when the Swiss introduced their current firearms laws but from my recollection of history lessons at school, they were not too keen on using weapons in any kind of useful way 70 years ago.

Yes the banks were immoral after WWII, but you can't fault the whole nation, much less their neutrality during the war.

While most of the rest of Europe folded and made their resources freely available to fuel Hitler's campaigns and allowed their Jews, Gypsies and LBGT citizens to be exterminated, there was no Holocaust on Swiss soil. In fact if America has sheltered refugees at the same per capita rate as Switzerland, it would have taken in over 3 million, as opposed to the tiny number it actually accepted.

I doubt the US would ever have joined the Allies if it weren't attacked - it remained neutral even after Pearl Harbor, and only joined the fight after Hitler also declared war on America.

And why did Hitler never dare invade Switzerland? No standing army, no offensive capability, but as America keeps forgetting to learn from its many defeats since WWII, the most fearsome defensive capacity of all - a citizenry permanently organized into constantly training, well-armed "universal militias" capable of operating independently of any centralized command and control. In fact, even if the Swiss "ruling elite" wanted to surrender to the Nazis, they couldn't have, as its government system, is so decentralized among the 26 cantons, mostly run by town meeting.

Sure the Nazis would eventually have overrun Switzerland, but Hitler knew it would be at a huge cost - even the official Army estimate was over 200,000 Germans.

The founders of American democracy greatly admired Switzerland as a "sister republic", and the Swiss are a lot more likely than the US to never fall into dictatorship, since the original concept of armed citizen militias in America's constitution has been degraded beyond recognition, not to mention the effective functioning of our democracy, rights to speak and assemble freely, privacy etc

Winston Churchill: "of all the neutrals Switzerland has the greatest right distinction... She has been a Democratic State, standing for freedom in self-defense among her mountains, and in thought, in spite of race, largely on our side."

And as a side note, I think the interests of the American people, as opposed to those of the ever more powerful global corporations, would be much better served by our keeping our nose out of other peoples' business and thinking we can impose our will on the rest of the world in the guise of solve all its problems.

You cannot simply say that widespread gun ownership in this context helps to prevent crime and expect to be taken seriously.

Well I can, but I don't. The quality of the society reflects that of its citizens, and that is the cause of the relatively low crime there. Take away all of the guns from all private citizens in the US - even if you could effectively disarm the bad guys which you couldn't - and the place would still IMO be a disfunctional mess in the last throes of dissolution. They'd just have to end up beating each other with sticks.

The bigger problem with disarmament would be it would take away the chance of armed insurrection against our morally bankrupt political/economic system , which may end up being the only way out in the future.

[Sing_Sling]

I think you will find that Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because it had its use as a financial 'open-house' - it had nothing to do with an armed citizenry - show me some documentation to back that up, please. (real ones, not the usual 'weluvguns.com'.

Also, Switzerland requested Germany to stamp a big 'J' in their passports to more easily reject German Jews fleeing the Nazis. Tens of thousands of Jews were denied entry . . . and sent back to potential death.

Lovely Switzerland

[inthepink]

On the subject of holding up convenience stores...well you might be stupid to attempt it but you'd be sure to have the weaponry on hand to do it if the mood took you.

That mood would be - suicidal?

I don't know when the Swiss introduced their current firearms laws but from my recollection of history lessons at school, they were not too keen on using weapons in any kind of useful way 70 years ago.

Yes the banks were immoral after WWII, but you can't fault the whole nation, much less their neutrality during the war.

While most of the rest of Europe folded and made their resources freely available to fuel Hitler's campaigns and allowed their Jews, Gypsies and LBGT citizens to be exterminated, there was no Holocaust on Swiss soil. In fact if America has sheltered refugees at the same per capita rate as Switzerland, it would have taken in over 3 million, as opposed to the tiny number it actually accepted.

I doubt the US would ever have joined the Allies if it weren't attacked - it remained neutral even after Pearl Harbor, and only joined the fight after Hitler also declared war on America.

And why did Hitler never dare invade Switzerland? No standing army, no offensive capability, but as America keeps forgetting to learn from its many defeats since WWII, the most fearsome defensive capacity of all - a citizenry permanently organized into constantly training, well-armed "universal militias" capable of operating independently of any centralized command and control. In fact, even if the Swiss "ruling elite" wanted to surrender to the Nazis, they couldn't have, as its government system, is so decentralized among the 26 cantons, mostly run by town meeting.

Sure the Nazis would eventually have overrun Switzerland, but Hitler knew it would be at a huge cost - even the official Army estimate was over 200,000 Germans.

The founders of American democracy greatly admired Switzerland as a "sister republic", and the Swiss are a lot more likely than the US to never fall into dictatorship, since the original concept of armed citizen militias in America's constitution has been degraded beyond recognition, not to mention the effective functioning of our democracy, rights to speak and assemble freely, privacy etc

Winston Churchill: "of all the neutrals Switzerland has the greatest right distinction... She has been a Democratic State, standing for freedom in self-defense among her mountains, and in thought, in spite of race, largely on our side."

And as a side note, I think the interests of the American people, as opposed to those of the ever more powerful global corporations, would be much better served by our keeping our nose out of other peoples' business and thinking we can impose our will on the rest of the world in the guise of solve all its problems.

You cannot simply say that widespread gun ownership in this context helps to prevent crime and expect to be taken seriously.

Well I can, but I don't. The quality of the society reflects that of its citizens, and that is the cause of the relatively low crime there. Take away all of the guns from all private citizens in the US - even if you could effectively disarm the bad guys which you couldn't - and the place would still IMO be a disfunctional mess in the last throes of dissolution. They'd just have to end up beating each other with sticks.

The bigger problem with disarmament would be it would take away the chance of armed insurrection against our morally bankrupt political/economic system , which may end up being the only way out in the future.

I don't know why you felt the need to make all those comparisons to the USA - means nothing to me, I've never been there. Re. armed citizens stopping Hitler from invading, I find that very hard to believe. Either way, none of what you said seems to have much to do with what we were discussing...I'm rather bemused.

[David48]

Cough ...

How on earth can you even remotely relate the OP's question

Legally, in Thailand, what can I do to protect myself and my family within the confines of our home or property? What's my rights to self-defence in this country?

with the diatribe of what's written above.

Did anyone notice that connda, the OP actually posted that he can't believe that you guys are still banging on about this. "Wow. You guys still at it over here"

Maybe start a new thread with the crux of what you are discussing.

Edited March 28, 2012 by David48

[autan]

The objections by the British representative are duly noted. I stand corrected. Number 8 shall be revised:

8. There's different countries in Great Britain, but you don't need a passport and visa to move around in Great Britain.

I note that the British take exception to the use of quotation in regards to the use of the word countries. I also note that there has not been a denial of the Australian allegations of "soap dodging" or aversion to bathing. Interesting.

It's a British journalese practice to use quotes marks when trying to pass off the dubious as fact. As far as the soap dodging is concerned I bathe every week whether I need to or not!

Once a week is plenty. What are we women ?

[autan]

I am sure you are aware of the historical significance of the country to which we are referring, you do after all speak English.

First time I've heard a Brit admit that Yanks speak English.

Historical significance = "we used to be significant"

So was Athens, so was Rome.

Not long from now the world will be full of Yanks bemoaning the tail end of their decline and fall. The trend is toward a single world culture, and in the long term I'm afraid it's not looking good for the West. . .

I'm not championing Britain as the centre of the world, our history is not something I bang on about in unrelated topics. However, whilst Great Britain may not be significant in a military sense any longer or in territories held, it is still significant as a financial trading centre. In any case, I only mentioned its significance (past or present) because I thought physical size was not that relevant. Now I am aware of submaniac's tastes in music, he can say what he likes as far as I'm concerned - it's all good.

This is all a long way from self-defence in the home though.....

1. On the 12th March 2012, the UK overtook the USA in being the world's foremost ecommerce nation.

2. London is considered to be the financial hub of world business.

3. Our Queen (HM Queen Elizabeth II) will become Britains longest serving monarch in September 2015. Although His Majesty the Thai King is world's most emiment Royal as the Longest serving Monarch in the World.

4. Britain has the worlds most advance Navy and newest fleet by 2018.

5. Britain will overtake France & Germany at the current growth rate as Europes Largest country by Population.

6. Britain has 1.8 woman to every man.

7. Britain has the largest number of ex pats living abroad. (Not sure if thats good or bad).

8. Britain leads a commonwealth of 56 nations, far more countries than were in the old empire.

9. The life expectancy of a Brit is 77 for a man and 82 for a woman.

10. British man have a penis that is 43% larger than the normal penis size.

One of the statements above is incorrect, can you guess which one. Heres a hint, it isnt number (10).

[necronx99]

I am sure you are aware of the historical significance of the country to which we are referring, you do after all speak English.

First time I've heard a Brit admit that Yanks speak English.

Historical significance = "we used to be significant"

So was Athens, so was Rome.

Not long from now the world will be full of Yanks bemoaning the tail end of their decline and fall. The trend is toward a single world culture, and in the long term I'm afraid it's not looking good for the West. . .

I'm not championing Britain as the centre of the world, our history is not something I bang on about in unrelated topics. However, whilst Great Britain may not be significant in a military sense any longer or in territories held, it is still significant as a financial trading centre. In any case, I only mentioned its significance (past or present) because I thought physical size was not that relevant. Now I am aware of submaniac's tastes in music, he can say what he likes as far as I'm concerned - it's all good.

This is all a long way from self-defence in the home though.....

1. On the 12th March 2012, the UK overtook the USA in being the world's foremost ecommerce nation.

2. London is considered to be the financial hub of world business.

3. Our Queen (HM Queen Elizabeth II) will become Britains longest serving monarch in September 2015. Although His Majesty the Thai King is world's most emiment Royal as the Longest serving Monarch in the World.

4. Britain has the worlds most advance Navy and newest fleet by 2018.

5. Britain will overtake France & Germany at the current growth rate as Europes Largest country by Population.

6. Britain has 1.8 woman to every man.

7. Britain has the largest number of ex pats living abroad. (Not sure if thats good or bad).

8. Britain leads a commonwealth of 56 nations, far more countries than were in the old empire.

9. The life expectancy of a Brit is 77 for a man and 82 for a woman.

10. British man have a penis that is 43% larger than the normal penis size.

One of the statements above is incorrect, can you guess which one. Heres a hint, it isnt number (10).

If it's all so rosey, why do you lot whinge so much?

[autan]

What else do we have to do. We not happy unless were complaining, moaning and being dam_n right petty.

[inthepink]

Britain has 1.8 women to every man? Utter bo**ocks. Many of those stats seem completely wrong. Perhaps only one of them is right?

Edited March 30, 2012 by inthepink

[Dekchaimong]

i heard a thai can legally own a gun for self defense and if necessary shoot a burglar and that is legal

of course ,if a farang shoots a thai burglar ,everything might be completely differnt

check this with a laywer before you shoot anyone though !

You are correct, A thai can legally own a gun for protection and can use deadly force if someone enters your home.

I don't think (don't quote me though) that they even need to be armed.

I know where we are the people are not exactly Hiso high class type of lawyers, but around here they seem to feel it is OK to shoot someone for entering your land at nigh (probably due to the rising thefts of pumps and equipment)

I was told by a Thai cop that if you did shoot someone, throw the gun away and wash the powder residue off youir hands with petrol and that would probably be the end of it! (somehow - I think he missed out a sentence where you paid lots of money to him too)