Self-Defense Within Your Home

[submaniac]

This is the third mention of this infamous anti-gun lobby in this thread . . . yet not a sign of even an individual. You guys sound like the NRA hyperventilating about their rights being abused when a bill is proposed to ban armour-piercing bullets.

I guess one can always create an enemy

Ok. Now here comes the anti-gun lobby.

You may want to get your facts straight about the NRA and the armor (American spelling) piercing bullets controversy. The NRA did not oppose legislation banning the sale of armor piercing bullets to the general public. The NRA opposed the language of the initial proposed statute which would have banned ALL conventional rifle cartridges. The NRA SUPPORTED the revised law which banned the sales of armor piercing bullets to non-law enforcement, and the law was passed. Hence in the U.S. armor piercing bullets are not legal for civilian purchase. You can THANK the NRA for helping sponsor the law, and you should realize that there are alot of police officers who are members of the NRA and the NRA does care about the safety of police officers.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvcopk.html

Secondly, we are talking about Thailand's law. Under Thai law, firearms are legal. If someone asks on this forum whether they may purchase a firearm, I am simply informing them of the law. And under Thai law, both Thai and Falangs are legally allowed to purchase.

[Sing_Sling]

This is the third mention of this infamous anti-gun lobby in this thread . . . yet not a sign of even an individual. You guys sound like the NRA hyperventilating about their rights being abused when a bill is proposed to ban armour-piercing bullets.

I guess one can always create an enemy

Ok. Now here comes the anti-gun lobby.

Nope, but there you go again . . . one man is hardly a lobby and did I say anything about being anti-gun ownership?

Go ahead, create your own enemies - it helps your cause

[Kilgore Trout]

This is the third mention of this infamous anti-gun lobby in this thread . . . yet not a sign of even an individual. You guys sound like the NRA hyperventilating about their rights being abused when a bill is proposed to ban armour-piercing bullets.

I guess one can always create an enemy

Ok. Now here comes the anti-gun lobby.

You may want to get your facts straight about the NRA and the armor (American spelling) piercing bullets controversy. The NRA did not oppose legislation banning the sale of armor piercing bullets to the general public. The NRA opposed the language of the initial proposed statute which would have banned ALL conventional rifle cartridges. The NRA SUPPORTED the revised law which banned the sales of armor piercing bullets to non-law enforcement, and the law was passed. Hence in the U.S. armor piercing bullets are not legal for civilian purchase. You can THANK the NRA for helping sponsor the law, and you should realize that there are alot of police officers who are members of the NRA and the NRA does care about the safety of police officers.

http://www.guncite.c...l_gcgvcopk.html

Secondly, we are talking about Thailand's law. Under Thai law, firearms are legal. If someone asks on this forum whether they may purchase a firearm, I am simply informing them of the law. And under Thai law, both Thai and Falangs are legally allowed to purchase.

What about non-Thais who are asian? Are they allowed to own guns?

[Sing_Sling]

What about non-Thais who are asian? Are they allowed to own guns?

Careful, you might be labelled as part of the anti-gun lobby . . .

I don't think there are any differences in law between Asian and non-Asian foreigners in this respect, though there are in commerce where certain ASEAN advantages apply

[submaniac]

^^ Yes. The law and procedure has been discussed before in Thaivisa. I should not have said "Thais & Falang" and should have said "Thai nationals and non-Thai nationals".

And Sing-Sling, I guess I was wrong about you being a part of the anti-gun lobby. Let's say you break out yer ol' .30-06 and a we go a huntin' in the backwoods for some grub. Yeeeeeeeehhaaaaaaw.

[samran]

This is the third mention of this infamous anti-gun lobby in this thread . . . yet not a sign of even an individual. You guys sound like the NRA hyperventilating about their rights being abused when a bill is proposed to ban armour-piercing bullets.

I guess one can always create an enemy

Ok. Now here comes the anti-gun lobby.

You may want to get your facts straight about the NRA and the armor (American spelling) piercing bullets controversy. The NRA did not oppose legislation banning the sale of armor piercing bullets to the general public. The NRA opposed the language of the initial proposed statute which would have banned ALL conventional rifle cartridges. The NRA SUPPORTED the revised law which banned the sales of armor piercing bullets to non-law enforcement, and the law was passed. Hence in the U.S. armor piercing bullets are not legal for civilian purchase. You can THANK the NRA for helping sponsor the law, and you should realize that there are alot of police officers who are members of the NRA and the NRA does care about the safety of police officers.

http://www.guncite.c...l_gcgvcopk.html

Secondly, we are talking about Thailand's law. Under Thai law, firearms are legal. If someone asks on this forum whether they may purchase a firearm, I am simply informing them of the law. And under Thai law, both Thai and Falangs are legally allowed to purchase.

Subby,

I have a lot of respect for you and your posts. They are generally eloquent and well argued. For some reason too, this thread seems to have made its way without too much rancour - which is always nice having to had modded them once upon a time.

My only question is what are the safeguards in Thai law to prevent weapons guns falling into the hands of paranoid types, or, to be honest, those who don't need them.

Having lived in Thailand for a long time, the country doesn't have a gun culture in the same way as the Philippines, a good thing in my book. The last thing i want to see also is guns getting into the hands of young hoods.

For me, gun ownership isn't a right, but I don't have problem with people using them on ranges, in clubs, and i guess, where it is safe, for hunting and pest control. Less so for 'personal protection', especially when people are untrained and where those weapons are not kept safely.

[exeter]

As far as I am aware catapaults are not illegal in Thailand. OK, maybe not exactly on a par with a gun for self defence but they can be very effective. Plenty of good excusues for having a catapault too.

Basic catapult are 20 bts on the market, I carry one on the bike for any over zealous dogs that fancy their chances. They are not strong though, held together with small rubber bands that will let you down.

[Sing_Sling]

^^ Yes. The law and procedure has been discussed before in Thaivisa. I should not have said "Thais & Falang" and should have said "Thai nationals and non-Thai nationals".

And Sing-Sling, I guess I was wrong about you being a part of the anti-gun lobby. Let's say you break out yer ol' .30-06 and a we go a huntin' in the backwoods for some grub. Yeeeeeeeehhaaaaaaw.

^^ Yes. The law and procedure has been discussed before in Thaivisa. I should not have said "Thais & Falang" and should have said "Thai nationals and non-Thai nationals".

And Sing-Sling, I guess I was wrong about you being a part of the anti-gun lobby. Let's say you break out yer ol' .30-06 and a we go a huntin' in the backwoods for some grub. Yeeeeeeeehhaaaaaaw.

There's a difference between being a redneck and not scraping one's dinner off the road in Arkansas - I don't hunt because we have supermarkets but learned how to use weapons while in the service.

Do I believe private gun ownership? Partially. Do I believe in the right to own guns? No.

[PattayaParent]

Advice give to an old friend of mine in South Africa was if you shoot a burglar in your house just drag him outside and he's just another anonymous killing on the street, nothing to do with you.

Edited March 15, 2012 by PattayaParent

[wana]

As far as I am aware catapaults are not illegal in Thailand. OK, maybe not exactly on a par with a gun for self defence but they can be very effective. Plenty of good excusues for having a catapault too.

Basic catapult are 20 bts on the market, I carry one on the bike for any over zealous dogs that fancy their chances. They are not strong though, held together with small rubber bands that will let you down.

get a bigger bike ,mine weighs about 320kg when im riding it or closer to 400kg with a paseneger

any soi dog gets in the way he wont last long

how do u use a catapult when riding a bike anyway ?

[IanForbes]

I come from a country (Canada) which has stringent gun laws. Only criminals and police are allowed to have handguns in Canada, and I'm as afraid of the police as I am of the criminals. Canadians live right nex door to a gun crazy country, so the comparisons are obvious.

I LIKE guns, but mine are all sporting weapons... but are no less dangerous.

That said, I've NEVER felt threatened in any way in Thailand. But, I don't show any outward signs of being a target, either. I don't live an opulent life style and I don't wear gold. I don't flash a lot of cash either, even though I've often got 20,000 baht on my person at any given time. Of course, I often have a weapon available and have no qualms in using it.

If I was really worried about having my family threatened in a family housing unit then I might have some serious construction done to prevent easy entry. But, that said, I still think the wisest choice is to not show any obvious signs of wealth. And, a yappy little dog kept in the room with you is better than most alarm systems. At least it will give you advance warning.

In Canada my family always left our doors unlocked until we moved to an upscale part of the city, but which backed right onto a First Nations reserve. My mother was always generous and bought wooden carvings from the local natives even if they weren't very good. One of the natives became quite famous and when other natives saw his work in our home we became a target. Some native broke into our home and stole the specific carvings done by the well known artist. Unfortunately, the result was my mother never bought another piece of Indian art and she told all future carvers the reason for it. And, our doors were always locked from that day forward.

[submaniac]

Hello Samran,

Thank you so much for your kind words. In the five years or so I have been on this forum, I can never recall ever being in a disagreement with you (or actually disagreeing with anything you have ever said). This is rather unusual. I respect you and what you have said in your posts very much, and I very much welcome an opportunity to share opinions on this subject.

In regards to what your thoughts, I have certain beliefs. One of my beliefs is that people have always killed one another, since the beginning of time. Before guns were invented, people have killed each other, be it with rocks, sticks, arrows, or swords. I also believe that, even in today's age and even if all guns everywhere were banned, people would continue to kill each other. There was the incident just posted yesterday of an elderly couple murdered by being beaten by a chair. We also know (and I hate to even mention it as it strikes close to home) of another TV member who killed by blunt force trauma to the skull, even though the police found a 9mm Glock in the home. It may be a cliche that "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but I do believe it's true. As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, I know that someone else will commit murder even without a gun being present.

Another thing I believe is that is a fundamental right of every human being to defend himself/herself and his/her family. I believe this "right" to defend oneself eminates from a higher power...whether anyone calls that power God, Buddha, Allah...or whatever name anyone cares to use. There is no religion that has ever made it a sin to defend oneself from violent attack.

From our interactions throughout the years, I know you are not a violent man. However, I cannot help but feel that if you, or more importantly your family, were ever in danger or threatened, you would do what is necessary to defend them. If you did not have a firearm, I believe you would use whatever was around you, be it a baseball bat, lampshade, a stick or a rock, to defend those whom you love. I believe that this nature is hardwired into every human being, and humanity, as a species, would not have survived without the basic instinct for preservation of oneself and one's family. Regardless of race, creed, religion, nationality or culture, if a man's family is in danger, a man will fight. Always.

I understand what you are saying. However, I believe that there are things that you are not taking into consideration. First off, yes, Thailand does not have a "gun culture". I agree with you. Is Phillipines gun situation a mess? Yes. I agree with you there too.

I think the issue is not whether guns should be completely outlawed, as it is how do we ensure that those who are responsible are able to have access, while simultaneously ensuring that those who should not have firearms are limited. That is the difficult balancing act.

Contrary to popular belief, the NRA does not stand for the position that everyone should have access to a gun. What the NRA stands for is responsible gun ownership. The NRA puts a great deal of effort into sponsoring gun safety, and programs designed to educate youth on how to properly handle a firearm. The NRA and the vast majority of gun owners do not advocate that convicted criminals should have guns, and it do not advocate that the mentally unstable should also have guns. However, those who are law abiding, responsible adults should be allowed to have firearms.

My ex girlfriend is currently a Los Angeles Police Department officer, and has been for 11 or so years. She has guns (obviously) and I have guns. She has seen more shootings than most I am sure. I asked her her thoughts on gun control and whether they should be outlawed. Her response was that if guns were criminalized, then only criminals would have guns. Despite what she has seen (and keep in mind she was on the gang unit for a period of time), she still believed that an honest law abiding citizen should be allowed to have a gun. It was her opinion, which I share, that if a government prohibited all private gun ownership, that criminals would still manage to obtain guns. The only people that gun prohibition laws affect, are those who are law abiding. To criminalize gun ownership would be to turn an honest law abiding individual into a criminal, or, worst yet, a victim.

I would point to Mexico, which has some of the most stringent gun laws in the world. There are actually stories of U.S. police officers accidentally missing their turn offs, straying into Mexico, and being arrested for importing a gun. There are stories of people accidentally leaving a bullet in their car while driving from the U.S. into Mexico and being arrested. Yet, despite the laws, there are daily shootings in Mexico largely due to the cartels. Once again, the laws may be stringent, but criminals by their nature do not follow laws.

What about your other homeland of OZ, or what about Britain? Both have some of the most stringent firearms ownership laws in the world. Have there been shootings there? Who is doing the shooting? Is it the responsible gun owner who keeps his firearm safely stored at the gun club? Or is it the criminals who don't care what the law is.

The fact remains that borders are porous. Drugs are smuggled in and out of countries, guns will be smuggled in and out of countries. There are so many guns in the world, that the genie is already out of the bottle, and cannot be put back.

And in Thailand, with the various shootings that we read about in the news? The various gangs and all. Are the people who are doing the shooting the ones that went to the police, and requested permission to purchase? Or is those people who obtained guns illegally that were smuggled through neighboring countries?

And if we talk about other countries, how do we explain Israel where everyone is expected to know how to shoot to defend the country. The below picture is actually from Israel

Or how do we explain Switzerland, in which every male to age 30 (or 34 for officers) to keep their assault rifle and/or service pistol in their homes, yet has one of the lowest crime rates in the world?

You asked how do we keep guns out of the hands of the paranoid or those who don't need them. I guess the problem I am having is the definition of "needing" them. The first time I ever shot a firearm was when I was 12 years old. In the subsequent 25 years, I have never brandashed one, or ever pointed a gun in the direction of a human being. I guess under some definitions of "need", I haven't "needed" to use it. I "enjoyed" using it at the target range. Trying to put a piece of metal through a sheet of paper I find relaxing. Some people like golf, some people like scuba diving, I like shooting. I don't believe that makes me a nut. (Target shooting is a recognized competition sport.)

I guess my thoughts are that one never knows when they will "need" to use a gun, and because someone may not ever "need" it, or, even though they may be paranoid, I don't believe that is grounds to say that they shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. If being "paranoid" is brought into the argument, then I guess that every single gun owner out there is "paranoid". By that I mean, everyone who has a gun has thought of the possibility that someone may break into his/her house and attack their family, and wishes to be prepared in the event that that happens. The absolute vast majority of gun owners may never (and hopefully never) "need" to use a gun. I have a motorcycle, and I could be accused of being paranoid about wearing a crash helmet. On the days that I do not crash, I did not "need" to wear it. I wear it because I want to be prepared for the day I "need" to be wearing it.

I have guns. I do not "need" to use them. Hopefully there will never be a day I "need" to use it. If, however, I should "need" to use it, I would be thankful to have it.

If you ask, Thailand actually has good gun laws. They require that you be registered head of house on your housebook. I don't know if they still require it, but I know before you had to have a certain amount of money in the bank. This makes sense to me. Why? Because if you are wealthy enough to own a house in Thailand, or have suficient money in the bank, this means you have enough money that you are not the one who is going to go out and use your gun to rob someone. I don't know if you are aware of this, but firearms in Thailand are also very expensive. The Glock that costs about USD$500 in the USA costs USD$2500 to purchase in Thailand. Anyone who has the financial ability to pay USD$2500 for a handgun is also not going to go out and use it to rob someone, take a contract killing out on someone, or what other nefarious uses could be made with it.

I also believe there is a strong cultural issue on Thaivisa...I have to say that those most strongly against guns are those who are British or from British commonwealth countries. I also think the anti-gun sentiment is strongly related to the lack of familiarity of having them be so commonplace. Yes, I know, alot of people used guns in the service. I get that. But what I mean is that I have been around firearms since I was 12. I have always been accustomed to them being around.

What I am trying to say is that I believe the British have this fear that if guns are around, people will go out and start shooting and that they will be constantly dodging bullets. In America, guns are very prevelant. The figures for the U.S. are about 192 million firearms in circulation. The U.S. population is about 300 million. That's alot of guns.

Yet, in my life I have never been shot at, I have never been in a situation where I was in fear because someone had a gun, I have not witnessed someone being shot. For the number of guns vs the population, there is relatively little to fear. Guns are out there in the States, but life still goes on. Alot of people in the United States, who you would never suspect, are also fellow gun owners. I don't fear gun ownership because I know that alot of people have them, and I have not personally witnessed any problems due to gun ownership.

[submaniac]

There's a difference between being a redneck and not scraping one's dinner off the road in Arkansas - I don't hunt because we have supermarkets but learned how to use weapons while in the service.

Supermarkets? Now yer usin' dem high falootin' fancy city word. That's like puttin' a hat on a piglet and calling 'em a winnebago. I say its done time you put away yer troubles and come on out. I take my cousin Jethro Somchai's truck and we can shoot up some critters from the back. Them Thai critters make fine vittles. I can cook up some chitlins and we can have a dandy ol' time. Whaddya say?

[PattayaParent]

Another thing I believe is that is a fundamental right of every human being to defend himself/herself and his/her family. I believe this "right" to defend oneself eminates from a higher power...whether anyone calls that power God, Buddha, Allah...or whatever name anyone cares to use. There is no religion that has ever made it a sin to defend oneself from violent attack.

Didn't some religious bloke say something about turning the other cheek?

My ex girlfriend is currently a Los Angeles Police Department officer, and has been for 11 or so years. She has guns (obviously) and I have guns. She has seen more shootings than most I am sure. I asked her her thoughts on gun control and whether they should be outlawed. Her response was that if guns were criminalized, then only criminals would have guns.

Well woudn't that make the job of the police easier, just shoot whoever has a gun.

[submaniac]

Didn't some religious bloke say something about turning the other cheek?

As I recall, that particular religious bloke was crucified.

Well woudn't that make the job of the police easier, just shoot whoever has a gun.

Well, yeah...they kind of just do that already.

[nocturn]

As far as I am aware catapaults are not illegal in Thailand. OK, maybe not exactly on a par with a gun for self defence but they can be very effective. Plenty of good excusues for having a catapault too.

Basic catapult are 20 bts on the market, I carry one on the bike for any over zealous dogs that fancy their chances. They are not strong though, held together with small rubber bands that will let you down.

get a bigger bike ,mine weighs about 320kg when im riding it or closer to 400kg with a paseneger

any soi dog gets in the way he wont last long

how do u use a catapult when riding a bike anyway ?

thats a big woman you got mate. Sturdy.

Edited March 15, 2012 by nocturn

[wana]

As far as I am aware catapaults are not illegal in Thailand. OK, maybe not exactly on a par with a gun for self defence but they can be very effective. Plenty of good excusues for having a catapault too.

Basic catapult are 20 bts on the market, I carry one on the bike for any over zealous dogs that fancy their chances. They are not strong though, held together with small rubber bands that will let you down.

get a bigger bike ,mine weighs about 320kg when im riding it or closer to 400kg with a paseneger

any soi dog gets in the way he wont last long

how do u use a catapult when riding a bike anyway ?

thats a big woman you got mate. Sturdy.

i said closer

320kg + a passenger is closer to 400kg than 300

BTW do thai women even come in the 80 KILO variety or is that exclusive to western women ?

[nocturn]

uh huh, adimit it, youve been rumbled.

[nocturn]

<snip>

<snip>

I aam neither pro guns nor pro isreal, but that's hot.

[pattayadingo]

As far as I am aware catapaults are not illegal in Thailand. OK, maybe not exactly on a par with a gun for self defence but they can be very effective. Plenty of good excusues for having a catapault too.

Basic catapult are 20 bts on the market, I carry one on the bike for any over zealous dogs that fancy their chances. They are not strong though, held together with small rubber bands that will let you down.

Can people not make their own? We used to as kids and with some very powerful elastic with steel frames.

The reason I mentioned catapaults is because I have seen a few in use further north in Thailand and they were also quite powerful, certainly enough to cause a lot of pain.

But it is just an idea as opposed to having guns at home (something Brits do not tend to carry / have at home / use, unless you are a Gangsta or something

Maybe a good old rounders bat (baseball bat - for the Americans) would do the trick and leave a nice dent in someones head

Edited March 15, 2012 by pattayadingo

[Soutpeel]

Whaddya say?

Squeal like a pig boy ?

[Soutpeel]

The Glock that costs about USD$500 in the USA costs USD$2500 to purchase in Thailand. Anyone who has the financial ability to pay USD$2500 for a handgun is also not going to go out and use it to rob someone, take a contract killing out on someone, or what other nefarious uses could be made with it.

What about a sucessful drug dealer ?

[F1fanatic]

I hope the TV anti-gun lobby don’t roll in and destroy this thread as they did another recently.

It seems whenever the issue of firearms appear on this board, the anti-gun lobby shows up.

I just don't feel like arguing today. I will say for anyone contemplating home defense that firearms are legal for both Thais and Falangs to own/keep in their homes subject to certain rules and procedures. Search Thaivisa and the procedures and rules are out there already. Just because you are Falang, do not automatically assume that you will be denied the ability to have a firearm. This is simply not true.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

(Greek for "Come and take them!"; Response of Greek King Leonidas to the demand of Persian King Xerxes to surrender his weapons at the battle of Thermopylae.)

This is v interesting.

Conventional TV wisdom is that farangs are not allowed to own guns.

Is this not the case? And if so, how can a farang obtain a gun legally?

[wana]

I hope the TV anti-gun lobby don’t roll in and destroy this thread as they did another recently.

It seems whenever the issue of firearms appear on this board, the anti-gun lobby shows up.

I just don't feel like arguing today. I will say for anyone contemplating home defense that firearms are legal for both Thais and Falangs to own/keep in their homes subject to certain rules and procedures. Search Thaivisa and the procedures and rules are out there already. Just because you are Falang, do not automatically assume that you will be denied the ability to have a firearm. This is simply not true.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

(Greek for "Come and take them!"; Response of Greek King Leonidas to the demand of Persian King Xerxes to surrender his weapons at the battle of Thermopylae.)

This is v interesting.

Conventional TV wisdom is that farangs are not allowed to own guns.

Is this not the case? And if so, how can a farang obtain a gun legally?

my American friend bought one (small semi automatic )in the wifes name but they do probably

need it because they live miles and miles from the nearest cop should any trouble arise

i dont know if its necessary to have a gun in the centre of bkk though

[Soutpeel]

I hope the TV anti-gun lobby don’t roll in and destroy this thread as they did another recently.

It seems whenever the issue of firearms appear on this board, the anti-gun lobby shows up.

I just don't feel like arguing today. I will say for anyone contemplating home defense that firearms are legal for both Thais and Falangs to own/keep in their homes subject to certain rules and procedures. Search Thaivisa and the procedures and rules are out there already. Just because you are Falang, do not automatically assume that you will be denied the ability to have a firearm. This is simply not true.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

(Greek for "Come and take them!"; Response of Greek King Leonidas to the demand of Persian King Xerxes to surrender his weapons at the battle of Thermopylae.)

This is v interesting.

Conventional TV wisdom is that farangs are not allowed to own guns.

Is this not the case? And if so, how can a farang obtain a gun legally?

my American friend bought one (small semi automatic )in the wifes name but they do probably

need it because they live miles and miles from the nearest cop should any trouble arise

i dont know if its necessary to have a gun in the centre of bkk though

You havent answered the question...the gun is not in the farangs name, its the wife's and the permit will be in her name

[wana]

but its his gun ,she wouldnt know one end of it from the other ,hes an ex -marine

if anyone breaks in he intends to shoot them and when the police come down tell them the wife done the shooting

and there should be no problems

i dont know if a farang is even allowed his own gun unless hes has a permit as a bodyguard or on one of the international task forces

that operate in thailand

[Soutpeel]

but its his gun ,she wouldnt know one end of it from the other ,hes an ex -marine

if anyone breaks in he intends to shoot them and when the police come down tell them the wife done the shooting

and there should be no problems

i dont know if a farang is even allowed his own gun unless hes has a permit as a bodyguard or on one of the international task forces

that operate in thailand

It's his gun about as much as its his own land/house.....its his wife's....is his name on the permit ?....if no.... its not his gun....he has mearly provided the funds to purchase said firearm..same same as many farangs do when buying houses, land cars for their little Isaan teeraks

BTW...what has being an Ex-marine got to do with this

the question asked was "Is this not the case? And if so, how can a farang obtain a gun legally?"

has said Ex-marine obtained a firearm legally in his own name ?....if he had why would he shoot someone and then give the credit to his wife ?

[onionluke]

I do like the phrase " conventional TV wisdom" .

Anyway where is the anti machete lobby when you need them .

[aussiebebe]

I hope the TV anti-gun lobby don’t roll in and destroy this thread as they did another recently.

It seems whenever the issue of firearms appear on this board, the anti-gun lobby shows up.

I just don't feel like arguing today. I will say for anyone contemplating home defense that firearms are legal for both Thais and Falangs to own/keep in their homes subject to certain rules and procedures. Search Thaivisa and the procedures and rules are out there already. Just because you are Falang, do not automatically assume that you will be denied the ability to have a firearm. This is simply not true.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

(Greek for "Come and take them!"; Response of Greek King Leonidas to the demand of Persian King Xerxes to surrender his weapons at the battle of Thermopylae.)

This is v interesting.

Conventional TV wisdom is that farangs are not allowed to own guns.

Is this not the case? And if so, how can a farang obtain a gun legally?

There is a thread here on thailawforum from last month (Feb,2012) which addressed the issue;

foreigners may obtain gun licenses in Thailand as long as they have a Thai work permit, a Thai house registration, and a Thai criminal record check. Tourists may not buy firearms

I can't validate the accuracy of that information but lawyers aren't expensive in Thailand, so any foreigner wanting a Thai gun license should just enlist the services of a local law firm to help apply for a license in the area they live.

[connda]

I come from a country (Canada) which has stringent gun laws. Only criminals and police are allowed to have handguns in Canada, and I'm as afraid of the police as I am of the criminals. Canadians live right nex door to a gun crazy country, so the comparisons are obvious.

I LIKE guns, but mine are all sporting weapons... but are no less dangerous.

That said, I've NEVER felt threatened in any way in Thailand. But, I don't show any outward signs of being a target, either. I don't live an opulent life style and I don't wear gold. I don't flash a lot of cash either, even though I've often got 20,000 baht on my person at any given time. Of course, I often have a weapon available and have no qualms in using it.

If I was really worried about having my family threatened in a family housing unit then I might have some serious construction done to prevent easy entry. But, that said, I still think the wisest choice is to not show any obvious signs of wealth. And, a yappy little dog kept in the room with you is better than most alarm systems. At least it will give you advance warning.

In Canada my family always left our doors unlocked until we moved to an upscale part of the city, but which backed right onto a First Nations reserve. My mother was always generous and bought wooden carvings from the local natives even if they weren't very good. One of the natives became quite famous and when other natives saw his work in our home we became a target. Some native broke into our home and stole the specific carvings done by the well known artist. Unfortunately, the result was my mother never bought another piece of Indian art and she told all future carvers the reason for it. And, our doors were always locked from that day forward.

Our home in the village is pretty well secure: wall, barbed wire, iron and windows and doors. It's a deterrent. If someone wants in, they can get in if they're determined. But like you said, we pretty much told every one we know that there isn't anything of value in the house. If someone wants to break-in and steal something, they're gonna be pretty disappointed. I live very simply by choice.

But---

Yaba is a problem in Thai villages. Ours is no exception. I'm more worried about some tweeker cranked up on meth who decides to visit the "rich farang" in the village. That would go badly, more than likely, for all parties. Hence my original question -- I'm more worried about young, male villagers who are temporarily chemically altered (alcohol, meth, smack, whatever). I hope I'm never put in the situation. God forbid. But...it does happen.