Self-Defense Within Your Home

[RetroGTAndrew]

I'm not sure what good the Israelis would do with their M16/AR15's as none have a magazine fitted, and they don't appear to be carrying them (magazines) either. Maybe they carry them about in their hand like people do with smartphones and lay them on the bar!

Andrew

[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

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 ?

im guessing he knows if a farang shoots a burglar with someone elses gun hes in" tha deep shit" so to speak

but a thai lady who shots a burglar with her own gun would probably be more likely to get away unpunished

we are not lawyers and every case is different

i dont think anyone needs "credit " as you call it , for shooting to protect their home and themselves

[connda]

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.

Agreed. Good, thoughtful post.

I routinely carried a gun in the US. I'm trained and understand the laws in my specific State. I also understand the criminal and civil consequences of shooting someone, even in self-defense. It's not something to take lightly.

With that said, I think the gun laws are too lax. I personally believe that everyone who has a gun should have training. And different firearms should require different training. Owning a rifle for target practice is different than owning a rifle for deer hunting. Owning a shotgun for skeet shooting is different than owning a shotgun for home defense. Owning a handgun for range shooting is different than owning a gun with a concealed carry permit and packing it. Different skill sets are involved. In my State, any adult who is not a felon can apply for and get a concealed carry permit. I personally don't think that's prudent. You shouldn't be packing a gun unless you understand the laws and self-defense techniques. A minimum of 24 hours or training should be required plus range qualifications and tests. But that's just my opinion. I wish I could legally own one here.

[richard_smith237]

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.

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

Sub started a topic a few weeks ago regarding the laws for foreigners owning a gun. He asked specifically for posters to remain on topic and not let the thread run into a pissing contest between those who are pro and those who are anti gun as this had been covered enough in other topics.

His request was ignored and quickly the topic was side tracked and destroyed by what can be termed as the TV Anti-gun lobby. Fortunately those members with strong views either for or against gun ownership have not yet entered into this debate and the thread remains on topic.

So, Back on Topic: How easy would it be to purchase, or make your own non lethal projectiles.. i.e. placing something like rock-salt in a shot gun round. Is that even non-lethal?

Edited March 15, 2012 by richard_smith237

[connda]

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.

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

Sub started a topic a few weeks ago regarding the laws for foreigners owning a gun. He asked specifically for posters to remain on topic and not let the thread run into a pissing contest between those who pro and those who are anti gun as this had been covered enough in other topics.

His request was ignored and quickly the topic was side tracked and destroyed by what can be termed as the TV Anti-gun lobby. Fortunately those members with strong views either for or against gun ownership have not yet entered into debate and the thread remains on topic.

So, Back on Topic: How easy would it be to purchase, or make your own non lethal projectiles.. i.e. placing something like rock-salt in a shot gun round. Is that even non-lethal?

Rock salt is a badddd idea. Corrodes the barrel of your gun and unreliable. There are non-lethal rounds specifically made for shotguns. If you hit someone, they're not going to be in a hurry to get up. You can get them in the US, but here????

Edited March 15, 2012 by connda

[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.

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

Sub started a topic a few weeks ago regarding the laws for foreigners owning a gun. He asked specifically for posters to remain on topic and not let the thread run into a pissing contest between those who pro and those who are anti gun as this had been covered enough in other topics.

His request was ignored and quickly the topic was side tracked and destroyed by what can be termed as the TV Anti-gun lobby. Fortunately those members with strong views either for or against gun ownership have not yet entered into debate and the thread remains on topic.

So, Back on Topic: How easy would it be to purchase, or make your own non lethal projectiles.. i.e. placing something like rock-salt in a shot gun round. Is that even non-lethal?

there are rubber bullets and plastic bullets,basically non lethal projectiles ,used in europe for riot control

they are not 100% safe (they can bounce off walls and go in a unpredictable direction

and police are trained to aim for the legs only because a head shot may kill

where are you going to get a weapon that can fire them fast enough to put someone down though ?

even cartridges packed with rock salt / sand etc would work up close to deliver a non lethal but very painful impact

but pepper spray or a tazer would be a bit easier to get than a double barrell shot gun

[MogensBjerg]

Salt or rubber...

Some one here want to give away a pitbull terrier.

It killed his mother (Not kidding).. Now he is afraid to keep it.

It will do the job for you...

Well .. Everybody here in Kanchanaburi have a gun...

Remember always to go to weddings in gaan ... more safe when they shoot up in the air...

(What goes up must come down)

3 Year old girl in the ampour pushed fathers loaded hunting rifle of the wall.

It fired and she was killed....3 years old...

13 year old girl killed in bed in house from bullet fired up in the air..

We have a rifle locked away (In grands maa's name) .

Bullets out of reach of small hands..

Just remember. Gun killes.. not only bad people.....

MBJ

[necronx99]

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

You get one in the same way a Thai does, by filling in the application for a permit.

You need to be on a visa other than Tourist and in theory, have a work permit. (in practise just the approval of the local Police Chief is required)

You need to be of good character, no criminal record and have a valid reason for wanting one. home defense is a valid reason (somewhat paradoxically, saying you have actually been threatened is grounds for them not to give you one..).

[flying]

Did not read the whole 3 pages but in a situation like this....

If it were me? I figure my wife can retrieve me from the police department easier than from the morgue.

Any intruder found in my home at night will be found in my home in the morning.

[flying]

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

I am not saying it is a bad idea for him to defend himself & his wife but.....I will say the idea about lying as to who did the shooting is a bad idea.

I don't know if the BIB are that far behind but if you shoot a gun a simple swabbing will show it after th fact.

The shooter will have powder residue

ever see the white circular patches at airports that the control folks randomly swipe some bags handles with?

[Gary A]

I have a five iron standing in a corner. I can't hit golf balls very well but a body is much bigger than a golf ball.

[oldsailor35]

Way back when, there was a former SAS guy on here who claimed that he beat up a couple of burglars that were in his house and ended up getting charged for it.

Did he live Pattaya by any chances and some of his closest associates were ex-navy seals, CIA and ninja's

Of course he did, just go to any bar in Pattaya, you will surely find several ex SAS and ex Navy Seals.

[oldsailor35]

I have an electronically operated trap door that drops the intruder into a basement hole full of hungry crocodiles. It takes care of unwanted relatives as well.

I need your contractor's name for digging the basement and installing the trap door. Will the run-of-the-mill Asian crocs work, or do you suggest importing the Australian saltwater variety?

Yep ! a couple of "salties" will do the job, but make sure that they are'nt from Balmain, as like their footballers , they have no teeth !

[onionluke]

No but seriously , my partner has a big sharp machete under the bed in our house up country . That machete is for setting about would be intruders .

[chrisinth]

"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-defense in this country"?

I was born in a quiet little fishing village on the east coast of Northern Ireland called Belfast, some of you may have heard of it. My father was a detective with the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) and at the time the only section of the British police system to be armed. He was killed on duty in 1981; at that time I was a serving member of the armed forces on active duty in Northern Ireland (almost at the end of 5 years active duty) and the consequences of this was that for the next 7 years I had a personal weapon permit. This was only for periods of leave to Northern Ireland.

The reason that I put in that little intro was to establish that I do actually have prior knowledge to the importance of home security as it was an accepted way of life back then. The above extract is the OP's question, and although not answering directly, would like to give my thoughts to it (I am unsure of the legal implications in Thailand).

The best action that everyone should consider is preventative rather than offensive. This is in the form of an effective alarm system; the last thing a burglar needs or wants is bright lights and loud noise, and this will deter almost all of them. These are not extortionate in price and very effective. I realize this may not be an option for everyone, but you could consider a pet dog if you feel particularly at risk.

Failing this, and the intruder is actually in your house, you have to consider your assets, and in this case that includes your family, and determine what is worth more to you, material objects or flesh & blood. If the chance presents itself, get your family together and into a safe and secure area to reduce the risk of injury to them. This is easy to advise but in the real world every scenario is going to be different.

If it gets to the stage of confrontation, and has been suggested by many on this thread, that you may have purchased or acquired a firearm, pray that you are familiar with the weapon and understand how it works. Never, ever point a loaded weapon at another person without full commitment that you are prepared to follow through with the action of pulling the trigger to deliver a fatal wound. Forget about Hollywood, you never fire to wound.

Then there are the legal aspects of this action to consider.

The ego is a tremendous thing in males (and females as well) in that it tells us what we would like to do instead of what we will actually do when that situation arises. When it comes to pointing a weapon at another human being (as opposed to a static target) with the objective of killing them, unless you are trained to do so, or are mentally unstable, you will hesitate. That is a given! On the extremely slim chance that the intruder is in fact armed, this gives him/her/them the advantage. When considering lethal force, this raises the stakes through the roof.

Personally speaking, a baseball bat with you making as much noise as you can will succeed. The rule of thumb (in the British legal system) comes down to “using the minimum necessary force” and that should stand you well with the Thai legal system. Definition of minimum necessary force? I think you can play with that.

If you think your life or the lives of your family are being threatened or targeted, then report this straight away as this is an entirely different issue.

None of the above are meant to scare you, deter you from what you have already planned to do in the event. Just to make you aware and to consider your actions.

@ submaniac, before you react, this is not about gun ownership either. I respect your views on this subject, and with the only objection being tighter control and instruction, agree with them.

[scorecard]

No but seriously , my partner has a big sharp machete under the bed in our house up country . That machete is for setting about would be intruders .

That doesn't mean it's legal to chop up intruders!

[wana]

No but seriously , my partner has a big sharp machete under the bed in our house up country . That machete is for setting about would be intruders .

That doesn't mean it's legal to chop up intruders!

if you can blast them to hell with a shotgun ,whats the differnce in chopping them with a machete or an axe or a golf club ?

[onionluke]

No but seriously , my partner has a big sharp machete under the bed in our house up country . That machete is for setting about would be intruders .

That doesn't mean it's legal to chop up intruders!

if you can blast them to hell with a shotgun ,whats the differnce in chopping them with a machete or an axe or a golf club ?

The polis might take a dim view if you went as far as to shoot , club and chop .

[wana]

No but seriously , my partner has a big sharp machete under the bed in our house up country . That machete is for setting about would be intruders .

That doesn't mean it's legal to chop up intruders!

if you can blast them to hell with a shotgun ,whats the differnce in chopping them with a machete or an axe or a golf club ?

The polis might take a dim view if you went as far as to shoot , club and chop .

i dont know why its legal to shoot a burglar but stabbing him or clubbing him is somehow worse than "busting a cap in that mo fo "

providing you dont tie him to chair and extract his teeth with pliers or some other torture the police would not like

any of the first 3 options seem viable way to protect yourself from harm

is there so much differnce in killing with a knife or a gun ?

Edited March 16, 2012 by wana

[submaniac]

@ submaniac, before you react, this is not about gun ownership either. I respect your views on this subject, and with the only objection being tighter control and instruction, agree with them.

Sorry to hear about the loss of your father...that is tragic.

Secondly, I found your post thoughtful and intelligent. I don't disagree with tighter control or instruction. I don't believe that any idiot should be allowed a gun...only that those who are mentally stable, responsible and law abiding should not be denied. If that means tighter background checks, more supervision, and required instruction...I personally would not be against that.

And I would also add that I don't mind having a rational, reasoned discussion with anyone on the subject. My problems are from the past threads on the subject where posts are to the extent of "guns are evil, you are jackass for wanting a gun".

[Sing_Sling]

if you can blast them to hell with a shotgun ,whats the differnce in chopping them with a machete or an axe or a golf club ?

That's the thing, though - you can't. If someone climbs over your fence to steal a pair of undies hanging from your line you cannot blow him to bits.

chrisinth's post was very good:

Excellent post, thank you. Too long to quote

I believe the wording is 'reasonable' force and this is what gets people in trouble because they believe they can do what they want to anyone entering their property . . . they can't.

The gist of chrisinth's post was to see to it that getting to you is made as difficult as possible . . . a deterrent

Edited March 16, 2012 by Sing_Sling

[submaniac]

^^

Actually that is another difference between those from Britain and the United States. The majority of the U.S. states follow the "castle doctrine", which is, your home is your castle...and if someone has broken into it...

http://en.wikipedia....Castle_doctrine

Under Castle Doctrine, if someone is in your house, you have the right to infer fear of imminent harm. Fear of imminent arm justifies the use of deadly force. There is no duty to retreat in those states which adopted castle doctrine.

I note that this only to highlight how our various different upbringings and traditions affect how we feel and debate this topic,

Edited March 16, 2012 by submaniac

[wana]

if you can blast them to hell with a shotgun ,whats the differnce in chopping them with a machete or an axe or a golf club ?

That's the thing, though - you can't. If someone climbs over your fence to steal a pair of undies hanging from your line you cannot blow him to bits.

chrisinth's post was very good:

Excellent post, thank you. Too long to quote

I believe the wording is 'reasonable' force and this is what gets people in trouble because they believe they can do what they want to anyone entering their property . . . they can't.

The gist of chrisinth's post was to see to it that getting to you is made as difficult as possible . . . a deterrent

many people are under the impression that its legal to kill a burglar by shooting

how is that differnt to killing him with a knife ,taking his head off with a golf club ? etc etc etc

i think as long as you stop when he is unable to be of further threat to you ,then it should be treated the same by the 5-0

(in other words dont beat him into a puddle of tomato soup when he is already knocked out cold etc )

[quinetta001]

I've heard that you essentially can not protect yourself in self-defense during a robbery without incurring jail time yourself. Edited March 16, 2012 by quinetta001

[chrisinth]

^^

Actually that is another difference between those from Britain and the United States. The majority of the U.S. states follow the "castle doctrine", which is, your home is your castle...and if someone has broken into it...

http://en.wikipedia....Castle_doctrine

I note that this only to highlight how our various different upbringings and traditions affect how we feel and debate this topic,

It used to be a British adage "An Englishman's home is his castle", but that has now passed. When an intruder can file claims against the owner of the property he is intruding on, and they are successful in a court of law, then the law has to be reviewed.

In some cases, accidents on the properties, and not actual assault are successful.

To me, that is where the interputation of minimum necessary force (reasonable force) should be given careful leeway!

I understand if you kill an intruder, actually on your land, in Thailand, it is your word against their's. Wonderful law, but would need clarification.

[wana]

^^

Actually that is another difference between those from Britain and the United States. The majority of the U.S. states follow the "castle doctrine", which is, your home is your castle...and if someone has broken into it...

http://en.wikipedia....Castle_doctrine

I note that this only to highlight how our various different upbringings and traditions affect how we feel and debate this topic,

It used to be a British adage "An Englishman's home is his castle", but that has now passed. When an intruder can file claims against the owner of the property he is intruding on, and they are successful in a court of law, then the law has to be reviewed.

In some cases, accidents on the properties, and not actual assault are successful.

To me, that is where the interputation of minimum necessary force (reasonable force) should be given careful leeway!

I understand if you kill an intruder, actually on your land, in Thailand, it is your word against their's. Wonderful law, but would need clarification.

after you have killed him ,you can rest assured that you will get the last word ........and the police wil have no choice but to believe your version of events since thats the only version they are going to have ......

[CanInBKK]

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.

Ian, Ian.... Handguns in Canada fall under the Restricted classification not the Prohibited as long as the barrel lentgh is over 4", is semi auto and doesn't shoot .32 or .25 (the vast majority of handguns are).

[Soutpeel]

I don't believe that any idiot should be allowed a gun...only that those who are mentally stable, responsible and law abiding should not be denied.

Based on this premise, then they should be taking firearms off the vast majoity of the Thai BIB then, as a lot of them are mentally unstable, irresponsible and we all know the answer to the law abiding bit

[Huayrat]

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

I am not saying it is a bad idea for him to defend himself & his wife but.....I will say the idea about lying as to who did the shooting is a bad idea.

I don't know if the BIB are that far behind but if you shoot a gun a simple swabbing will show it after th fact.

The shooter will have powder residue

ever see the white circular patches at airports that the control folks randomly swipe some bags handles with?

SWAB??? haha this is Thailand not csi on tv...

[Gary A]

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.