Most gun-loving: Americans vs Thais

[phoenixdoglover]

A little more perspective on guns in America.

This is from Pew Research Center, published in May 2013:

Since the CDC began publishing data in 1981, gun suicides have outnumbered gun homicides. But as gun homicides have declined sharply in recent years, suicides have become a greater share of all firearm deaths: the 61% share in 2010 was the highest on record. That year there were 19,392 suicides by firearm compared to 11,078 homicides by gun (35% of all firearm deaths). The rest were accidents, police shootings and unknown causes.

So, this argues somewhat against the "protection" argument for possessing a gun, and argues for ridding your household of guns if anyone in it is suicidal, depressed, or undergoing dramatic personal changes (divorce, loss of job, etc.).

Now, to anticipate the counter-argument that you can kill yourself any number of ways, this is certainly true. We see a similar trend in the US of increasing deaths by prescription medicines. But I think it can be argued (and some studies support this) that guns present an attractive option for satisfying the impulse, whereas other means are less certain and slower to prepare; hence, the impulse fades.

I feel quite certain my sister would be long gone by now if there had been a gun in her home. As it was, she only had pills and an attentive husband, so we still enjoy her company.

[chuckd]

It's obvious you're not a newbie, so you have no need to defer to an older man. Your comment about CC implied newbies should. Your question lacks logic.

(As an aside, is there a man here older than you? Perhaps a few, but not many is my guess.Not relevant though.)

Uhhh, your new best friend, CC, claims to be nearly 80. So, yes, there are some forum members older than me.

And with this response to your own self styled irrelevant comment, I am through with you.

Your irrelevance prevails.

[Docno]

Haven't seen anyone here question this word, 'freedom', that is thrown about so easily in this debate. I'm currently in a country--Singapore--that most Americans would consider far from free, and I wouldn't argue with them on that point at a conceptual level. However, this is also a place where a woman can walk down a city street at three in the morning without fear and where I can walk through any neighbourhood without worrying about whether I've got the 'right skin colour' to be there. The American women I've met here say that they actually feel freer here than back in the US because of this. No-one denies that freedom is important, but is it important in the abstract or in how one actually experiences it? [Note: I'm not advocating the 'Singapore system', just highlighting that 'conceptual/constitutional freedom' and 'psychological/experienced freedom' don't always line up].

Singapore and Hong Kong are very safe places because they are islands. Rob a bank? Where are you going to run to. Singapore does have draconian punishments for quite minor offenses. Not sure about Singapore but Hong Kong has plenty of gun clubs. Not much problem owning a gun there.

You're missing my point. I wasn't talking about why Singapore is a safer place--though it does have a lot do with the restrictions on gun ownership--but rather the difference between 'freedom' in the abstract (as gun lovers talk about it) and freedom as it is actually experienced.

That said, Jamaica has the third highest gun-homicide rate in the world, and it too is an island.

[thailiketoo]

Haven't seen anyone here question this word, 'freedom', that is thrown about so easily in this debate. I'm currently in a country--Singapore--that most Americans would consider far from free, and I wouldn't argue with them on that point at a conceptual level. However, this is also a place where a woman can walk down a city street at three in the morning without fear and where I can walk through any neighbourhood without worrying about whether I've got the 'right skin colour' to be there. The American women I've met here say that they actually feel freer here than back in the US because of this. No-one denies that freedom is important, but is it important in the abstract or in how one actually experiences it? [Note: I'm not advocating the 'Singapore system', just highlighting that 'conceptual/constitutional freedom' and 'psychological/experienced freedom' don't always line up].

You might like to check out the little India riot speaking of skin color and see who was arrested. It's easy to have a riot in Singapore (more than 5 people). When the government is afraid of the people you have liberty. When the people are afraid of the Government you have tyranny. Tom Jefferson I think.

I do realize what you are saying though. Americans are giving up freedoms on a daily basis since the government discovered the common folk are afraid of terrorists.

Guns have a lot in common with FUBAR and FACTA and domestic drones and tapped phones and email reading. Give em an inch and they want a mile.

Edited May 18, 2014 by thailiketoo

[ryanmacl]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

A little more perspective on guns in America.

This is from Pew Research Center, published in May 2013:

Since the CDC began publishing data in 1981, gun suicides have outnumbered gun homicides. But as gun homicides have declined sharply in recent years, suicides have become a greater share of all firearm deaths: the 61% share in 2010 was the highest on record. That year there were 19,392 suicides by firearm compared to 11,078 homicides by gun (35% of all firearm deaths). The rest were accidents, police shootings and unknown causes.

So, this argues somewhat against the "protection" argument for possessing a gun, and argues for ridding your household of guns if anyone in it is suicidal, depressed, or undergoing dramatic personal changes (divorce, loss of job, etc.).

Now, to anticipate the counter-argument that you can kill yourself any number of ways, this is certainly true. We see a similar trend in the US of increasing deaths by prescription medicines. But I think it can be argued (and some studies support this) that guns present an attractive option for satisfying the impulse, whereas other means are less certain and slower to prepare; hence, the impulse fades.

I feel quite certain my sister would be long gone by now if there had been a gun in her home. As it was, she only had pills and an attentive husband, so we still enjoy her company.

Suicide is a whole other can of worms, but personally I'm not against suicide. It kind of takes care of the problem itself. That said, someone in my family did try that once, with pills, while I (a firefighter) was home, and they are alive because I saved them. I told them they were stupid trying that while I was around. Anyway, if someone wants to do it, why only allow them the more painful ways of doing it? Let it be quick and painless.

Haven't seen anyone here question this word, 'freedom', that is thrown about so easily in this debate. I'm currently in a country--Singapore--that most Americans would consider far from free, and I wouldn't argue with them on that point at a conceptual level. However, this is also a place where a woman can walk down a city street at three in the morning without fear and where I can walk through any neighbourhood without worrying about whether I've got the 'right skin colour' to be there. The American women I've met here say that they actually feel freer here than back in the US because of this. No-one denies that freedom is important, but is it important in the abstract or in how one actually experiences it? [Note: I'm not advocating the 'Singapore system', just highlighting that 'conceptual/constitutional freedom' and 'psychological/experienced freedom' don't always line up].

Singapore is a single city. A city where they threaten to beat you for spitting. Big surprise its safer. Also, interestingly enough, there are estimated to be 22,000 privately owned firearms in Singapore, yet less than 1000 owned legally. Who owns the other 21,000? Criminals. Apparently very well armed criminals.

There are dozens of places I've lived in throughout the US that any woman I know would walk through at night without a care in the world. Have you ever been to the US? Or are you judging an entire country based on movies and news headlines?

[Docno]

Haven't seen anyone here question this word, 'freedom', that is thrown about so easily in this debate. I'm currently in a country--Singapore--that most Americans would consider far from free, and I wouldn't argue with them on that point at a conceptual level. However, this is also a place where a woman can walk down a city street at three in the morning without fear and where I can walk through any neighbourhood without worrying about whether I've got the 'right skin colour' to be there. The American women I've met here say that they actually feel freer here than back in the US because of this. No-one denies that freedom is important, but is it important in the abstract or in how one actually experiences it? [Note: I'm not advocating the 'Singapore system', just highlighting that 'conceptual/constitutional freedom' and 'psychological/experienced freedom' don't always line up].

You might like to check out the little India riot speaking of skin color and see who was arrested. It's easy to have a riot in Singapore (more than 5 people). When he government is afraid of the people you have liberty. When the people are afraid of the Government you have tyranny. Tom Jefferson I think.

I do realize what you are saying though. Americans are giving up freedoms on a daily basis since the government discovered the common folk are afraid of terrorists.

Guns have a lot in common with FUBAR and FACTA and domestic drones and tapped phones and email reading. Give em an inch and they want a mile.

Don't worry. I am a 5 minute walk from that place and know it well. The people who were arrested were all Indian nationals. Why? ...because only Indian nationals were involved in the mayhem. So what does that have to do with skin colour? You bet that if I was in there burning police cars, I would have been arrested also.

[ATF]

Haven't seen anyone here question this word, 'freedom', that is thrown about so easily in this debate. I'm currently in a country--Singapore--that most Americans would consider far from free, and I wouldn't argue with them on that point at a conceptual level. However, this is also a place where a woman can walk down a city street at three in the morning without fear and where I can walk through any neighbourhood without worrying about whether I've got the 'right skin colour' to be there. The American women I've met here say that they actually feel freer here than back in the US because of this. No-one denies that freedom is important, but is it important in the abstract or in how one actually experiences it? [Note: I'm not advocating the 'Singapore system', just highlighting that 'conceptual/constitutional freedom' and 'psychological/experienced freedom' don't always line up].

Singapore and Hong Kong are very safe places because they are islands. Rob a bank? Where are you going to run to. Singapore does have draconian punishments for quite minor offenses. Not sure about Singapore but Hong Kong has plenty of gun clubs. Not much problem owning a gun there.

You're missing my point. I wasn't talking about why Singapore is a safer place--though it does have a lot do with the restrictions on gun ownership--but rather the difference between 'freedom' in the abstract (as gun lovers talk about it) and freedom as it is actually experienced.

That said, Jamaica has the third highest gun-homicide rate in the world, and it too is an island.

I wouldn't call gun ownership freedom but I feel a sense of satisfaction that I can protect myself to the full extent of the law. Also I feel satisfaction that I know how to do almost anything with my guns, because owning a gun is dangerous not just to other people but to yourself if you don't know how to properly use it or fix problems when things go wrong. Pulling a gun on someone and it fails to fire is going to get you killed if you don't know what to do. I also like to race motorbikes I would call that freedom 300 kph and inches from death. That's a lot more dangerous than guns.

Jamaica is a drug hub and cannot be compared with Singapore or Hong Kong.

[thailiketoo]

Haven't seen anyone here question this word, 'freedom', that is thrown about so easily in this debate. I'm currently in a country--Singapore--that most Americans would consider far from free, and I wouldn't argue with them on that point at a conceptual level. However, this is also a place where a woman can walk down a city street at three in the morning without fear and where I can walk through any neighbourhood without worrying about whether I've got the 'right skin colour' to be there. The American women I've met here say that they actually feel freer here than back in the US because of this. No-one denies that freedom is important, but is it important in the abstract or in how one actually experiences it? [Note: I'm not advocating the 'Singapore system', just highlighting that 'conceptual/constitutional freedom' and 'psychological/experienced freedom' don't always line up].

You might like to check out the little India riot speaking of skin color and see who was arrested. It's easy to have a riot in Singapore (more than 5 people). When he government is afraid of the people you have liberty. When the people are afraid of the Government you have tyranny. Tom Jefferson I think.

I do realize what you are saying though. Americans are giving up freedoms on a daily basis since the government discovered the common folk are afraid of terrorists.

Guns have a lot in common with FUBAR and FACTA and domestic drones and tapped phones and email reading. Give em an inch and they want a mile.

Don't worry. I am a 5 minute walk from that place and know it well. The people who were arrested were all Indian nationals. Why? ...because only Indian nationals were involved in the mayhem. So what does that have to do with skin colour? You bet that if I was in there burning police cars, I would have been arrested also.

Begs the question why only Indian Nationals rioted. That was my point. Certain people in Singapore have it better than other people. And it has been my experience that is based on skin color among other things. Certainly that was a minor issue considering the brilliance of my other counterpoints.

Edited May 18, 2014 by thailiketoo

[Trembly]

I love guns, loved them in the US, love them in Thailand.

But there is a big difference between gun culture in the two countries.

US, lots of rifles, most guns kept in the home (unloaded) or the car (loaded), very few carrying.

Thailand, mainly handguns, most guns kept on the person (loaded), usually in a belly bag, never seen so many men carrying.

Just curious but how long since you have been back to US?

Alot of concealed carry nowadays...its quite the rage.

So many of them fantasizing they can be a hero in some robbery attempt...all want to pretend they are cops.

Slightly different scenario but a guy in montana had his garage broken into twice by teenagers and got pissed so he set a trap. He left the garage door open with a purse in plain site. He wired in motion detectors and a CCTV. He told his barber he wanted to teach those kids a lesson.

A kid walked into the garage one night, the homeowner fired four rounds from his shotgun into the garage, striking the kid twice and killing him. It was a German exchange student.

A human life taken for nothing. Thats gun culture in the US today.

Its not like it was when I was a kid growing up when we could bring our shiotgun to gradeschool in the morning and leave it in the principals office to hunt pheasants on the way home.

I have no idea about the legality of this "trap" but in all honesty I don't think it is fair to give the impression the exchange student was right (by saying "a life taken for nothing"). Whether it was an exchange student, a homeless man, or wealthy individual; they don't have any right to trespass on private property regardless of whether there is a pile of gold or not waiting to stolen. In the end the homeowner may get charged with a crime, but then again, maybe not - what's known for sure is that nobody should be trespassing on anybody's private property.

But then again the kid might have been about to pick up the wallet and knock on the door or push it through the letter box . . . But I guess we'll never know. Edited May 18, 2014 by Trembly

[Gumballl]

I'm an American (that is, from the USA) and I do not own a gun, nor do I feel I must.

When in Thailand, in the middle of nowhere, I do feel like I should own a gun. Police response time to a break in at the home or other confrontation may be hours away, if not infinity (i.e. may never happen).

[ClutchClark]

I'm glad you found it so humorous.

How did I find myself in so many situations? The folly of youth I suppose. I apologize for answering your rhetorical question, but I suppose that is my lack of communication and social skills kicking in.

Ensnared! You got me! You asked a question and I answered it. Very clever trap you set there. I suppose you are ensnaring me again, and I guess I'll fall right into it, answering again.

How would I approach the situation? Well, first, since I am not, nor ever have been, afraid of a gun any more than a knife, pipe, or any other weapon, I would have remained calm. I would have told the guy he isn't going to shoot me, since there is no way in hell he would. I would have said the following: "You can shoot me right now and go to jail, you can drive away and I call the police with your plate number and report you assaulted me with a firearm, or you can let the girl out of the car and everybody calms down. You don't want to do anything irrational, and nobody wants to make a decision here that is going to end their lives." I can't say that I would even have had a firearm on me, since (as I said before) the only firearm I've ever owned was a rifle (Remington 10/22) which never left my house. I haven't lived in the States since I got out of the military, so I haven't had a chance to own a pistol and obtain a CCP. If/when I move back to the States, I will go out and get a Concealed Carry Permit, which would make a situation like this much safer for me. Either way, I wouldn't have drawn it while I was trying to de-escalate a situation.

In many ways, a gun is a very safe weapon. It only fires in one direction, and has a limited amount of ammunition. Get close to someone with a knife, try to take it away from them, you will get cut. Get close to someone with a gun, it is pretty easy to disarm them if you know what you're doing. In your situation, stand slightly behind the B-pillar of the car so he can't get a clear shot at you, if he gets out knock it out of his hand. Call 911 on your phone before you even get out of your car, but in your case and at your age this incident may easily have happened before cell phones.

I'm guessing this wasn't the answer you were looking for. This is basic, basic stuff that, while I learned in the military, could easily be taught in school. Is there some reason volleyball and badminton are more important to teach to students than self-defense?

As far as your other statement goes, regarding the 2nd Amendment crowd always itching for a fight, I'd fight just as passionately if you tried to take away the rights in any of the other amendments. It just so happens more people attack the 2nd than the 3rd, nobody seems to think its acceptable to quarter troops in personal residences during peacetime, but its fine to say Americans no longer deserve the right to defend themselves.

Dissect my post again, as you seem to be so fond of doing. Pick out whichever parts seem to prove your point. The fact is, a armed, educated citizen in the vicinity of any of these massacres you are so afraid of could end it before it ran its course. On that subject, in a world where there are no guns, what would stop these individuals from making things like pipe bombs or simple chemical weapons? Those are indiscriminate weapons, capable of killing many people at once, while a gun can only fire one bullet at a time. No guns, the bombing at the Boston Marathon would still have happened.

I am not a vigilante, nor are the overwhelming majority of gun owners. We are responsible citizens who find preparedness to be important. Whether it be hunting, sport-shooting, self-defense, we are educated and know how to use a simple machine. We don't cower in fear from it. Spiders, yeah I might cower in fear from those from time to time.

Mister, if you aren't afraid of looking at the business end of a gun then I would say you are either a bit slow or you have never actually been in the situation. Your details continue to be lacking.

I hoped you might provide some details because "follies of youth" doesn't really mean much. Are you saying you used to go looking for trouble? Or was such a generic response necessary because you really didn't have those things happen to you? I am just saying I have never heard of anyone having the problems you appear to have had and they all occurred in your "youth"? So, you ran with a wild crowd but they seem to have not really been very tough if everytime they point a gun or knife at you, they failed to follow through. Not to say I am doubting you.

That was a decent response to the guy in the vehicle. You are correct in your assumption it was before cellphones. Did you ever live in the deep south in the late 1960's? If you ever spent time down there then you will know that they were not partial to Yankees and that is an understatement. Your description of your actions is a very nice textbook description and it took you longer to type it than the entire situation lasted but you may factor in that cops in New Orleans would have laughed at your complaint. The driver was in a nice vehicle with local tags which meant he likely had some influence and I was a yankee. Back then, yankees did best not involving themselves with NOPD. You also fail to recognize his window was rolled up so all your yelling would have been wasted. You also assume the woman wanted to leave the car, which it didn't appear she did. But go ahead and twist the circumstances however you need to so it fits with your textbook. The guy did not want to shoot me. He was just letting me know this was not something I wanted to stick my nose in. But lets say he did shoot me. All he had to tell the police is what the evidence would have supported. "Officer, I was stopped here minding my own business and some angry stranger approached my car and started pounding on my car in a threatening manner. I was blocked by traffic and fearing for my life I shot and killed him. You can see he was the one who had exited his vehicle and approached mine."

As for pipebomb and chemical weapon attacks. Well, I haven't heard of too many of those and even a guy who finds trouble as easily as you do never came up against such things so they must be pretty rare. It seems like a gun would be of limited value as you describe since such devices are typically placed in locations without anyone knowing who left them. How exactly are you going to stop them with a gun? How could you "have ended it before it ran its course"? Your words.

It is said the only way to win an internet argument is to not get involved in one in the first place but some of you guys just give me such a chuckle with how worked up you get. I don't know about your military career but if you were even half a tough a soldier as you are a keyboard warrior then you were one tough hombre.

[ClutchClark]

Double post

CC I understand that you wanted to attract all the gun nuts out of the woodwork and I agree that a lot of people should never be let near a gun. One of the problems is there is no firearms proficiency testing or examination. People should be taught how guns work, how to strip them down and repair them if necessary, besides proper handling and marksmanship techniques. Unfortunately if you qualify for a license you get a gun.

Of course there are idiots that pray for the day when someone enters their property so they can take them out, but I would call the Police first before engaging an intruder. Trouble is if you shoot someone on your property their family knows where you live and then you could be the next target.

Psychos have access to bombs, poisons and a host of other weapons of mass destruction. They don't need guns.

I have always liked guns but never liked killing things for sport, except wild boar which is great eating. I don't shoot Bambi or Polar Bears. Only reasons I could imagine Eskimos use a .22 on Polar Bear is not to damage the hide and .22 cartridges and rifles are cheap and legal in most countries. Including Thailand.

There are responsible gun lovers out there.

ATF, you are a reasonable man and a responsible gun owner like myself and the guys I used to know.

And, yes, my posts were an attempt to attract the gun nuts--which was likely unnecessary.

AK natives were still living in the Stone Age back then (atleast in western AK and the North slope) and did not have much money. It was a matter of being "cheap" as you surmised and there just weren't too many available calibers. You saw .22's and .30-06 and not much in between. The hides were sold commercially for income because there were few ways to earn a living for those communities.

[ClutchClark]

A couple of things...

All three incidents highlighted by CC happened in "gun free" zones. Nobody but the shooter had a gun until the police arrived and, I expect, the shooters well knew they would meet no resistance before they ever arrived at the scene.

If an Eskimo, or anybody else, is hunting polar bears with a .22, they better darn well know where the kill shot must be placed. If you don't get them with that first shot, I suggest you try and outrun them.

Our new found friend, CC, is cetainly taking the forum by storm. Only been a member less than 2 months and already creating chaos.

Since the shooters are often suicidal, I don't know that they would much care but you likely have more insight into the irrational mind than I have.

Yes, I am new here and only writing because I am laid up. I am not an invalid, I typically enjoy good health and run/walk daily. I have quite a lot of freetime and I am not fond of the taverns. This TV is a novelty and is already starting to wear off. I find a certain hostility and disrespect commonplace here that you don't experience much in actual face time.

As for the "chaos", I do hope you are exaggerating. I was raised with guns and have been a gun-owner my entire life, yet I have never had the fascination with guns that so many americans do today. For me, guns are a tool. I have owned quite a few over the years but I also have owned a large selection of hammers and handsaws and wrenches. I am very concerned with the recent trend in america of these mass shootings and also in the number of shootings in our inner city. America has a gun problem--we allow children to be killed by guns and write it off to that is just the cost of our freedom. I don't happen to subscribe to that philosophy. I am very interested in the non-American Farang viewpoint on firearms since I have come around to thinking that Americans are no longer responsible with gun ownership. On a personal level, the majority are but on a macro (society/regulation/legislation) level they are not IMO. I think the 1994 AWB was a great piece of legislation.

This thread also shed some light on the availability and prevalence of firearms in Thailand amongst the local Thais and since I am now married to a Thai lady and will likely spend my remaining years in thailand, I need to get up to speed in understanding this culture.

But the shininess of TV is already wearing off and I will likely go back to just reading the farming and animal forums as soon as I am back to good health. But I will bet the chaos will still continue here in my absence.

;-)

Edited May 18, 2014 by ClutchClark

[AYJAYDEE]

Back during the Cold War, one of the reasons the Russians feared invading the US of A was the American populace had more guns and ammo than the Russian army.

So, I'll call it a draw.

nonsense. ICBM's dont give a damn about guns and ammo

[ryanmacl]

I'm glad you found it so humorous.

How did I find myself in so many situations? The folly of youth I suppose. I apologize for answering your rhetorical question, but I suppose that is my lack of communication and social skills kicking in.

Ensnared! You got me! You asked a question and I answered it. Very clever trap you set there. I suppose you are ensnaring me again, and I guess I'll fall right into it, answering again.

How would I approach the situation? Well, first, since I am not, nor ever have been, afraid of a gun any more than a knife, pipe, or any other weapon, I would have remained calm. I would have told the guy he isn't going to shoot me, since there is no way in hell he would. I would have said the following: "You can shoot me right now and go to jail, you can drive away and I call the police with your plate number and report you assaulted me with a firearm, or you can let the girl out of the car and everybody calms down. You don't want to do anything irrational, and nobody wants to make a decision here that is going to end their lives." I can't say that I would even have had a firearm on me, since (as I said before) the only firearm I've ever owned was a rifle (Remington 10/22) which never left my house. I haven't lived in the States since I got out of the military, so I haven't had a chance to own a pistol and obtain a CCP. If/when I move back to the States, I will go out and get a Concealed Carry Permit, which would make a situation like this much safer for me. Either way, I wouldn't have drawn it while I was trying to de-escalate a situation.

In many ways, a gun is a very safe weapon. It only fires in one direction, and has a limited amount of ammunition. Get close to someone with a knife, try to take it away from them, you will get cut. Get close to someone with a gun, it is pretty easy to disarm them if you know what you're doing. In your situation, stand slightly behind the B-pillar of the car so he can't get a clear shot at you, if he gets out knock it out of his hand. Call 911 on your phone before you even get out of your car, but in your case and at your age this incident may easily have happened before cell phones.

I'm guessing this wasn't the answer you were looking for. This is basic, basic stuff that, while I learned in the military, could easily be taught in school. Is there some reason volleyball and badminton are more important to teach to students than self-defense?

As far as your other statement goes, regarding the 2nd Amendment crowd always itching for a fight, I'd fight just as passionately if you tried to take away the rights in any of the other amendments. It just so happens more people attack the 2nd than the 3rd, nobody seems to think its acceptable to quarter troops in personal residences during peacetime, but its fine to say Americans no longer deserve the right to defend themselves.

Dissect my post again, as you seem to be so fond of doing. Pick out whichever parts seem to prove your point. The fact is, a armed, educated citizen in the vicinity of any of these massacres you are so afraid of could end it before it ran its course. On that subject, in a world where there are no guns, what would stop these individuals from making things like pipe bombs or simple chemical weapons? Those are indiscriminate weapons, capable of killing many people at once, while a gun can only fire one bullet at a time. No guns, the bombing at the Boston Marathon would still have happened.

I am not a vigilante, nor are the overwhelming majority of gun owners. We are responsible citizens who find preparedness to be important. Whether it be hunting, sport-shooting, self-defense, we are educated and know how to use a simple machine. We don't cower in fear from it. Spiders, yeah I might cower in fear from those from time to time.

Mister, if you aren't afraid of looking at the business end of a gun then I would say you are either a bit slow or you have never actually been in the situation. Your details continue to be lacking.

I hoped you might provide some details because "follies of youth" doesn't really mean much. Are you saying you used to go looking for trouble? Or was such a generic response necessary because you really didn't have those things happen to you? I am just saying I have never heard of anyone having the problems you appear to have had and they all occurred in your "youth"? So, you ran with a wild crowd but they seem to have not really been very tough if everytime they point a gun or knife at you, they failed to follow through. Not to say I am doubting you.

That was a decent response to the guy in the vehicle. You are correct in your assumption it was before cellphones. Did you ever live in the deep south in the late 1960's? If you ever spent time down there then you will know that they were not partial to Yankees and that is an understatement. Your description of your actions is a very nice textbook description and it took you longer to type it than the entire situation lasted but you may factor in that cops in New Orleans would have laughed at your complaint. The driver was in a nice vehicle with local tags which meant he likely had some influence and I was a yankee. Back then, yankees did best not involving themselves with NOPD. You also fail to recognize his window was rolled up so all your yelling would have been wasted. You also assume the woman wanted to leave the car, which it didn't appear she did. But go ahead and twist the circumstances however you need to so it fits with your textbook. The guy did not want to shoot me. He was just letting me know this was not something I wanted to stick my nose in. But lets say he did shoot me. All he had to tell the police is what the evidence would have supported. "Officer, I was stopped here minding my own business and some angry stranger approached my car and started pounding on my car in a threatening manner. I was blocked by traffic and fearing for my life I shot and killed him. You can see he was the one who had exited his vehicle and approached mine."

As for pipebomb and chemical weapon attacks. Well, I haven't heard of too many of those and even a guy who finds trouble as easily as you do never came up against such things so they must be pretty rare. It seems like a gun would be of limited value as you describe since such devices are typically placed in locations without anyone knowing who left them. How exactly are you going to stop them with a gun? How could you "have ended it before it ran its course"? Your words.

It is said the only way to win an internet argument is to not get involved in one in the first place but some of you guys just give me such a chuckle with how worked up you get. I don't know about your military career but if you were even half a tough a soldier as you are a keyboard warrior then you were one tough hombre.

Sorry for not showing photos, the first time I was shot at entering a bad neighborhood where I had issues with one of the occupants. Couldn't see the shooter, just turned around and ran. Didn't seem to make any sense to stand there while she shooting is already happening. Second time had the gun in my face. Not concerned, didn't feel they would pull the trigger. I look at the man, not the gun. Sorry for not providing any more, those are enough personal details for the internet. Yes, these things all happened in my youth, or "youth", as I stopped getting involved in these types of situations later on. Also, regardless of how wild the crowd I "ran" with was, why would they be the ones pulling weapons on me?

No, I did not live in the deep south in the late 1960's. I did not live in the 1960's. In all honesty, the 1960's was a very different era, slapping women was the norm back then. I once heard an interview with the Beatles where they recalled slapping basically every woman they dated because that's what they did in the movies. In your situation, 50 years ago, I probably wouldn't have even gotten out of the car and just assumed she deserved it. I have no idea, that era was long before I was born. If it had happened today, it would be a very different story. Men don't get away with hitting women. Its also much harder to get away with murder these days. No point in arguing it further, it might as well have been in Ancient Rome for all that it matters.

Regarding the pipe bombs and such, again you misunderstood my point. I wasn't suggesting that you could stop a bomber with a gun, what I was saying is that if the gun is what is available to them, that is what they will use. You can stop a shooter with a gun, before the shooter runs his course, those were my words. The crazies out there will use whatever they have that is available to them. Take away guns, they will still do what they do, just by some other means. Maybe it was difficult to find the information on how to do this stuff in your day, but for the past 20 years you could learn how to do it trivially on the internet. It took 18 years to find the Unabomber, shooting sprees last minutes. If you haven't heard of many of these attacks, maybe you just haven't been listening. Did you hear of the Boston Marathon last year? They were also used in the Columbine massacre. You can Google all the information you want, there is plenty out there.

Something you wrote in another post struck me: "Its not like it was when I was a kid growing up when we could bring our shiotgun to gradeschool in the morning and leave it in the principals office to hunt pheasants on the way home." Have you ever stopped to think that maybe it is because this sort of thing stopped that these types of shootings started? It seems that your generation are the ones who started demonizing guns in the first place, making children fear them. Prior to that they were respected, like power tools, dangerous but useful. When you teach children to fear them, the bad ones realize they can use them to incite fear in others. The world hasn't changed, perceptions and standards of behavior have changed. Child molesters, murderers, abusers, they all existed then and they all exist now, like your incident in the "deep south" shows, but now society would have people paralyzed by fear. Remember chemistry sets? The ones you could buy at Sears & Roebuck? They don't exist anymore, parents think they are "terrorist kits". Kids can't walk out the door and play anymore, not because the danger has increased, but because the perception of danger has. Now you advocate legislating the rights of the entire country away for their own safety. In gradeschool, you could handle the responsibility of a shotgun, but nobody else can. The kids will all shoot each other, is that it? Funny how it didn't happen in your time.

I've done my best to not get offensive in any of my posts, even though in your first line you called me either "a bit slow" or a liar. Sorry to hear that your health is poor, but I'm glad the shininess of TV is wearing off for you. I've been reading this forum for 9 years now, and I too rarely post since there really isn't much of a reason to. I sincerely hope you get back on your feet soon and can start doing whatever it is you do with your animals and farming. Just please don't vote. Other generations deserve a chance too.

[NeverSure]

Back during the Cold War, one of the reasons the Russians feared invading the US of A was the American populace had more guns and ammo than the Russian army.

So, I'll call it a draw.

nonsense. ICBM's dont give a damn about guns and ammo

No one has started a nuclear war since America bombed Japan, because of the consequences. Wars have been conventional since. No one wants the world exchanging ICBMs.

Not only Russia, but during WWII Japan was afraid to invade the US because so many Americans were armed. LINK America escaped the ravages of WWII because no one wanted the consequences.

I'm tired of this thread. Its title implies a comparison of Thai guns vs USA guns but as usual its just turned into another opportunity for people with tiny peckers from tiny inconsequential countries to bash the US. People who've never seen the US think they know all about it.

Actually, Thailand is much more violent than the US with many more gun murders per capita and that's the answer to the OP and the thread title.

If you're truly afraid of gun violence, get the hell out of Thailand and stop being a hypocrite.

[lvr181]

So, have we answered the original question well enough for you non-Americans?

If I could wade thru some of the "crap" spoken/or mud slinging, I guess there could be an answer (but not necessarily valid) to the question.

Edited May 18, 2014 by lvr181

[Seastallion]

It's obvious you're not a newbie, so you have no need to defer to an older man. Your comment about CC implied newbies should. Your question lacks logic.

(As an aside, is there a man here older than you? Perhaps a few, but not many is my guess.Not relevant though.)

Uhhh, your new best friend, CC, claims to be nearly 80. So, yes, there are some forum members older than me.

And with this response to your own self styled irrelevant comment, I am through with you.

Your irrelevance prevails.

I made one admittedly irrelevant comment. Why would that make me irrelevant? You are a snide chap, aren't you? Never mind, your opinion is not highly regarded by me and that was a rhetorical question.

Please keep to your word and stay "through with" me as I really do not enjoy dialogue with spin doctors with childish retorts.

[bunnydrops]

I want to clarify the story about the young boy that was shot breaking into a garage. Unless there has been another such happening, the story was this. The garage was being repeatedly broken into. The owner set a trap by tying a shotgun to a side window so when the window was opened the intruder was shot. This happen more than 10, maybe 15 years ago. The homeowner was convicted of manslaughter.

[BillyBobThai]

Just so that some will know, there is one small town in Georgia that requires people to own a firearm. From Wikipedia, Kennesaw, Georgia.

Gun law

The town is noted for its unusual gun legislation. In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [sec 34-21]^[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

( Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

Edited May 19, 2014 by BillyBobThai

[ATF]

I'm an American (that is, from the USA) and I do not own a gun, nor do I feel I must.

When in Thailand, in the middle of nowhere, I do feel like I should own a gun. Police response time to a break in at the home or other confrontation may be hours away, if not infinity (i.e. may never happen).

If you need a firearm for home protection. Forget your Glocks etc. a handgun needs a lot of training and in a life or death situation most people will just close their eyes and fire. Get a Remington 870 Tactical Express Shotgun. The 870 is probably the most reliable and trusted firearm in the World with over 10M made. It won't jam and just the sound of you racking it will scare of 99% of intruders. It comes with a toothbreaker on the choke when non-lethal force is required and 6+1 rounds.

Before everyone pipes up it was one of the weapons of choice for the Washington Naval Yard Shootings last year, but has been around since the 1950s. It is the most powerful weapon a civilian can legally possess in most countries. A single buckshot shell is the same as firing nine 9mm Glocks at once.It will amputate heads and limbs at close range so use birdshot not buckshot for your first shell incase you do an Oscar Pistorius.

[sgtsabai]

I have to agree with the 870. I owned 2, one an older 12 ga.chambered for 2 3/4 inch shells and one a 3 inch chambered. Like the the old Timex commercial, "it takes a beating and keeps on ticking". Shot many a duck and goose, along with lots of other fowl etc. Once used it to pull myself out of quicksand in the Rio Grande during a duck hunt, never missed a beat. Took a wild dog's head clean off with BB goose load at about 5 feet, kinda' of a him or me situation. I don't know how hard they are to come by here.

[thailiketoo]

An Arizona rancher and Republican congressional candidate said during a primary debate Saturday that the vast majority of mass shootings in the United States are committed by Democrats.

http://news.yahoo.com/kiehne-arizona-democrats-mass-shootings-212915876.html

Which side are the closest to dems in Thailand?

[phoenixdoglover]

An Arizona rancher and Republican congressional candidate said during a primary debate Saturday that the vast majority of mass shootings in the United States are committed by Democrats.

http://news.yahoo.com/kiehne-arizona-democrats-mass-shootings-212915876.html

Which side are the closest to dems in Thailand?

Of course, what he said is demonstrably false, but I'm sure he got a few heads nodding in agreement. Anything to stoke resentment and division. It's business as usual in any Reds vs Yellows thread.

[thailiketoo]

An Arizona rancher and Republican congressional candidate said during a primary debate Saturday that the vast majority of mass shootings in the United States are committed by Democrats.

http://news.yahoo.com/kiehne-arizona-democrats-mass-shootings-212915876.html

Which side are the closest to dems in Thailand?

Of course, what he said is demonstrably false, but I'm sure he got a few heads nodding in agreement. Anything to stoke resentment and division. It's business as usual in any Reds vs Yellows thread.

You wrote, "Of course, what he said is demonstrably false." It is? Feel free to post the information.

[culicine]

Right to bear arms....in our Constitution.

In Australia ... no gun culture ... we get on just fine ... as do many other countries around the world.

Fist fights provide much more entertainment, and usually noone dies. Only pussies use guns...

[thailiketoo]

An Arizona rancher and Republican congressional candidate said during a primary debate Saturday that the vast majority of mass shootings in the United States are committed by Democrats.

http://news.yahoo.com/kiehne-arizona-democrats-mass-shootings-212915876.html

Which side are the closest to dems in Thailand?

Of course, what he said is demonstrably false, but I'm sure he got a few heads nodding in agreement. Anything to stoke resentment and division. It's business as usual in any Reds vs Yellows thread.

You wrote, "Of course, what he said is demonstrably false." It is? Feel free to post the information.

Ya, you are probably right. Speaking about fact checking how about this one?

[Seastallion]

Right to bear arms....in our Constitution.

In Australia ... no gun culture ... we get on just fine ... as do many other countries around the world.

Fist fights provide much more entertainment, and usually noone dies. Only pussies use guns...

ooooo, a tough guy. I'd better not piss you off because you're scary.

[phoenixdoglover]

An Arizona rancher and Republican congressional candidate said during a primary debate Saturday that the vast majority of mass shootings in the United States are committed by Democrats.

http://news.yahoo.com/kiehne-arizona-democrats-mass-shootings-212915876.html

Which side are the closest to dems in Thailand?

Of course, what he said is demonstrably false, but I'm sure he got a few heads nodding in agreement. Anything to stoke resentment and division. It's business as usual in any Reds vs Yellows thread.

You wrote, "Of course, what he said is demonstrably false." It is? Feel free to post the information.

Let's start at the top of the list of mass shooters in the US (CNN list of 25 deadliest shootings):

Seung Hui Cho (age 23) - VA Tech shooting, 32 victims - Cho was a Korean national with a green card, not a citizen, ineligible to register to vote, and Virginia does not have registration for a party; hence he was not a registered Democrat or Republican. His online profiles make no mention of his politics. He was mentally ill.

Adam Lanza (age 20) - Newton Elementary, 27 victims - Lanza's political affiliation is unknown; his mother was possibly Republican (not confirmed).

George Kennard (age 35) - Killeen TX, 23 Victims - online profiles do not indicate his party affiliation, but he "hated gays, Latinos and blacks", so unlikely he hung out with Democrats.

James Huberty (age 41) - San Ysidro, CA, 21 victims - online profiles do not indicate his party affiliation, he hated "children, Mexicans, and the United States".

I could go on. But since the dufus in AZ claimed 99% were Democrats, I see no reason to belabor the rebuttal.

The majority of mass shootings appear to be motivated by mental illness, hatreds, social isolation, poor family relationships, extreme stress, and a variety of other factors. Political motivation seems to be quite rare. So even bringing up the subject, as if it is relevant, seems bizarre.

[thailiketoo]

An Arizona rancher and Republican congressional candidate said during a primary debate Saturday that the vast majority of mass shootings in the United States are committed by Democrats.

http://news.yahoo.com/kiehne-arizona-democrats-mass-shootings-212915876.html

Which side are the closest to dems in Thailand?

Of course, what he said is demonstrably false, but I'm sure he got a few heads nodding in agreement. Anything to stoke resentment and division. It's business as usual in any Reds vs Yellows thread.

You wrote, "Of course, what he said is demonstrably false." It is? Feel free to post the information.

Let's start at the top of the list of mass shooters in the US (CNN list of 25 deadliest shootings):

Seung Hui Cho (age 23) - VA Tech shooting, 32 victims - Cho was a Korean national with a green card, not a citizen, ineligible to register to vote, and Virginia does not have registration for a party; hence he was not a registered Democrat or Republican. His online profiles make no mention of his politics. He was mentally ill.

Adam Lanza (age 20) - Newton Elementary, 27 victims - Lanza's political affiliation is unknown; his mother was possibly Republican (not confirmed).

George Kennard (age 35) - Killeen TX, 23 Victims - online profiles do not indicate his party affiliation, but he "hated gays, Latinos and blacks", so unlikely he hung out with Democrats.

James Huberty (age 41) - San Ysidro, CA, 21 victims - online profiles do not indicate his party affiliation, he hated "children, Mexicans, and the United States".

I could go on. But since the dufus in AZ claimed 99% were Democrats, I see no reason to belabor the rebuttal.

The majority of mass shootings appear to be motivated by mental illness, hatreds, social isolation, poor family relationships, extreme stress, and a variety of other factors. Political motivation seems to be quite rare. So even bringing up the subject, as if it is relevant, seems bizarre.

Ya I agreed with you about 4 posts ago. I'm surprised at the media that carried the story without a disclaimer.

Edited May 19, 2014 by thailiketoo