Thailand gun death rate TWICE as high as US

[BlackJack]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTU2Y0VFH0E

happiness is a warm gun

[cumgranosalum]

After a little time on Google, I have come to the conclusion that I would be VERY wary of these figures as Thailand does not release these sort of stats - they are left off a lot of the lists. This would indicate that there is no reliable system for sorting out these kind of stats and th margin for error or misinterpretation could be very big.

Mmmm..........indeed, where would one read reliable facts and truth about Thailand? As always, the first casualty of "war" (declared or not, military or civil) is always the truth. That is not unique to Thailand either.

I think the news media tries, within the covert (or maybe overt?) threats made to them every now and then.

First casuallty? - there are no figures going back years...these appear to be the first

[bazza40]

All those gun control laws and....... This.

California has some pretty strict gun laws too.

It ain't the gun that does the killing! No more than it was the knife that did the killing of that guy on Pahonyothin a few weeks ago over the Ipad, or that guy machete that killed that family recently, or the hoe that did the killing on Koh Tao, or the psycho that slit his girlfrinds throat on walking street, or the baseball bat that beat that biker to death recently in Pattaya, or........

True but a major part of it relates to access to guns: Australia used to have mass shootings ( in Melbourne Queen St , postal, Hoddle Street, a psycho, in Sydney, lunatic bikies, InTasmania/Port Arthur, a psycho).. Not one mass shooting since the gun buyback and a dramatic decline in gun murders and suicides.

I'm not certain Australia is a good example to use in regards to gun deaths. The people who own guns in Australia, are various criminal organisation like the Middle Eastern gangs, street gangs, East and Southeast Asian gangs, and outlaw biker gangs to name a few. All Australia did was disarm their law abiding citizens. This is nothing to be proud of or brag about.

Yes, and all of these guns are illegal, so if the gang members get caught with one they are in trouble. Although IMHO the sentences are too lenient - it should be 10 years mandatory, no parole.

It's complete rubbish that law-abiding citizens in Australia were disarmed. Semi-automatics, automatics and pump-action shotguns were banned. You can still own a bolt-action rifle in any calibre you want.

Since 1992, Australia has had no mass shootings. 23 years attesting to a cause-effect relationship that Americans have yet to comprehend. If you don't think that's something to be proud of... forget it. Too many people on this thread trying to defend the indefensible. Morons.

[Orac]

After a little time on Google, I have come to the conclusion that I would be VERY wary of these figures as Thailand does not release these sort of stats - they are left off a lot of the lists. This would indicate that there is no reliable system for sorting out these kind of stats and th margin for error or misinterpretation could be very big.

Mmmm..........indeed, where would one read reliable facts and truth about Thailand? As always, the first casualty of "war" (declared or not, military or civil) is always the truth. That is not unique to Thailand either.

I think the news media tries, within the covert (or maybe overt?) threats made to them every now and then.

First casuallty? - there are no figures going back years...these appear to be the first

Though I would dispute the accuracy of the figures given due to discrepancies already mentioned, the website they are taken from does show annual figures going back a number of years and had dropped significantly. Seperately figures were quoted by an earlier poster from 1994.

Either way they still vary from the latest UNODC figure of 5 homicides per 100k which I would class as a more official source provided by RTP.

[Andreas2]

Yes, and all of these guns are illegal, so if the gang members get caught with one they are in trouble. Although IMHO the sentences are too lenient - it should be 10 years mandatory, no parole.

It's complete rubbish that law-abiding citizens in Australia were disarmed. Semi-automatics, automatics and pump-action shotguns were banned. You can still own a bolt-action rifle in any calibre you want.

Since 1992, Australia has had no mass shootings. 23 years attesting to a cause-effect relationship that Americans have yet to comprehend. If you don't think that's something to be proud of... forget it. Too many people on this thread trying to defend the indefensible. Morons.

Re your "Moron" statement.

I'm sure, everybody here is against gun deaths. But maybe these morons, as you so eloquently put it, have other sources of information than you have, which make them doubt that just harsher gun laws alone make evil people with their guns go away. I think the problem has many layers and only removing the guns from the law-abiding populace doesn't make them any safer.

Just one of such reports, regarding Colombia: http://blog.panampost.com/editor/2015/08/12/whimsical-gun-control-leaves-colombians-defenseless/. Don't worry, it's a very short article.

In an earlier post I already referred to the latest mass murder in Paris, France (btw., remember Charlie Hebdo?), which is also a strict gun free zone: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/877806-thailand-gun-death-rate-twice-as-high-as-us/?view=findpost&p=10181744

Hopefully this makes you a little bit more understanding, appreciative.

[oslooskar]

Since 1992, Australia has had no mass shootings.

Seriously, you need to do your homework.

[Andreas2]

Since 1992, Australia has had no mass shootings.

Seriously, you need to do your homework.

As I already mentioned above, we all have different sources of information.

- 1992: Central Coast massacre

- 1993: Cangai siege

- 1996: Hillcrest Murders

- 1996: Port Arthur massacre

- 2002: Monash University Shooting

- 2011: Hectorville siege

- 2014: Hunt family murders

- 2014: Wedderburn shooting

Edited December 12, 2015 by Andreas2

[Arkady]

One can cherry-pick statistics to support any argument.

The principal difference seems to be the access to semi-automatic and automatic weapons in the US. These weapons have only one purpose - killing people. To pretend they are hunting weapons is ridiculous. A good roo shooter in Australia will account for 50 roos in a night's hunting, armed only with a bolt-action rifle. I've been hunting with a rabbit shooter using a single shot 0.22 who head-shot 150 rabbits in one night. He would have regarded any automatics as butchery.

I haven't heard of mass shootings in Thailand. I assume that's because semi and full automatics are restricted to the military.

After the Port Arthur massacre in 1992, the ownership of semi-automatic and automatic was severely restricted. Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since.

Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of high gun ownership without gun crime. What the users of this datum neglect to mention is gun owners in Switzerland have to renew their permits once/month.

The Sandy Hook mass shooting proved to me American gun supporters are insane. The response to the shooting of 20 children was an upsurge in gun sales. If anything was going to bring about a rethink of the Second Amendment, that event was it.

Winston Churchill once said Americans usually get to the right solution, after they have tried all other options. Sadly, in the case of American gun ideology, so far he's wrong.

Automatics are not legal in the US! Who told you they were?

I said "access to semi-automatics and automatics". I did not say automatics were legal. Another red herring.

A semi-automatic such as a Colt AR-15 is capable of firing 10-15 rounds a minute, depending on the speed of trigger pull. The next round automatically seats in the firing chamber.

I'm sure the parents of the children at Sandy Hook would appreciate the fine distinction you are making.

As far as I know, things like fully automatic Uzi machine pistols that were made before 1976 are still legal in the US and sell for high prices as a result. Remember the US army vet gun instructor in Colorado who gave one to a 9 year old girl to fire on full auto recently and was surprised when she shot him in the head with it, as the recoil on full auto made the gun rise up rapidly in her tiny arms.

I don't know if fully automatic assault rifles have ever been legal but the widely owned Colt AR-15, mentioned above, is basically the civilian version of the M16 and can be converted to full auto by a competent gunsmith in half an hour. I believe the San Bernardino couple who shot up the guys colleagues had these mod jobs on their legally purchased AR-15s.

[Arkady]

There are interesting debates in the US about what impact the huge increase in legal concealed carriers many states has had. The NRA claims that gun violence is reduced by concealed carry, as it acts as a deterrent but I am sure how convincing their data is, as they are obviously biased. Although many may be worried about being a place with a lot of people carrying concealed guns, people with concealed carry permits seem not to be inclined to shoot people unlawfully. However, there are more accidents as a result of people shooting themselves by accident and kids getting hold of parents' concealed carry gun and tragically shooting themselves or someone else. I think it also gives rise to a lot of people, particularly women, owning and carrying guns who not very proficient in their use, as they have them for protection and have no interest in practising with them at the range or learning more the basic knowledge required to get a permit.

This is not applicable to Thailand though, as Por 12 concealed carry permits are extremely difficult to obtain without big shot connections. They also have to be renewed annually. So your connections have to remain current.

[bazza40]

Since 1992, Australia has had no mass shootings.

Seriously, you need to do your homework.

True, the Port Arthur massacre was 1996, not 1992 as I first read.

[bazza40]

Since 1992, Australia has had no mass shootings.

Seriously, you need to do your homework.

As I already mentioned above, we all have different sources of information.

- 1992: Central Coast massacre

- 1993: Cangai siege

- 1996: Hillcrest Murders

- 1996: Port Arthur massacre

- 2002: Monash University Shooting

- 2011: Hectorville siege

- 2014: Hunt family murders

- 2014: Wedderburn shooting

All of these are true; however, how many more people would have been killed if the perpetrators had access to what is readily available in the US?

Excuses, excuses.

[phoenixdoglover]

Since 1992, Australia has had no mass shootings.

Seriously, you need to do your homework.

As I already mentioned above, we all have different sources of information.

- 1992: Central Coast massacre

- 1993: Cangai siege

- 1996: Hillcrest Murders

- 1996: Port Arthur massacre

- 2002: Monash University Shooting

- 2011: Hectorville siege

- 2014: Hunt family murders

- 2014: Wedderburn shooting

The stricter laws in Oz were enacted after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.

Of the shootings you list since then, the Monash Univ shooting is of the "mass/random" type. The others were personal disputes and crazy family members. These latter types of murders occur regardless of weapons available.

The Oz situation is interesting. One mass shooting in 19 years. What was the history in the 20 years previous?

In the US, we have a hard time answering many questions like this definitively. Congress has suppressed the data collection and research funding specifically regarding firearms.

[CMNightRider]

All those gun control laws and....... This.

California has some pretty strict gun laws too.

It ain't the gun that does the killing! No more than it was the knife that did the killing of that guy on Pahonyothin a few weeks ago over the Ipad, or that guy machete that killed that family recently, or the hoe that did the killing on Koh Tao, or the psycho that slit his girlfrinds throat on walking street, or the baseball bat that beat that biker to death recently in Pattaya, or........

True but a major part of it relates to access to guns: Australia used to have mass shootings ( in Melbourne Queen St , postal, Hoddle Street, a psycho, in Sydney, lunatic bikies, InTasmania/Port Arthur, a psycho).. Not one mass shooting since the gun buyback and a dramatic decline in gun murders and suicides.

I'm not certain Australia is a good example to use in regards to gun deaths. The people who own guns in Australia, are various criminal organisation like the Middle Eastern gangs, street gangs, East and Southeast Asian gangs, and outlaw biker gangs to name a few. All Australia did was disarm their law abiding citizens. This is nothing to be proud of or brag about.

Yes, and all of these guns are illegal, so if the gang members get caught with one they are in trouble. Although IMHO the sentences are too lenient - it should be 10 years mandatory, no parole.

It's complete rubbish that law-abiding citizens in Australia were disarmed. Semi-automatics, automatics and pump-action shotguns were banned. You can still own a bolt-action rifle in any calibre you want.

Since 1992, Australia has had no mass shootings. 23 years attesting to a cause-effect relationship that Americans have yet to comprehend. If you don't think that's something to be proud of... forget it. Too many people on this thread trying to defend the indefensible. Morons.

While we are talking about morons, please read your first sentence and give that a little thought.

[bazza40]

Yes, and all of these guns are illegal, so if the gang members get caught with one they are in trouble. Although IMHO the sentences are too lenient - it should be 10 years mandatory, no parole.

It's complete rubbish that law-abiding citizens in Australia were disarmed. Semi-automatics, automatics and pump-action shotguns were banned. You can still own a bolt-action rifle in any calibre you want.

Since 1992, Australia has had no mass shootings. 23 years attesting to a cause-effect relationship that Americans have yet to comprehend. If you don't think that's something to be proud of... forget it. Too many people on this thread trying to defend the indefensible. Morons.

Re your "Moron" statement.

I'm sure, everybody here is against gun deaths. But maybe these morons, as you so eloquently put it, have other sources of information than you have, which make them doubt that just harsher gun laws alone make evil people with their guns go away. I think the problem has many layers and only removing the guns from the law-abiding populace doesn't make them any safer.

Just one of such reports, regarding Colombia: http://blog.panampost.com/editor/2015/08/12/whimsical-gun-control-leaves-colombians-defenseless/. Don't worry, it's a very short article.

In an earlier post I already referred to the latest mass murder in Paris, France (btw., remember Charlie Hebdo?), which is also a strict gun free zone: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/877806-thailand-gun-death-rate-twice-as-high-as-us/?view=findpost&p=10181744

Hopefully this makes you a little bit more understanding, appreciative.

Sorry, I don't click on links provided by people I don't know. My personal internet security mantra.

What's to understand and appreciate? True, there are maniacs in many countries.

What the rest of the world doesn't understand is the frequency of mass shootings in the US, and how a reactionary organisation ( the NRA ) has such influence in Washington.

Australia now has gun-related homicides per capita which are a small fraction of those in the USA. We banned certain weapons which were present in mass shootings in Australia. Basically, we grew up. The results speak for themselves.

In contrast, America's response has been to purchase even more weapons in the name of self-defense. That's like trying to put out an oil fire by throwing gasoline on it. There was even a Congresswoman? who distributed a photo of herself and family ( children included ) all holding firearms.

If you don't think that's moronic, I despair of your capacity for rational thought.

And yes, Charlton Heston was a moron too.

[mark131v]

All those gun control laws and....... This.

California has some pretty strict gun laws too.

It ain't the gun that does the killing! No more than it was the knife that did the killing of that guy on Pahonyothin a few weeks ago over the Ipad, or that guy machete that killed that family recently, or the hoe that did the killing on Koh Tao, or the psycho that slit his girlfrinds throat on walking street, or the baseball bat that beat that biker to death recently in Pattaya, or........

True but a major part of it relates to access to guns: Australia used to have mass shootings ( in Melbourne Queen St , postal, Hoddle Street, a psycho, in Sydney, lunatic bikies, InTasmania/Port Arthur, a psycho).. Not one mass shooting since the gun buyback and a dramatic decline in gun murders and suicides.

Blimey mate, why you want to go and do that for..?

You know that bringing facts and evidence to this discussion is going to confuse them!!

[mark131v]

As for USA the data do not show the number of suicide made with guns. Wich is hudge. It's made for scared people. Just like in France and in Europe where we are supposed to be in a war with Islamic State. We are, all citizens, in danger, we are all possible target for terrorists. But the first decision European Commision is trying to take is to ban guns ownership from Europe. They don't want legal ownership of gun. They don't want honnest cityzens to have gun. They say that it is to fight terrorism! Bullshit. They are affraid of us , the people , not of the terrorists. It's the same all over the world. This campaign is made to help governments to disarm honest people.

Are you drunk?

[mark131v]

One can cherry-pick statistics to support any argument.

The principal difference seems to be the access to semi-automatic and automatic weapons in the US. These weapons have only one purpose - killing people. To pretend they are hunting weapons is ridiculous. A good roo shooter in Australia will account for 50 roos in a night's hunting, armed only with a bolt-action rifle. I've been hunting with a rabbit shooter using a single shot 0.22 who head-shot 150 rabbits in one night. He would have regarded any automatics as butchery.

I haven't heard of mass shootings in Thailand. I assume that's because semi and full automatics are restricted to the military.

After the Port Arthur massacre in 1992, the ownership of semi-automatic and automatic was severely restricted. Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since.

Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of high gun ownership without gun crime. What the users of this datum neglect to mention is gun owners in Switzerland have to renew their permits once/month.

The Sandy Hook mass shooting proved to me American gun supporters are insane. The response to the shooting of 20 children was an upsurge in gun sales. If anything was going to bring about a rethink of the Second Amendment, that event was it.

Winston Churchill once said Americans usually get to the right solution, after they have tried all other options. Sadly, in the case of American gun ideology, so far he's wrong.

Another one.......

What is the link between the Port Arthur massacre and the semi-automatic buyback? Nil. No semi-automatic was even used at Port Arthur. Can you not see these events are mutually exclusive?

Ok. I will explain by example.

Victorian Government builds Wonthaggi De-sal Plant.......

Water restrictions end in Melbourne.........

The raw facts seem to indicate the knee jerk Government action solved the problem except that not 1 liter of the plant's water has ever been introduced into Melbourne's supply.

Another example of facts that are mutually exclusive except to the ignorant.

That drought as was that massacre were both aberrations. In both cases the Government responses altered nothing.

Are you going to make a habit of publishing absolute rubbish on TV? Martin Bryant used a Colt AR15 semi-automatic rifle to kill 35 people. Google "Martin Bryant". Or are you one of the conspiracy head cases?

Putting up an irrelevant example is what's called the straw man argument.

Fact is Australia has not had a mass shooting since the ban on semi-automatic weapons. It's called cause and effect.

I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

'I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.'

Brilliant and oh so very true!!!

[lvr181]

After a little time on Google, I have come to the conclusion that I would be VERY wary of these figures as Thailand does not release these sort of stats - they are left off a lot of the lists. This would indicate that there is no reliable system for sorting out these kind of stats and th margin for error or misinterpretation could be very big.

Mmmm..........indeed, where would one read reliable facts and truth about Thailand? As always, the first casualty of "war" (declared or not, military or civil) is always the truth. That is not unique to Thailand either.

I think the news media tries, within the covert (or maybe overt?) threats made to them every now and then.

First casuallty? - there are no figures going back years...these appear to be the first

As always, the first casualty of "war" (declared or not, military or civil) is always, the truth.

I think you did not understand the use of the word "casualty". It was not referring to a person! It is "truth", in reporting.

From the beginning of "war" there is usually a litany of lies told, to suit the aims of the combatants (military or civilian).

[pgrahmm]

One big thing here is the southern insurgency. I'm not sure how much it contributes to this but it skews the average a lot.

the southern insurgency does not equal one night in south central Los Angeles.

Yes - the words are alarming when you're shouting out headlines and make the US into the wild wild west to create hysteria and whipping boys - however the statistics show otherwise....

[Acharn]

OK, looking at the people who fund the outfit that supposedly did this study, we have the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Now I have a lot of doubts about this group because Bill and Melinda are so misinformed about the effect their foundation is having on public schools in the U.S. There's also the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Ministry of Health and a group called Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. I'm automatically suspicious of public-private enterprises because it is never in their interest for people to be informed. However they also get money from the Centers for Disease Control, which I consider one of the most trustworthy organizations out there. I just find the results suspicious, because it minimizes gun deaths in the U.S. Several years ago I tried to find a comparison of homicide rates between the U.S. and Thailand, and the data didn't exist. Perhaps I just didn't put enough effort into finding it, or didn't have access to the right data bases. Anyway, I recommend at least an eighth of a teaspoon of salt with this study.

[Gonsalviz]

All those gun control laws and....... This.

California has some pretty strict gun laws too.

It ain't the gun that does the killing! No more than it was the knife that did the killing of that guy on Pahonyothin a few weeks ago over the Ipad, or that guy machete that killed that family recently, or the hoe that did the killing on Koh Tao, or the psycho that slit his girlfrinds throat on walking street, or the baseball bat that beat that biker to death recently in Pattaya, or........

Not quite. Guns are fetishistic. Guns have persona. Guns have charisma. They are like a living thing in the pocket whispering "fire me". And Thais are animist.

Is it you that live in Fantasyland or are you claiming Thais do?

[Gonsalviz]

just so i can keep on living, i always assume any Thai I interact with has a gun.

it is a good habit i picked up living in parts of the US where citizens can legally carry concealed guns to defend themselves.

i am thinking you would see way more fights and assaults between Thais if it was not for the fear of getting your head blown off.

and in a country where there are no police you can rely on the help you it is almost a necessity.

Silly fool A concealed carry will not shoot you unless you intend to do bodily harm to him or others.

[sanukjim]

So,The US does it 20 or 30 at a time and they still can not catch Thailand.

[Andreas2]

Re your "Moron" statement.

I'm sure, everybody here is against gun deaths. But maybe these morons, as you so eloquently put it, have other sources of information than you have, which make them doubt that just harsher gun laws alone make evil people with their guns go away. I think the problem has many layers and only removing the guns from the law-abiding populace doesn't make them any safer.

Just one of such reports, regarding Colombia: http://blog.panampost.com/editor/2015/08/12/whimsical-gun-control-leaves-colombians-defenseless/. Don't worry, it's a very short article.

In an earlier post I already referred to the latest mass murder in Paris, France (btw., remember Charlie Hebdo?), which is also a strict gun free zone: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/877806-thailand-gun-death-rate-twice-as-high-as-us/?view=findpost&p=10181744

Hopefully this makes you a little bit more understanding, appreciative.

Sorry, I don't click on links provided by people I don't know. My personal internet security mantra.

What's to understand and appreciate? True, there are maniacs in many countries.

What the rest of the world doesn't understand is the frequency of mass shootings in the US, and how a reactionary organisation ( the NRA ) has such influence in Washington.

Australia now has gun-related homicides per capita which are a small fraction of those in the USA. We banned certain weapons which were present in mass shootings in Australia. Basically, we grew up. The results speak for themselves.

In contrast, America's response has been to purchase even more weapons in the name of self-defense. That's like trying to put out an oil fire by throwing gasoline on it. There was even a Congresswoman? who distributed a photo of herself and family ( children included ) all holding firearms.

If you don't think that's moronic, I despair of your capacity for rational thought.

And yes, Charlton Heston was a moron too.

It seems you really insist on calling people names...

"Sorry, I don't click on links provided by people I don't know." Fair and square, but do you at least trust google.co.th? If yes, then try the argument "Whimsical Gun Control Leaves Colombians Defenseless", first hit.

In an earlier post I was mentioning several layers of this problem ("mass shooting"). One of these, which is interestingly and overwhelmingly ignored by the MSM, could be legal(!) drugs.

"Nearly every mass shooting incident in the last twenty years, and multiple other instances of suicide and isolated shootings all share one thing in common, and its not the weapons used.

The overwhelming evidence points to the signal [sic] largest common factor in all of these incidents is the fact that all of the perpetrators were either actively taking powerful psychotropic drugs or had been at some point in the immediate past before they committed their crimes."

Google.co.th search argument: "Nearly every mass shooting incident in the last twenty years", first hit.

(For everybody else who trusts me: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/every-mass-shooting-in-the-last-20-years-shares-psychotropic-drugs/)

So could it be, that one cause for these effects (feeling the urge to kill colleagues or even strangers) is supported by mind altering drugs? Wouldn't it be worth it, also in the interest of the patients, to at least seriously investigate this evidence? Why not fight a cause instead of the effect? Not only would it make sense, it would also be easier and quicker to implement than changing the constitution (Or removing an amendment for that matter).

Btw., do you remember Norway 2011, gun free zone?

Meanwhile, you know the drill: Google.co.th, "2011 Norway attacks", first hit.

(Everybody else:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks)

Finally Switzerland - as we all seem to love statistics -, gun ownership rate around 25%: Google.co.th, "Gun politics in Switzerland", first hit.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland)

That means I also had my assault rifle, including a full set of ammunition, for about 20 years at home with me. As I never felt the urge to kill anybody I must be one of the good guys. No? But I also confess that I was never abused with SSRI drugs.

Last remark to make a long story short: TIT. Guys, we are in Thailand! Does anybody else, except me of course, really think, that changing gun policies here would have any effect, would make anybody a tiny little bit safer?

[Andreas2]

As for USA the data do not show the number of suicide made with guns. Wich is hudge. It's made for scared people. Just like in France and in Europe where we are supposed to be in a war with Islamic State. We are, all citizens, in danger, we are all possible target for terrorists. But the first decision European Commision is trying to take is to ban guns ownership from Europe. They don't want legal ownership of gun. They don't want honnest cityzens to have gun. They say that it is to fight terrorism! Bullshit. They are affraid of us , the people , not of the terrorists. It's the same all over the world. This campaign is made to help governments to disarm honest people.

Are you drunk?

No, he is not, that's for sure.

What makes you think so? Any argument?

Please elaborate, maybe you can convince me otherwise.

Btw. I'm also not drunk... yet.

[oslooskar]

how many more people would have been killed if the perpetrators had access to what is readily available in the US?

Excuses, excuses.

How many of those 800,000 Tutsi victims of genocide in Rwanda would still be alive if they had access to what is readily available in the U.S.? How many of those 2 million Cambodians murdered by the Khmer Rouge would still be alive if they had access to what is readily available in the U.S.? How many of those 300,000 plus victims of Ida Amin's murderous rampage in Uganda would still be alive if they had access to what is readily available in the U.S.? How many of those one and a half million Armenians murdered by the Ottoman Turks would have survived had they had access to what is readily available in the U.S. ?

Excuses! Excuses!

[NeverSure]

One can cherry-pick statistics to support any argument.

The principal difference seems to be the access to semi-automatic and automatic weapons in the US. These weapons have only one purpose - killing people. To pretend they are hunting weapons is ridiculous. A good roo shooter in Australia will account for 50 roos in a night's hunting, armed only with a bolt-action rifle. I've been hunting with a rabbit shooter using a single shot 0.22 who head-shot 150 rabbits in one night. He would have regarded any automatics as butchery.

I haven't heard of mass shootings in Thailand. I assume that's because semi and full automatics are restricted to the military.

After the Port Arthur massacre in 1992, the ownership of semi-automatic and automatic was severely restricted. Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since.

Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of high gun ownership without gun crime. What the users of this datum neglect to mention is gun owners in Switzerland have to renew their permits once/month.

The Sandy Hook mass shooting proved to me American gun supporters are insane. The response to the shooting of 20 children was an upsurge in gun sales. If anything was going to bring about a rethink of the Second Amendment, that event was it.

Winston Churchill once said Americans usually get to the right solution, after they have tried all other options. Sadly, in the case of American gun ideology, so far he's wrong.

I never claimed my guns were for hunting. You don't seem to understand that the Second Amendment that allows Americans to have guns is for defense against people.

The recent terrorist shooting in S. California caused an immediate near record surge in gun sales among the people. Gun sales to the general public about doubled overnight. You aren't going to get those people to agree with you either.

I'm not going to further debate it with you. It's actually none of your business.

Cheers.

[ALFREDO]

Its not those dodgy Nationmaster stats that crop up every year or so again is it?

I think same you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Shows Thailand has 5 homicides by any weapon or without weapon p. 100.000 people so how does that compare to the COCO "Nuts" report of Thai homicides of 7,48 only with guns alone per 100.000 people?

Rubbish that "NUTS" report.

Edited December 12, 2015 by ALFREDO

[NCC1701A]

just so i can keep on living, i always assume any Thai I interact with has a gun.

it is a good habit i picked up living in parts of the US where citizens can legally carry concealed guns to defend themselves.

i am thinking you would see way more fights and assaults between Thais if it was not for the fear of getting your head blown off.

and in a country where there are no police you can rely on the help you it is almost a necessity.

Silly fool A concealed carry will not shoot you unless you intend to do bodily harm to him or others.

rude. please don't call me or any other forum members a fool. you misunderstood my post.

Edited December 12, 2015 by NCC1701A

[NovaBlue05]

"Whole family packs heat in lawmaker's Christmas card"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/12/07/whole-family-packs-heat-lawmakers-christmas-card/76920876/

Make sure to scroll thru all photos

Merry Christmas all