Barry Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 What's the attraction to owning a gun really? A pistol in the bedroom or glove box I can understand' date=' but I get the impression that it goes beyond self defence.[/quote'] Self defence is the only reason I have for owning a couple of pieces...and their six hard-nosed little friends. (Well, one of the pieces actually has 15 hard-nosed slightly-larger little friends.) On the other hand, some folks have target shooting as a hobby. HH I can see target shooting is a fun hobby (I personally hate hunting, but that's another matter), but is that good enough reason for military weapons to be available to the public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 Still waiting. Faustian said [color:red]"I don't know how I've survived, traveling around the world (including several weeks in the USA!!) without encountering 'ifs'....it's amazing I'm still alive...(touches wood, reaches for lucky rabbits foot etc etc)..."[/color] Let me pose a question to you. "If four Thai men surrounded you, drew out their machetes and demanded everything you have, what would you do? This happened to me. I know what I did, please answer my question, what would you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamui Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 Hehe, it is funny that suddenly LOS is compared to the US. Did the US society degrade so much that it is now compared to society which has still structures of a third workd country? I mean, how often are you being surrounded in NY by for Americans with machetes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted June 26, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 Nope, that's Melbourne ... I knew 5 people who have been murdered in the US, all victims of crime. I don't know anyone who has shot anyone else (outside of war). I grew up around firearms - rifles, shotguns, pistols. I've got my grandfather's Colt revolver he carried on the job, my father's WWII souvenir pistol (a Strakonice), and several that were presents to me. I've also got an 1862 Enfield rifle-musket captured at the Battle of Chancellorsville (no, not by me). I'm supposed to give them all up because criminal use guns illegally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian2 Posted June 26, 2008 Report Share Posted June 26, 2008 I've said before, I'm a former gun owner who got rid of them because they were more trouble than they were worth with kids in the house. In Australia virtually any non criminal can legally own a gun... hand gun, rifle, shotgun; but the laws governing ownership render them virtually useless for self defence as when they are not being used for a purpose like hunting or competition shooting they have to be so securely locked away that the bad guys would have busted several caps in your ass before you remembered where the keys were. This is strictly enforced, the police have check lists of gun owners who have to be visited regularly. I know one guy who nearly lost his gun license because he was out when they visited and his unlicensed wife had access to the key to the gun safe. So that's how silly it gets. My main argument against gun ownership is they are dangerous in the hands of the vast majority of the population. Gun owners, accidentally or deliberately, shoot themselves, their wives and their kids and their wives and kids shoot themselves or each other. This happens far more often than the gun owner actually gets to take a few shots at bad guys breaking into his house. Personally I'd feel far more unsafe in a country that allowed anyone to carry a concealed weapon than a place like Thailand where a few yahbah loaded, machete wielding idiots are the exception rather than the rule. Finally, if someone genuinely decided to kill you it wouldn't matter how many guns you had, many public figures surrounded by armed bodyguards have found this out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 For the question I posed, generally most people, when confronted when 4 Thai men with machetes, would surrender their belongings. I didn't. I threw 1/2 cup of boiling hot coffee in one man's face and then threw the rest in another man's face. (The cup had a cover on it). Then I turned and ran as fast as I could. Either on my second or forth step, I fractured 3 metatarsal bones in my left foot. As I went down, I put my right arm out and seperated my right shoulder. As I was going down, I could feel the blade of the second man coming toward me. As I went down, his blade went over my body. By the way, his blade was brownish red. Before they tried robbing me, they robbed another farang. He gave them his money but I guess they thought he was holding back so they cut him on both sides of his neck. Then they brought a machete blade down on to the top of his head and left him on the sidewalk for dead. Moral of the story: You were not there. How a person protects themselves is there choice. Governments should not outlaw the right to protect yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khun_Kong Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 1964~1988 UK Knifed twice Shot once 1991~2008 Thailand No Assaults Grass Roots Poll based on experience. Conclusion? UKers are better than Thais at judging Mekong's character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khun_Kong Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Mr Hoy- As spokesmodel for RogueCo, maybe you can explain to us: 1. Why this is not considered judicial activism? 2. Why rightists aren't screaming about federal rulings trampling the choices made by the people in local jurisdictions. We might ask Yammers himself, but he apparently missed interrogatives in school, since he's incapable of recognizing a question. Or perhaps he's just waiting for Fox Nowse to spoon-feed some drivel responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted June 27, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 I don't see much difference. In both instances the courts were deciding that the people had rights which could not be "infringed". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCorinthian Posted June 27, 2008 Report Share Posted June 27, 2008 Hummmm..... One way to look at the issue: As a member of the military I would rejoice at a unarmed citizenry. As a member of the citizenry, I would be petrified of a military and police force that were the only ones with guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.