zd1
-
Posts
211 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by zd1
-
-
3 hours ago, sirmud63 said:
after 5 years iv never once found even a half decent piece of bacon ,anywhere in los , its all crap . and what really s , ,ts me is the way they all cut it so thin ,30 seconds in a hot pan and its shrunk to less than half its size .
This cutting it paper thin was one of my bug bears but on a trip to foodland in Ramintra a couple of weeks ago I asked them if they could cut it thicker and the girl behind the counter came back and said if I buy this large uncut piece she will slice it as I want it, got about 7 decent rashers as opposed to 20 or 30 paper thin ones and I was a happy man.
There are also companies out there that import meat from oz and nz and I believe you can get decent cuts of meat from them if a tad expensive.
-
2 hours ago, JB300 said:
Fair play fella, as I said I was well mullered when I made that post & have since apologised for it.
Nothing wrong at all with giving it a go & I'd recommend the same to anybody (I gave middle of Bangkok a go, paid for a condo for 1 month & lasted 10 days... lesson well learnt).
Genuinely hope it all goes well for him but fact is years & years of people abusing Visas has led to a tightening up of all of the rules which makes it harder for everybody so I just urge anybody who's considering making the move to put a Long term visa at the top of their list or look elsewhere (no point in trying it out if you can't continue with it).
No problem, I agree that if he likes it and wants to move here then he will have to look into getting the appropriate visa.
22 years ago I over looked the visa situation and my 3 year stay came to an abrupt end with just over a month in the IDC in soi suan phlu, it wasn't a place I would like to stay again. I learned from my mistake and won't make the same mistake again.
-
On 06/01/2017 at 4:57 PM, JB300 said:
Great plan... Move somewhere to "Live" & rely on doing tourist visa runs
Again, it has nothing to do with Money, Elitism whatever! But before moving somewhere, at least have the bottom layer of Maslow's hierarchy of needs boxed off
Edit: Care to share how you get this "2 month Visa" (METV) without 2 x the OP'S friends bank balance & a letter from their employer?
Fella, if you would have read my post you would have understood that I was suggesting give it a go for 6 months to see if A he likes it and B he can afford to do it, a sort of try it before you make a decision.
A 2 month tourist visa is a single entry tourist visa (SETV) and I have never been asked for proof of anything when getting one in my home country which I would hazard a guess that is where the op's friend actually is. An METV is a multiple entry tourist visa and yes for these you need to have all sorts of documentation but that is beside the point as that isn't what I was talking about.
The reason I suggested this is because after 3 months in Thailand he may go to a neighbouring country and maybe prefer it who knows.
The fact that people are bashing someone for wanting to try and live here on a budget is ridiculous there are loads of people here doing it I can't see the problem.
-
There's some decent people on here but there's also a some self important keyboard warriors who for some reason seem to hate just about everything, they tend to moan about Thais, Thailand, their own countries, quite ironically immigrants in their own countries and not forgetting people who come here without in their view enough money.
Personally it wouldn't be enough for me but it doesn't mean it can't be done as I said before give it a go if you like it then go for it if not you can always go home.
As for visa requirements come on a tourist visa 2 months extend 1 month go to a neighbouring country get another 2 month tourist visa extend another month that is 6 months you should know if it's for you or not by then. Also don't forget that Thailand has neighbouring countries which you may find you like more.
-
I personally would want a bit more than that a month, i'm sure if I wanted to I could survive on that but I prefer to live and that is a bit more expensive.
Looking back over the past month I haven't actually spent much more than that and have been out in Bangkok a few times, had 4 day trips out of Bangkok, eat what I want when I want and a box of beer most days have spent 60k and that is me and the missus.
We have saved a bit on accommodation as we own a house and we also have a pick up which is surprisingly cheap to run.
I would say depending on the op's friends age why not try for a short period and see if it is for you or not.
-
30 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:
She can apply for a one year extension as a returning Thai national. She just needs to show proof of her Thai nationality with any type of entry. See clause 2.23 of Police Order 327/2557 basis for extension of sta.
She could also fly out and back to swap passports. Leave on her UK passport and then enter on herThai passport. It is well known it cannot be done at a border crossing.
Thank you for that I shall print it of and get her to take it with her, will probably go to a different immigration office towards the end of her current extension as we will not be in Bangkok then.
I naively thought that it would be an easy process of going to the immigration at a border crossing and telling them what she intended to do, after all it isn't breaking any law and she just needed the exit stamp in the uk passport to clear that passport.
We will be flying out in February for me to get another visa so we will do it then she just needed that extra month so the uk passport doesn't go into overstay.
-
28 minutes ago, Evilbaz said:
As she now has a valid Thai passport surely she can just ignore Immigration now - and if they come sniffing around tell them firmly "I'm Thai" !
She could do but we don't want any future issues with the uk passport.
-
7 minutes ago, steve187 said:
she can get a 1 year for being Thai
How do we go about this? cheng wattana told her she could only get one extension on her visa exempt and only for one month if we could get another extension on this it would be really helpful.
We aren't married at the moment bit of a long story as she is still technically married to a uk citizen but they have been separated for over 20 years, he is currently filing for the divorce on the uk side as it will be quicker and easier than from this side. It should all be sorted when we are back in the uk in May and then we will marry when we return here in June.
-
2 minutes ago, Upnotover said:
Bit late now but for future reference she could have entered Thailand on her expired Thai passport.
We did think about that but the thai passport had expired 8 or 9 years ago and we didn't want any problems.
-
2 minutes ago, steve187 said:
no air only, she should be able to get a 1 year extension
As she was on a visa exempt she was told at cheng wattana she could only have 1 month extension
-
My missus entered Thailand on her UK passport as her thai one was out of date, she has since renewed her thai passport.
We thought it would be a trip to the border and get the exit stamp in the UK passport and then reenter Thailand on the thai passport and job done. So last Wednesday we made the trip to my least favourite border Aranyapretet the sister in law wanted to do some shopping so we thought we would kill 2 birds with one stone, but she was told that she couldn't leave on one passport and come back on the other. As she didn't want to go to Cambodia we just left it and returned to Bangkok and went to Cheng Wattana the following day for an extension of her visa on the british passport.
Is there any land border where she could leave on the uk passport and return on the thai one?
I am ok until the end February when I get a month extension at the end of January and our plan was to fly to either Vietnam or Burma for a week for me to get a new visa then which would see us through to May when we have to go to the UK for a couple of weeks. As it stands it scuppers our plans slightly if we have to go out at the end of January as we would need four months worth of stay which would make me need a extra visa.
There must be an easy way out of this issue as there must be quite a lot of thai people with dual nationality.
-
Personally I'm going to wait
-
13 minutes ago, Strange said:
Unlike in the UK, most of US have a gun incase we need to defend ourselves. Thats what its used for. Clearly, you guys are incapable of understanding this and think that a grown adult is incapable of safe handling of a firearm.
I found this CBS article for you below it shows that some grown adults are incapable of safe handling of a firearm, it also points out that having a gun could be more dangerous than not having one because offenders take into account the threat posed by adversaries.
Americans are 10 times more likely to be killed by guns than people in other developed countries, a new study finds.
Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the United States' gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. And, even though the United States' suicide rate is similar to other countries, the nation's gun-related suicide rate is eight times higher than other high-income countries, researchers said.
The study was published online Feb. 1 in The American Journal of Medicine.
"Overall, our results show that the U.S., which has the most firearms per capita in the world, suffers disproportionately from firearms compared with other high-income countries," said study author Erin Grinshteyn, an assistant professor at the School of Community Health Science at the University of Nevada-Reno. "These results are consistent with the hypothesis that our firearms are killing us rather than protecting us," she said in a journal news release.
The review of 2010 World Health Organization data also revealed that despite having a similar rate of nonlethal crimes as those countries, the United States has a much higher rate of deadly violence, mostly due to the higher rate of gun-related murders.
The researchers also found that compared to people in the other high-income nations, Americans are seven times more likely to die from violence and six times more likely to be accidentally killed with a gun.
"More than two-thirds of the homicides in the U.S. are firearm homicides and studies have suggested that the non-gun homicide rate in the U.S. may be high because the gun homicide rate is high," Grinshteyn said.
"For example, offenders take into account the threat posed by their adversaries. Individuals are more likely to have lethal intent if they anticipate that their adversaries will be armed," she explained.
Even though it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, the United States accounted for 82 percent of all gun deaths. The United States also accounted for 90 percent of all women killed by guns, the study found. Ninety-one percent of children under 14 who died by gun violence were in the United States. And 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed by guns were in the United States, the study found.
Erin Grinshteyn, David Hemenway/The American Journal of MedicineMurder is the second leading cause of death among Americans aged 15 to 24, the study found. The research also showed that murder was the third leading cause of death among those aged 25-34. Compared to those in the same age groups in other wealthy countries, Americans aged 15-24 are 49 times more likely to be the victim of a gun-related murder. For those aged 25-34, that number is 32 times more likely, the research revealed.-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Strange said:
On what planet does this even make sense? Do you think that a gun will just turn into a grenade and kill people?
Of course I don't think a gun will turn itself into a hand grenade and kill people, I just quoted an article written by an American that states keeping a gun in your house increases your chances of accidental death by shooting. This makes perfect sense to me because if there wasn't a gun in your house the chances of getting accidentally shot and killed would be reduced to zero.
3 hours ago, Strange said:Im not talking about keeping a firearm safe from toddlers. Im talking about your government dictating how all firearms should be kept and the intent is for them to never be used unless 'hunting' or 'target' shooting. Keeping firearms under lock and key up until you can be 'supervised' unlocking the gun for target shooting. It makes the whole thing pointless unless you just want to plink targets.
I think it is only responsible to keep a firearm safe from toddlers it's a recipe for disaster to just leave loaded firearms around young kids and toddlers. Really it should be that every owner of a firearm should know where their firearm is at all times especially around kids.
Your last sentence is also rather worrying, what else are you using your gun for if not for hunting and target shooting, you state that is makes it kind of pointless unless you just want to plink targets, really what else do you use it for?
3 hours ago, Strange said:I will, however, give you ALOT of credit for at least looking at your own country first, then comparing to the US. A lot will not do this and blindly declare that the UK is perfect without any reflection whatsoever.
Thank you, I don't live in a bubble where I think the UK is perfect, it isn't, it is far from perfect and isn't get any better and it is slowly or actually not that slowly going down the pan.
I realise my views are not that of everybody especially people who come from countries where guns are an acceptable part life after all they have been brought up around them and probably have the same views as you.
I stand by what I believe and hope that one day there are no guns, no weapons of mass destruction and no wars, and that mankind are building a future rather than destroying it after all people are stronger together. I don't think this will happen in my lifetime but it is a dream.
-
18 hours ago, Strange said:
UK you can probably buy some kind of gun legally but I'm sure there are stipulations and safe keeping nonsense and its a novelty.
I find it quite irresponsible that you think the safe keeping of a dangerous weapon nonsense. I found an article written by an American which states in 2015 more people killed by toddlers than terrorists I will post it below for you
In the US in 2015, more people were shot and killed by toddlers than by terrorists. In 2013, the New York Times reported on children shot by other children: “Children shot accidentally – usually by other children – are collateral casualties of the accessibility of guns in America, their deaths all the more devastating for being eminently preventable.”
And I’m supposed to believe that frightened Syrian refugees – or whomever becomes the next rightwing scapegoat du jour – are the real threat to my children? I’m supposed to be afraid of sharks? Heavy metal music? Violent video games? Horse meat in my hamburger patties?
States with more guns have more gun deaths. Keeping a gun in your house increases your chances of accidental death by shooting, but does not make you safer. A woman’s chance of being murdered by an abusive partner increases fivefold if the partner has access to a gun. “Good guys with guns” are a fantasy. How much longer will we keep participating in this great collective lie that deadly weapons keep us safe?
The accidental shooting of Jamie Gilt is the object lesson that my absurd nation deserves. When even supposed gun safety experts cannot keep themselves safe from their own toddlers, we should take that as an unequivocal reminder that guns are inherently dangerous. They are exploding projectile machines designed specifically for killing. And that’s not bleeding-heart hyperbole – it’s the explicit reason why many people are drawn to them. Cowboy games. Vigilante justice. Power.
America does not get to claim some hypercivilised global high ground when we foster – legislatively and culturally – a system in which incidents such as Gilt’s are not just possible, but inevitable.
16 hours ago, Strange said:I mean, just going off your figures, comparing us to uk, and considering we have like 300,000,000 firearms floating around (literally) I think we are doing a damn fine job balancing individual freedom vs a ban happy nanny state.
Nearly 4 times more likely to be murdered you think is a damn fine job, the fact that you have literally 300 million fire arms floating around contributes to this.
16 hours ago, Strange said:Plus, legally, and literally, I can defend myself, my home, and my vehicle, up to deadly force, free from prosecution, for any of those crimes, without a duty to retreat or warn an intruder. My state is florida.
I personally think this law is a bit ambiguous and could easily be abused, for instance somebody murders somebody then claims that the victim was trying to break into their house or car, the murderer is free from prosecution because he says he was defending his property, how do the police know what the truth is, they don't as the victim is unable to defend himself when he is dead so they believe the murderer and case closed. Just an example of something that could actually happen.
-
12 minutes ago, Gary A said:
If you were a criminal and you saw a nice home out in the boonies with no close neighbors, wouldn't that be an easy target? Why do you think these country homes are left alone? These country homes have a loaded gun or guns within easy reach. The children know that those guns are loaded and they know how to safely use them.
Cities with strict gun control laws are the prime targets for home invasions. Even lunatic dopers have a fear of being shot.
That isn't really true I have a nice country home in the middle of Wales 7 miles from the nearest town, I don't have any guns in the house and I have never been targeted by criminals even though I maybe seen as an easy target.
I also have a flat in London which also hasn't been burgled, London has strict gun laws but if you wanted to purchase a gun you would find it surprisingly easy to do, you would have to deal with criminals in order to purchase the gun but it is far from impossible to do so.
Do you honestly think that the people who purchase guns from criminals in London are using these guns for defence, I don't think so I think they are purchasing these guns to commit crimes.
I found an interesting article about crime rates in the US compared to the UK and have quoted it below the burglary rates for the US are higher so the having a gun argument doesn't prevent burglaries, also the murder rate is much higher I wonder if guns has much to do about this.
The robbery rates were similar between the two countries:
U.S. 2009 robbery rate: 133 per 100,000.
U.K. 2009 robbery rate: 164 per 100,000.
The burglary rates were far higher in the U.S.:
U.S. 2009 burglary rate: 716.3 per 100,000
U.K. 2009 burglary rate: 523 per 100,000.
And in the U.S., you were nearly four times as likely to be murdered:
U.S. 2009 murder rate: 5 per 100,000.
U.K. 2009 murder rate: 1.49 per 100,000.
So far, it looks as if one has a much higher chance of getting burgled and killed in the U.S. than in the U.K.
-
17 hours ago, Strange said:
Man you got it all wrong. We are not indoctrinated, we created the ideals behind the 2nd Amendment it in like 1791 after giving you guys the boot in 1776. Its carried on from then, its not a government brainwashing program. You literally need to freshen up on history and the definition of your choice is words. Im not even sure how you can post such expert nonsense. You seem to think its all a big hoax and all Americans are having the wool pulled over their eyes.
I got news for you my friend, you are the one being misled. We know what we are doing and choose to do it and don't care what you guys think.
Its not "Americana" or "Culture" or "Novelty" its a right of the people just like free speech to defend them selves.
Look, I'm over it. Think what you want. You clearly want a nanny state where everything you don't like is 'banned' and the police and government are involved in every aspect of your life. Maybe it really is a British thing, I don't know, but really, we gave those ideals the boot centuries ago.
Honestly, this is no attack, but I believe you are very out of touch with the world, and your beliefs reflect that.
Ok I can see we aren't going to agree on this, but I will attempt to defend my use of words.
Indoctrinate by definition means to teach a person or group of people a set of beliefs that they accept uncritically, this has come straight out of a dictionary.
The ideals behind the 2nd amendment are a set of beliefs, the populous at the time liked these beliefs and accepted them uncritically. These beliefs were passed on through the generations hence the whole nation has been indoctrinated to believe that these are the right and proper ideals that should be as accepted now as they were 225 years ago.
I don't want a nanny state and if it was up to me very few things would be banned.
I'm not talking about the ideals you gave the boot to centuries ago, i'm talking about a new set of ideals, a set of ideals for the 21st century where we aren't killing ourselves, where people are building a better future for the next generation, a future without gun violence or war, a place were your kids can go to school without the threat of being shot by a dysfunctional classmate.
You may feel like i'm out of touch with the world, but the future looks bleak if we carry on as we have been.
-
2 hours ago, Strange said:
You are blaming all americans for the actions of criminals. That is wrong.
You think we should take up the ideals of the UK or something? We don't want your ideals in regards to a helpless nanny state dependent on calling 999 and hiding. There is nothing to prove during a robbery or mugging or assault and no need to show how macho we are by going toe to toe with a person like that, especially in your own home.
Nobody is dwelling on anything you keep trying to paint a picture of fear, paranoia, indoctrination, and brainwashing. Just because someone owns a pistol just in case does not mean they are scared. Dude its like $300 bucks that might save your life one day, and if it doesn't, and you never have to use it, thats great too.
You can choose to believe what you want, but to me it sounds like the only one with any kind of fear in this conversation is you. Honest to god id be more nervous around a person using a grinder than a person with a legal firearm.
I think you may have the wrong end of the stick, I do not blame all Americans for the actions of criminals, the fact is and yes it is a fact is that gun culture is part and parcel of modern day American culture and it has been indoctrinated into the entire nation for centuries.
For your information it is very easy to get a gun in the UK even though they are illegal to own unlicensed, do you honestly think that the people buying these guns in the UK are buying them for protection, I think you will find the ones buying them are actually criminals buying them with intent on using them for crimes.
I believe that the world would be a safer place with out guns or in fact any weapon designed for the purpose to kill or maim which is what guns are designed for. Guns were not designed to be fashion accessories or pieces of art to hang on your wall they are designed to kill.
In regards to power tools I have many, they were designed for a purpose and even though some power tools maybe dangerous if used incorrectly, take the grinder for instance I have a small one which is mainly used on metal and I have a much larger one with the diamond cutting blade which is used for cutting through masonry, neither have been designed to kill even though they could kill you if you didn't use it correctly.
As I stated previously I don't live in fear but I will concede that I am fearful of the way the world is going at the moment with wars here there and everywhere a lot of the time masked in the name of religion when what they are really about is money and power. In my utopian ideal I would like to see a peaceful world and for mankind to be more constructive rather than being destructive, building a better future for the next generation our children and not destroying each other.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Strange said:
You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion of your opinion is that you are way out there in la la land.
You never answered the question, but thats ok as I see you are just wigging around the question the best you can by deflecting and saying I'm 'indoctrinated' as well as my family.
Literally we are 100% normal people like you who work and have jobs and family and values, but own a pistol just in case. (sometimes a lot more cause its fun to shoot)
You are clearly missing the point as well, we don't have to meet 'force with equal force' meaning, I can still legally shoot someone for committing a 'forceable felony' in my home. They don't need to have a gun.
You seem to think that its a fair world where you can't shoot someone if they don't have a gun. This is not the case and personally I like this fact as I can assure you a thief/home invader must consider getting their ass shot off as well as getting arrested for their crime.
Fair enough your entitled to your opinion no offence taken and no offence intended on my part.
It isn't just you and your family indoctrinated into this thought of guns are good it is also the normal people of your nation, and i'm not saying that your all bad people in fact the majority of the American people are good people, but I do question your values in regards to guns.
I do realise that it isn't a fair world but I personally wouldn't want to shoot anybody whether they had a gun or not. I have never had a home invader or burgler maybe prospective home invaders thought I had nothing of value or maybe they saw me and thought that they don't fancy their chances with that, i'm not sure.
I have been to and lived in some quite dangerous places and in all my time I haven't needed a gun to protect myself even though I have had them pointed at me before, in fact I believe if I had a gun in these situations things may have worked out differently as I would have been perceived as more of a threat and then perhaps shot.
I don't live in fear when my time is up it's up I don't know what fate awaits me but I don't dwell on it either and in answer to your question kill or be killed it would really be down to the circumstances as there maybe more than them two options, no I don't want to die but I don't want to kill anybody either.
-
It depends where we are in the UK it is about 50% depending on who cooks, in Thailand it is about 90%.
I personally don't eat dairy I haven't been able to eat dairy food since I was a kid so thai food kind of suits me as it generally doesn't have dairy in it. I do eat meat and fish, meat more in the UK and fish and shell fish more in Thailand.
I absolutely love a good pad krapow and can eat it for breakfast and quite frequently do, but I must admit I do love a good british fry up I know it isn't very healthy but it is a guilty pleasure that I try and indulge at least once a week.
I love trying different types of food from different places, we used to run a thai food business in the UK and would trade at different food festivals and both the Mrs and myself would like to try the other traders food and at food festivals the standard and quality of the food tended to be high, we especially like a good Caribbean goat curry with rice and peas from one particular trader.
We are also quite picky in our ingredients and believe that good quality ingredients make a meal better in our business we only bought our meat from the local butcher and the meat itself tasted way better than anything you could buy in a supermarket. we also grew a lot of our veg or bought it from the market garden down the road and again the veg taste far better then the mass produced stuff you get at the supermarket.
I personally think maybe incorrectly that a lot of the health problems we get now diabetes etc is from what we eat the mass produced stuff is pumped full of preservatives and chemicals to keep it looking better for longer hence giving it a longer shelf life, there is sugar in nigh on everything you get out of a can or packet and this isn't good either.
-
8 hours ago, Strange said:
Worst case scenario - Would you die to maintain this belief?
I mean, kill or be killed, I'm gonna kill.
I believe what you say here is probably what you have been told from a young age and have been brought up thinking in this way and your parents, grandparents and there parents and grandparents thought like this too, it isn't your fault it has been indoctrinated into your nation for several hundred years, and what I say will not change that but I am entitled to my opinion whether people agree or not.
I think part of this indoctrination process was to instil fear into the nation like the term kill or be killed it is meant to instil fear so that everyone goes out and buys a gun to make them feel safe from other people who have bought guns. The fact that if there were no guns then people wouldn't need guns is irrelevant really because the weapons manufacturers and there investors wouldn't make any money and I think here in lies the problem.
I personally don't live in fear of being shot or killed by anyone when my time is up its up, in Thailand over the last 20 odd years gun ownership has gone up and with that going up so has gun crime I think possibly that this is linked.
-
3 minutes ago, joeyg said:
I appreciate your reply and agree with much of it. Albeit the "gun Issue" is complex. I am a vegetarian, aspiring Buddhist gun owner advocate. In the right hands guns save lives. However in the current mass insanity epidemic I'm not sure what to think anymore. I usually "carried" when I lived in the states. Saved my life onetime in an isolated gas station outside of Vegas late at night.
Reality is "the whole thing " is going to hell in a hand basket.
My friends in laws up in Issan have a couple of nice guns. Going to spend the next month up there. Looking forward to clean them up and get some rust out of the barrels.
I don't mean to offend you and am sorry if I have your right the gun issue is complex but I have trouble getting my head around in the right hands guns save lives, what by taking lives, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this point.
I also agree with you on the current mass insanity epidemic that is threatening to destroy the world as we know it, but I can't understand the need to get everybody armed to protect themselves from other armed people.
I'm glad that your in laws have guns with rusty barrels as that indicates that they don't use them which is good, just one step away from not needing them.
On a side note and not meaning to offend i'm not sure what the lord Buddha would think about gun ownership.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
17 minutes ago, joeyg said:Now I'll ask and no offense, are you currently on drugs or do you have a history of drug or alcohol abuse?
No offence taken, i'm not on drugs except alcohol and don't have a history of drug abuse, I do however drink alcohol most days but not to excess as I don't particularly like being drunk and prefer to be in control. I do believe that the current drug laws are wrong as I believe drug addiction to be more of a medical problem than a criminal one and thus to be dealt with differently to criminal issues, but I have to accept that my views may not be that of everybody and that we should obey the law of the country we are in regardless of whether we think it right or wrong.
With guns though the only reason to own one is to shoot or kill another person or animal and I do not agree with that, I also don't get the defence excuse because if there weren't any guns there would be no need to have one for defence, it seems like a vicious circle to me and one that won't break until everybody in the world has a gun to protect themselves from other people with guns seems crazy to me.
In my opinion prohibiting guns would be far better than prohibiting drugs but the way things are in the world at present and the way prohibition of drugs hasn't worked I won't be holding my breath thinking that prohibition guns will work either, but tougher penalties for procession of fire arms may deter people from wanting one and I think less guns in this world would be a good thing.
As I said in a previous post our American friends have been brought up to believe that gun ownership is a right and it has been indoctrinated into their culture going back generations I personally disagree with this but I do understand that to change this way of thinking will be very difficult if not damn near impossible.
-
3
-
17 minutes ago, Strange said:
Um, self defense. Do you think the gun will automatically self destruct or something? I mean my grandmother carries one in her purse, as she has been for like 60 years. No need to be frightened.
What a strange dangerous world your grandmother lives in if she feels frightened if she doesn't have gun, self defence against what someone else with a gun, get rid of guns and you won't need one to defend yourself against someone else with one as they won't have one either, sort of breaks the loop of everybody having to have guns to defend against other people with guns.
22 minutes ago, Strange said:Please, stop eating all meat from this day forward.
At least in the US, hunting is a multifaceted deal of population control, food, and past time. Its regulated, tags are given, and there is a co-habitation going on. Personally I find it MUCH more humane to allow an animal to thrive in the wild and be killed unknowingly with a large caliber bullet through the heart, rather than be farmed its entire life and slaughtered while listening to the sounds of other animals being slaughtered
You seem to have the wrong end of the stick here I didn't mention killing for food as human beings we are designed to eat meat, we have meat eaters teeth after all, also by eating them you can deal with the population. I did say hunting for sport is in my opinion is wrong for instance the big game hunters who would shoot a lion or elephant in the name of sport, no that isn't sport either is hunting a fox with a pack of dogs sport no that is barbaric.
32 minutes ago, Strange said:A home invader/criminal certainly won't care about your bleeding heart values.
Your probably right, but I haven't had a home invader even though I must be seen as an easy target as I don't possess a gun and have absolutely no will to possess a gun.
Guns are used to kill people and killing people is wrong no matter what way you look at it.
I understand that a lot of our American friends have been brought up to believe that guns are an acceptable even an essential part of life and that I disagree with, I know that it has been indoctrinated into your society for generations and to change peoples view points on this is going to be very difficult, but we as the human race are not doing ourselves any favours by killing each other, we need to look at the future and guns don't need to be a part of that future.
-
1
-
90 Days reports at Big C Bangkok
in Thai Visas, Residency, and Work Permits
Posted
There is also an immigration office at the big C on Phahol yothin road the junction of soi 50 but I haven't done reporting there.