Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

729 Excellent

About wildewillie89

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,730 profile views
  1. As far as I am aware (unless there were changes in the last few months), any foreigner can open a Thai Bangkok Bank account on a tourist visa with a government official as a referee (police, army, teacher, nurse etc etc). I had no difficulties opening an account with Bangkok Bank on a tourist visa (putting in the minimum amount to create the account). When at the bank not long ago a farang was having troubles. The Mrs told his wife the process and the bank teller (Bangkok Bank) said that would work. *One experience was a Bangkok Bank branch in Bangkok, the other in Chaiyaphum (Issan). **Edit: Krungthai bank required me to have a work permit, regardless if I had a official as a referee or a marriage visa. Not sure if that is a branch policy though.
  2. I got my Bangkok Bank account opened on a tourist visa, just needed a government official to sign it off. I was at Big C Bangkok Bank a few months ago and a farang was having difficulty, the Mrs told his wife to do that (most people know someone), and the teller said it would work also - like it did for me. From memory, I needed a work permit for KrungThai bank here. I don't have yellow book or Thai ID.
  3. Didn't global health experts (WHO report) say that consuming processed meats like ham, bacon and sausages are as a bigger cancer threat as cigarettes. But some people are worried about the hormones in chickens (that may or may not be there - depending on where schools get their chickens from). If this is the case, then the argument isn't really about health is it? Seems more just someone having a major whinge about other's religions. Talk about segregation. Go talk to the school if you want to give your kids cancer just so you can complain about Muslims... not TV.
  4. The teachers had an unnecessary whinge whilst at the same time they are making Buddhist students sit in uncomfortable positions for unnecessary long amounts of times. So they went with the peaceful and reasonable action first, going through legitimate processes. The teachers should remember that when the people in the South see no other option than to turn to violence when their way of life is not allowed. I am of no religion and think all religions are ridiculous, but people do have that right under the current human right framework.
  5. wildewillie89

    Living in a quiet Issan village.

    I literally said liking guns (i.e. using them for sport), is a legitimate reason to own a gun. I never said I did not like guns either. I do like guns, I have been to ranges and I do see a use for them for certain rural jobs (e.g. farming) or people who participate in sport. However, only those I would consider legitimate reasons of having a gun, not this notion of it will save my life. The use of them in a real life situation is ridiculous as the police stats and common sense shows. Those are stats where the gun is actually on the person, the situation generally has been in action for a while (not a total surprise) and the gun is ready to be discharged. A home invasion is the complete opposite of that, so a 18% (or 43%) hit rare will be significantly lower. All these variables was why arming teachers was found to be such a ridiculous idea. For the rest of the arguments, people have been watching too many movies rather than actually experiencing/training for real life scenarios. No one would have issues with guns if people just said from the beginning 'I like guns'. If people locked their guns, went to the range, went home and locked them again. Absolutely no problems from anyone. It is when they think they have the capabilities of elite soldiers due to the fact they own a gun that people have problems. Why? As they are more likely to hit a neighbour than the person they are actually attempting to fire at, due to the hit rate being so low.
  6. wildewillie89

    Living in a quiet Issan village.

    I think that is the point. You like guns. That is the main reason, any other reason is an afterthought as some people don't consider that a legitimate reason. I do consider it a reason if the gun is used legitimately for sport and locked away at all other times. All the rest will keep going in circles as the we see the science differently. I am looking at how the majority of people's bodies react to these types of situations (as the police hit rate stats/professional trainers view of those stats prove). Not to mention the planning, timing, layout of most houses in Thailand that would be hit by a home invasion. Unless personal, the only homes vulnerable are those without any deterrent (high fence, wall, dogs etc). Those vulnerable homes, a gun is utterly useless to someone if a home invasion occurs whilst they are in the shower for example, listening to music, or any other activity that makes noise/distraction, as no warning. Or simply if the intruders learn the routine of the person (as they often do even to steal fruit in Thailand). Like people have said, if someone needs a gun in the area they live it is better just to move. I could only ever see needing a gun in places where there are killings daily to weekly. Even my Mrs didn't feel the need to have a gun when walking around in a government uniform (prime target) in the insurgency down South where there are weekly killings. I am glad we finally got to the 'I like guns' though.
  7. wildewillie89

    Living in a quiet Issan village.

    If you are storing weapons and magazines separately, wouldn't that just add to the time to prepare a gun? The point of a gun in a real situation is you need it as fast as you can, and ideally even faster to compose yourself. The way this logic is being put forward is implying your average person has the speed/nerves of superman. Seeing as trained/experienced police officers who carry/familiarise themselves with guns on a daily basis don't come anywhere near this, I wonder what brings you to the conclusion that other people would be able to do this who go to gun ranges on a irregular basis. If you are 50 metres away outside, you would have to run into the house, get the gun, then run around to another part of the house to load the gun. Are we assuming the intruders are having a smoke break during this time? You cant carry it with you due to the simple fact it is illegal. Children are never too young not to be told? I completely agree with early education of children and guns, but as we all know, young children are not in full control of their faculties 100% of the time. Any specific examples of why you wish you had a gun here in Thailand?
  8. wildewillie89

    Diet for old dog with heart trouble?

    Also to slow down their eating.
  9. wildewillie89

    1 week holiday out of thailand. Where should I go?

    I am Aussie and wouldn't go there due to the Aussies.
  10. Only ever used a barber shop in Thailand. If I got my information from there I would have the same irrational fears.
  11. Anyone would think the world is over reading this thread. Should we all just top ourselves instead of waiting to be a victim of a murder. An idea, so people don't continue to live in irrational fear would be to either look at the official stats, or even make your own stats of crimes that have been made against you in the years you have been here and find a conclusion. If it says you are safe, then get out and enjoy the world. Or alternatively, go to the hair salon where I am sure they will still be gossiping/living in fear about a murder that happened 3 years ago. *Edit: no offence to the people who go to hair salons. Just participating in the ridiculous generalisations made about them to help a point.
  12. wildewillie89

    Living in a quiet Issan village.

    I have only ever known one friend who has done this, but he was a white living in South Africa. He thought how ridiculous is this and moved his family to Australia. My Thai friends usually carry it in a bag. My father-in-law carries it in a bag everywhere he goes other than our house (as I do not allow it since having kids). My first meeting of him was having to move his gun off the front seat so I could sit down. It is locked away when we go to his house. I have another friend who just bought a gun. He gives out loans and keeps the land papers and vehicles until the interest/loans are paid back. He just bought a gun (due to the danger of his side business), which he takes everywhere, including his car. His kids refuse to use car seats and never listen to him. Accident (road or gun) waiting to happen. I asked him about his training, which consisted of first firing the weapon when he bought it. He seems to think he is capable. People watch too many movies, or never experience real life situations, so have clouded judgements of their capabilities. Interestingly enough, the same Thai people told me I was crazy to go down to the insurgency in the South as they are too scared, but think they will have the composure and skill to be able to deal with a traumatic event using a gun. Amazing logic.
  13. wildewillie89

    Living in a quiet Issan village.

    I think that would be quite illegal here.
  14. wildewillie89

    Living in a quiet Issan village.

    If I could reach for a gun in seconds then so could children. The only way a gun can be safely kept in a home with children is if it is locked in a safe. Getting a gun out of a safe takes more than a few seconds, as obviously you wouldn't put the safe in the middle of your living room (where I spend most of my time). Not to mention I could be 50 metres away from a gun in my house as I spend a lot of time outside. What use is it to me? The only possible use it could be is if it was actually on me. For the incredibly low chance of needing a gun vs the much higher chance of my kid wanting to reach for it whilst it is on me....it just isn't worth it. It is acting on paranoia/fear/thinking I am more capable than I am, rather than logic.
  15. wildewillie89

    Living in a quiet Issan village.

    Regardless of the numbers (which from memory were quoted in the whole arming teachers debate), the chances of hitting a subject in a real life situation compared to the shooting range is obviously a lot different. It doesn't take stats for someone to realise bodily responses (emotional and physical), distractions, and just the fact most people are not aware of their surroundings during traumatic events. If we look at a more simplistic scenario of when a snake falls out of a tree and scares someone. Even when people get good visual of it they are unable to remember even the colour of it due to emotional responses taking over their faculties. It is why witnesses of traumatic events are so easily discredited by defence lawyers and why conspiracy theorists love using them. All this explains a 43% hit rate from 0-6 feet in real life vs probably a 100% hit rate in a range. The chances of someone (who is not specially trained/experienced with these situations) killing their kids/wife by accidents are probably close to killing the intruders - probably by accident also. The original seat belt and gun comparison (insurance) I don't think works. Wearing a seat belt creates no potential safety issues, in fact in reduces them by not throwing you around the car in a crash. Having a gun, when the likelihood of needing one is incredibly small (standard Issan village), I would think creates more safety issues than the chance of needing it warrants (basic risk analysis). Well if we look at the stats of children getting their hands on them in supposedly gun responsible homes anyway.