News
Owning or Buying a Gun in Thailand
Most Thais do not own a gun. Those who do, usually buy "for personal protection, and secondly for their collection. A lot of Thai people like guns," says Polpatr Tanomsup of the Firearms Association of Thailand.
If you have an itchy trigger finger while visiting Thailand it may be difficult to purchase a gun, but wealthy foreigners and Thais who live here can now enjoy their weapon of choice thanks to the recent lifting of a ban imposed in Bangkok last year.
Tourists can, however, buy custom-made leather holsters and other accessories at the estimated 80 weapons stores along Burapha Road, just east of the Sala Chalerm Krung Royal Theatre, where the vast majority of Bangkok’s gun shops are located.
Most of the shops have been in business for more than 40 years and welcome walk-in customers, but may discourage photographs of their deadly arsenals.
Shotguns such as these are popular in Thailand for personal protection.
Expats and other foreigners working in Thailand can buy guns, but import taxes of around 30 percent — plus hefty retail profits — discourage most foreigners.
“Not many foreigners buy guns in Thailand because the price is really expensive, compared to the United States and other countries, because of our importing quota and taxes,” says the Firearms Association of Thailand’s director of international relations, Polpatr Tanomsup.
“Guns are really expensive, so it is considered a sport for the rich. Like cars, and stuff like that. It is like a Louis Vuitton for guys, or a Hermes bag for guys,” Polpatr says.
“Let’s say a Glock in America costs US$500. After it comes here to Thailand, it will probably cost up to 75,000 baht [$2,500].”
Prices are steep because this predominately Buddhist country does not have a major firearms industry, and instead imports most weapons.
“American [guns] are the most popular, because European countries simply do not export to Thailand anymore due to the problem with the three provinces in the south of Thailand, and they say they don’t want their guns to be used for the inhumane killing of people,” Polpatr says, referring to Malay-Thai Islamists who are fighting for autonomy or independence.
Guns from China are less coveted.
Foreign residents who want to buy a gun need a work permit and house registration in Thailand.
“Consumers for firearms in Thailand are mostly middle to upper class,” Polpatr says.
“They want better quality, because if they imported China-made guns, it would not be much cheaper than American-made firearms, and the quality for American is much higher. It is collectible, easy to sell, easy to buy, easy to get parts.”
Sorry tourists, no weapons for you
“For foreigners, if you want to buy a gun, you must have a work permit in Thailand, you must have a house registration in Thailand, and you also need to have a check of your criminal record.
“If you don’t live in Thailand, and you are a traveler, you can buy a holster, leather cases, and cleaning products. Stuff that is not part of the guns. You cannot buy magazines, bullets, or anything about the guns.”
A custom-made leather holster takes about one week to make, and costs 1,000 baht.
Also popular among foreigners are pistol grips made of wood, “because they are made in Thailand, and Thailand is known for the unique wood,” Polpatr says.
Most Thais do not own a gun. Those who do, usually buy “for personal protection, and secondly for collection. A lot of Thai people like guns.”
For protection, “a popular gun will be a 9-millimeter, and probably shotguns, and 22-rimfire rifles,” he says, referring to weapons which use a cartridge that has its primer around the edge of the base.
“If they want a revolver, they will ask for a Smith & Wesson,” he says.
Tourists can buy holsters and other gun accessories, but bullets are off limits.
“The people who buy here for personal protection are usually people from the provinces, where they live in a rural area, because it is dangerous.”
Collectors in Thailand like target shooting and prefer pistols such as a 45-caliber Colt, or an Ed Brown, or a Nighthawk, and may pay up to 200,000 baht.
“That is for a custom-made pistol, such as Ed Brown or Colt Limited Edition,” Polpatr says.
More recently, Bangkok’s political violence focussed attention on sniper rifles.
“Seh Daeng, he got shot,” Polpatr says, referring to Major General Khattiya “Seh Daeng” Sawatdiphol who was assassinated by an unidentified sniper who shot him in the head during a May 2010 insurrection by pro-election Red Shirts.
Seh Daeng’s death sparked widespread clashes between Red Shirts and the military, which left 91 people dead, most of them civilians.
A ban on the public sale of sniper rifles was imposed. But in July 2011, it was lifted after lobbying by Polpatr’s Firearms Association, which represents most gun shops when meeting government officials concerning legal issues.
“Everybody was in favor” of lifting the ban, he says. “So now, starting in July, we can start importing sniper rifles.”
Semi-automatic rifles are also available. But the sale of fully automatic weapons is illegal except for use by Thai security forces.
“You can buy an imitation AK-47,” Polpatr says, referring to the robust and efficeient semi-automatic assault rifle originally designed by a Russian and prized worldwide among guerrillas and other gunmen.
Thailand’s imitation AK-47, however, shoots only 22-caliber bullets, because “you cannot buy a semi-automatic that has a caliber more than 22.”
Foreign residents who want to purchase a gun must fulfill several requirements.
Bullets on sale in a Bangkok gun shop.
“If you are living here in Thailand, and you want to buy a gun, the first thing you need to do is get your 10 fingers printed, and have a check for your criminal record,” Polpatr says.
“If your record is clear, you can fill out the forms which ask about your personal information, where you live, how much money you own, and what you do for a living. You would need a bank statement and also your work permit, a house registration and an ID.”
Some requirements appear to stop impoverished people — or anyone seeking revenge — from gun ownership.
“The law says that when you want to own a gun, it is to protect yourself and your assets. So if you don’t have any assets, why would you need a gun to protect yourself? Basically, what they just want to know is, ‘Do you have a job, an income’?
“On paper, they will ask, ‘Have you been threatened by other people?’ And let’s say you say, ‘Yes.’ Then it would be harder for you to get a gun, because they will know you are actually going to use that to kill someone,” Polpatr says.
“Usually it will take two weeks to get your criminal record back, and another month to get the license. The criminal record is given free. It will cost six baht for the license,” he says.
Richard S. Ehrlich is from San Francisco, California. He has reported news for international media from Asia since 1978, based in Hong Kong, New Delhi and now Bangkok.
Read more about Richard S. Ehrlich
A recent report indicates that since Trudeau’s announcement of his gun buyback program four years ago, almost none of the banned firearms have been surrendered.
The federal government plans to purchase 2,063 firearm models from retailers following the enactment of Bill C-21, which amends various Acts and introduces certain consequential changes related to firearms. It was granted royal assent on December 15 of last year.
This ban immediately criminalized the actions of federally-licensed firearms owners regarding the purchase, sale, transportation, importation, exportation, or use of hundreds of thousands of rifles and shotguns that were previously legal.
The gun ban focused on what it termed ‘assault-style weapons,’ which are, in reality, traditional semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have enjoyed popularity among hunters and sport shooters for over a century.
In May 2020, the federal government enacted an Order-in-Council that prohibited 1,500 types of “assault-style” firearms and outlined specific components of the newly banned firearms. Property owners must adhere to the law by October 2023.
Trudeau’s Buyback Hasn’t Happened
“In the announcement regarding the ban, the prime minister stated that the government would seize the prohibited firearms, assuring that their lawful owners would be ‘grandfathered’ or compensated fairly.” “That hasn’t happened,” criminologist Gary Mauser told Rebel News.
Mauser projected expenses ranging from $2.6 billion to $6.7 billion. The figure reflects the compensation costs amounting to $756 million, as outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).
“The projected expenses for gathering the illegal firearms are estimated to range from $1.6 billion to $7 billion.” “This range estimate increases to between $2.647 billion and $7 billion when compensation costs to owners are factored in,” Mauser stated.
Figures requested by Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs concerning firearms prohibited due to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council reveal that $72 million has been allocated to the firearm “buyback” program, yet not a single firearm has been confiscated to date.
In a recent revelation, Public Safety Canada disclosed that the federal government allocated a staggering $41,094,556, as prompted by an order paper question from Conservative Senator Don Plett last September, yet yielded no tangible outcomes.
An internal memo from late 2019 revealed that the Liberals projected their politically motivated harassment would incur a cost of $1.8 billion.
Enforcement efforts Questioned
By December 2023, estimates from TheGunBlog.ca indicate that the Liberals and RCMP had incurred or were responsible for approximately $30 million in personnel expenses related to the enforcement efforts. The union representing the police service previously stated that the effort to confiscate firearms is a “misdirected effort” aimed at ensuring public safety.
“This action diverts crucial personnel, resources, and funding from tackling the more pressing and escalating issue of criminal use of illegal firearms,” stated the National Police Federation (NPF).
The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association (CSAAA), representing firearms retailers, has stated it will have “zero involvement” in the confiscation of these firearms. Even Canada Post held back from providing assistance due to safety concerns.
The consultant previously assessed that retailers are sitting on almost $1 billion worth of inventory that cannot be sold or returned to suppliers because of the Order-In-Council.
“Despite the ongoing confusion surrounding the ban, after four years, we ought to be able to address one crucial question.” Has the prohibition enhanced safety for Canadians? Mauser asks.
Illegally Obtained Firearms are the Problem
Statistics Canada reports a 10% increase in firearm-related violent crime between 2020 and 2022, rising from 12,614 incidents to 13,937 incidents. In that timeframe, the incidence of firearm-related violent crime increased from 33.7 incidents per 100,000 population in 2021 to 36.7 incidents the subsequent year.
“This marks the highest rate documented since the collection of comparable data began in 2009,” the criminologist explains.
Supplementary DataData indicates that firearm homicides have risen since 2020. “The issue lies not with lawfully-held firearms,” Mauser stated.
Firearms that have been banned under the Order-in-Council continue to be securely stored in the safes of their lawful owners. The individuals underwent a thorough vetting process by the RCMP and are subject to nightly monitoring to ensure there are no infractions that could pose a risk to public safety.
“The firearms involved in homicides were seldom legally owned weapons wielded by their rightful owners,” Mauser continues. The number of offenses linked to organized crime has surged from 4,810 in 2016 to a staggering 13,056 in 2020.
“If those in power … aim to diminish crime and enhance public safety, they ought to implement strategies that effectively focus on offenders and utilize our limited tax resources judiciously to reach these objectives,” he stated.
Related News:
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.
According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.
Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.
The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.
Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.
Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.
To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.
Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.
On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.
In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.
Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.
Pixa Bay
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.
TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.
When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.
And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.
Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.
A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.
Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.
But today, it feels more like reality.
Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.
SOURCE | CNN
(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.
The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.
Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.
This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.
In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.
The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.
This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.
The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.
In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.
According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.
Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.
The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.
For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.
Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.
As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.
As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.
The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.
SOURCE: AP
SEE ALSO:
Could Last-Minute Surprises Derail Kamala Harris’ Campaign? “Nostradamus” Explains the US Poll.
-
News3 years agoLet’s Know About Ultra High Net Worth Individual
-
Entertainment2 years ago
Mabelle Prior: The Voice of Hope, Resilience, and Diversity Inspiring Generations
-
Health3 years agoHow Much Ivermectin Should You Take?
-
Tech2 years agoTop Forex Brokers of 2023: Reviews and Analysis for Successful Trading
-
Lifestyles2 years agoAries Soulmate Signs
-
Movies2 years agoWhat Should I Do If Disney Plus Keeps Logging Me Out of TV?
-
Health3 years agoCan I Buy Ivermectin Without A Prescription in the USA?
-
Learning2 years agoVirtual Numbers: What Are They For?