The Paradox of The Thai Gun Control Policy

Crime has been an ordeal that all civilization must contend with, from the dawn of mankind to the contemporary era. Misconducts from petty thefts to rape and homicides have been more than a nuisance to the society, but a threat to its very foundation. With the rise of modern technology, crimes are committed liberally with ease while advancements in law enforcement lags behind, overshadowed by the ever increasing crime rates. So far, no nation had rid itself of the pestilence of crime, even Thailand, which is coined as the ‘land of smiles’, could not escape from such a harsh reality. The question is: how can law abiding citizens in Thailand eke out their living with murderers lurking around the corner and insurgents detonating bombs in the heart of Bangkok where the police force are obsolete and outnumbered by the perpetrators? With such facts explicitly stated, the burden of defense does not lie within the authorities of the government but the civilians themselves, but without the right tool, civilians are at the mercy of the miscreant’s arms. That tool is the firearm. Firearms, with centuries worth of innovation stacked behind them, are the most reliable means of defense because of their range and stopping power. However, unlike civilized western nations, they are out of reach from the Thai civilians due to the government’s draconian gun-control acts, thus leaving the people vulnerable. Paradoxically, the Thai law made it difficult for civilians to own firearms and impossible to carry them. According to the Thai law, civilians can only own small caliber firearms or smooth bored shotguns and had to fill heap loads of paperwork in order to be able to purchase them. Gun importation will travel through miles of red tape and taxed mercilessly, thus bringing the price of guns to three times its original price. To make matters worse, carrying a loaded firearm outside of the shooting range is considered felony. Therefore, it is time for the people to muster what is left of their dignity, arm themselves and repeal these unjust laws!

Law enforcement agencies are those people relied on for civil defense, however, the Thai Police perverted this concept from defending the people to oppressing them. Paid with a salary comparable to janitors, the police force could barely feed themselves, therefore, they have to abandon their proud mission to defend the thin line of morality in the society, to reaping money from people via bribes and fraudulent tickets issued at street blockades. Behind the bulwarks of political influence, the police, from privates to prosecutors, they were all fattened with bribes. Despite the corruption, lawmen in the field will have to pay for their sidearms in instalments and struggled to keep their guns loaded with live rounds due to their lack of connections. With the underarmed police busy manning their road blocks or lobbying high profile politicians, the civilians are left to contend with hordes of criminals.

Such a scenario is present in the contemporary Thai society and with the crime rates increasing exponentially, taking rape for instance, its statistics have doubled in the past decades with the number of arrests of only 36%, it is safe to say that the law enforcement could not defend the people. Worse, 90% of all firearms used to commit crimes were illegal, unlicensed guns. It is paradoxical how the Thai gun control laws kept the convicts armed and keeps good Samaritans from owning them. The reality is when a “bad guy” wants a gun, he gets them simply via the black market for he had no fear for the law, yet leaving the law abiding citizens helpless. This perverse rationale of the gun control act made the “bad guys” own more guns and “good guys”, with respect to the law unarmed. Arms, when handed to criminals, became their advantage to exploit those without it and it seemed that this perverted rationale of the law had not occur to our feeble government. Arms are simply inanimate set of parts built to shoot rounds, similar to cars which are also a compilation of parts used for transportation, they do not have a mind of their own, as Neil Postman stated in the fifth essential idea of technological change that technology is as moral as the ones using them. If so, why should gun control restrict the ownership of firearms to those morally and sane enough to handle them?

Four hundred years ago, John Locke, a British philosopher, stated that a man shall have 3 rights he is born with: the right to life, liberty and property. The most important one, as he states, is the right to life. This philosophy was carried throughout world, which it was tweaked and refined by Thomas Jefferson and became the foundation of American constitution. Soon, these rights became the icon of the modern democracy, signifying the concept of human dignity and life. No one possess the right to take a man’s life away, but for an incentive, they will. This led to the creation of America’s 2nd Amendment: the right to bear arms. If you value the rights to your life, liberty and property (and to a certain extent, virginity), you must fight for it, fight for the right to bear arms!