BANGKOK, Aug 7: A 14-year-old student went on a shooting spree killing a total
of eight people, including his two grandparents, three students and three teachers,
and injuring 30 others before killing himself in a northwestern suburb of Capital
Bangkok, Thailand, on Friday morning.
▶ Watch: A disturbing video
The rampage began at the teenager's home, where he used his grandfather’s handgun
to shoot both of his grandparents dead.
The suspect then went to the Debsirin Nonthaburi School in the Bang Kruai district
of Nonthaburi province armed with the handgun and opened fire, killing three
teachers and three students before turning the gun on himself.
Videos show terrified students ducking under desks as the firing went on.
According to Deputy Interior Minister Polapee Suwunchwee, many of the injured
students sustained injuries while desperately fleeing.
The police said the teenager fired at least 26 rounds during the attack and
they recovered 34 rounds more from his bag.
Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul stated that the 9th-grade student had mental
issues arising out of heavy schoolwork.
The incident is Thailand's deadliest mass shooting in four years— the 2022
Nong Bua Lamphu daycare centre attack. And there was the Nakhon Ratchasima shootings
of 2020.
Easy availability of gun and licence without proper screening is leading to
an alarming rise in the incidence of shooting.
OPINION: The Illusion of Arming for Self-Defence
The debate surrounding gun ownership often centers on personal safety. Proponents
argue that a firearm is a necessary tool for self-defence. However, a deeper
look at logistics, statistics, and global policy suggests that widespread gun
availability complicates public safety rather than ensuring it.
1) The Logistical Reality of Home Defence
The practical application of a firearm during a crisis presents major tactical
hurdles:
The Storage Dilemma: Responsible ownership requires firearms to be stored
locked and unloaded to prevent accidents. In a sudden crisis, retrieving a key,
unlocking storage, and loading ammunition severely limits immediate utility.
The Intent Paradox: Evaluating whether a threat warrants lethal force
in a split-second window is incredibly difficult. This pressure frequently leads
to tragic escalations, accidental shootings, or severe legal consequences for
the homeowner
2) The Statistical Debate: How Often Do Guns Help?
Data regarding Defensive Gun Use (DGU) is highly polarized, split between two
primary methodologies
The Public Health Perspective (Low Estimates): Studies utilizing the
U.S. National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) estimate defensive gun uses
to be between 60,000 and 100,000 times per year. Researchers from institutions
like the Harvard Injury Control Research Center argue that true defensive gun
use is rare. Their data indicates that a firearm in the home is statistically
far more likely to be involved in an accidental shooting, a suicide, or domestic
escalation than it is to repel a criminal.
The Gun Rights Perspective (High Estimates): Private surveys analyzed
by gun rights advocates place the figure much higher, between 500,000 and 2.5
million times per year. Groups like the Heritage Foundation maintain a database
of these instances, noting that in the majority of these cases, the firearm
is merely brandished to deter a criminal and is never actually fired.
Verified Incidents: The Gun Violence Archive (GVA), which logs incidents
verified through police reports or media coverage, records roughly 1,000 to
2,000 cases of defensive gun use per year in the United States
3) The State's Mandate and the "Zero-Gun" Logic
The foundational argument for strict gun control relies on a simple premise:
without a gun present, a shooting cannot occur.
From this viewpoint, ensuring public safety is the fundamental responsibility
of the state and its law enforcement agencies, not individual citizens. When
a government successfully restricts public access to firearms:
Lethality Drops: Physical confrontations or burglaries may still occur,
but they are significantly less likely to result in death when lethal weapons
are removed from the equation.
De-escalation: Intruders are less likely to carry firearms if they know
the general public is unarmed and gun access is heavily restricted, lowering
the overall stakes of property crime
4) The Counter-Argument: The Physical Equalizer: Conversely, advocates
for gun ownership argue that a total absence of firearms introduces a different
vulnerability. They contend that without firearms, protection relies entirely
on physical strength, size, or numbers. From their perspective, a firearm acts
as a critical equalizer for elderly, petite, or disabled individuals against
physically stronger intruders when state protection cannot arrive in time.
) 
