Disillusion of The Gun Control Mirage - SPECIAL ARTICLE 2022

Blurb: The author Yanakorn Kiat (Nott) indicated the point how gun is not a highly dangerous thing like what most people may say so by providing his analysis over how the media may involve and some statistics indicating the actual cases affecting the injury to life occurred by the gun compared to other statistics.

Introduction

The debate surrounding gun violence and its recommended prescription of gun control always rears its head every time there is mass tragedy caused by some crazed madman, who by every sense, should not have had possession of a weapon. According to gun control activists, outlier cases such as these, are scathing commentaries about firearms and those who oppose them are heartless pro-children butchers. However, I beg to differ and will raise them an accusation; gun control is ultimately of the authoritarian interest and those who advocate for it, are themselves, naïve authoritarians who know little about the purposes and functions of firearm ownership. The correct diagnosis on the issues we face with gun violence is a result of a culture that has offloaded responsibility to the government and a deterioration of social morality.

This issue is reignited with the vile and disgusting massacre of preschoolers at a nursery in Nong Bua Lamphu, committed by a druggie ex-cop. To preface my following dissertation, it goes without saying that what happened is a tragedy and should not have happened. There are many factors and failures which led to this tragedy, of which I cover in this piece. However, this does not implicate that firearm ownership, or firearms as a whole, are to be blamed for the tragedy. This may be considered a crass and inappropriate piece to be released to soon after such a horrific tragedy, but I value truth enough to say it regardless of how unpopular it may be.

I understand and recognise the allure of gun control as a solution to solve the ever-present issue of gun crime to the public - especially when it comes as a response to tragedy involving the most vulnerable of society. But this view, irregardless of the good intention behind it, is laced with false equivalency, misinformation, and manufactured moral panic. Ultimately, it is about further conceding our little remaining personal rights to the state for a sense, yes, just a sense, of security that never seems to manifest when it is needed the most.

Throughout this piece, I will be making many comparisons to the mass shooting capital of the world (calm down, it’s tongue and cheek rhetoric), the United States. I do so deliberately in order to highlight the similarities and differences of gun culture here vs the states and how the most extreme case of gun- craze culture has implemented gun control restrictions. We can use their failures and successes to better our own policies, implement what has worked or crazy gun land and reject the failures.

Also because there is a clear disparity in Thai statistics published compared to US ones, forcing me to extrapolate certain points by proxy – yes this is a clear and present flaw of my dissertation and I fully recognise it, but there simply is not enough Thai data to prove the majority of my points, thus I must extrapolate.

(Spoiler alert: most of the gun control measures do not work in practice)

This dissertation is written and separated into four parts. This piece is not written to be read point by point, it is best that you read straight down directly.
Part 1: The Moral Panic component
The public’s fear and hysteria of firearms is unsurprising considering how they are portrayed in media. With the advent of the 24-hour news cycle, the demand for media sensationalism has increased to retain/capitalise on viewer attention. This is especially true in Thai media, which often struggles with slow news cycles, and resort to reporting on random villager disputes to fill in their airtime. Media companies are perpetually starved of sensationalist news, and thus any local crime story will always be featured heavily and brought to the forefront of the public’s mind. The result of which is a false artificial increase in crime in the public’s mind.

News that is especially horrid and triggers emotional responses are the favourites of media, with the case of the Nong Bua Lamphu massacre being no different. I do not condemn the news for this behaviour, they are a business that operates on viewer retention so they can receive advertiser funding after all, but it is something that the viewers should be especially conscious of; which means that the majority is completely oblivious to. Crime and drama sells, incentivising the media to sensationalise stories in order to retain and increase their viewership, which often can lead to inaccuracies and misrepresentations of crucial issues. For examples, look no further than the page to page, daily 24/7 coverage of the death of actress Tangmo (Pataratida Pacharawirapong), who unfortunately passed away on February 24, 2022. This case exemplifies and fulfils the media’s thirst for sensationalist stories – it had every aspect; drama, intrigue, mystery—All perfect factors to keep a story alive and circulating in the media sphere. [20] And for the purposes of my dissertation, the media does the same to stories about gun violence; they stigmatise and sensationalise the purposes of a firearm and the act of owning a firearm.

Winston Churchill once said that, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” True or not, this statement can certainly be applied to the issue of public sentiment against guns. Chances are, if one were to pick out a random person on the street, they would like be anti-firearm ownership. Their reasons would likely be numerous, but without a doubt, one of their main gripes would be questioning why the citizenry should possess firearms (we have the police to protect us) and the dangers of firearms (they exist only to harm people). Not to be disparaging, but it is these exact low information takes that fuel the gun control. The average member of the public is unlikely to be tuned into deep analysis on gun crime, rather their mind will turn to the oversimplifications offered by the 9 o’clock news of the evening prior. All these aforementioned factors converge in a threefold set of fallacies: the false faith in authority, the mischaracterisation of firearm ownership fuelled by media sensationalism, and the public being blindsided by bad information. So, allow me to tackle these issues from easiest to hardest.
First, as introduced by preceding sets of paragraphs, media has a vested interested in sensationalising the issue of gun crime and overblowing marginal cases to the public limelight. The Thai media’s coverage of the recent Nong Bua Lamphu massacre is a good example of this. While the event is shocking and deserving of coverage, how the event is covered is what skews the narrative. Whether intentionally or not, gun control activists always rear their opportunistic heads whenever there is a national tragedy. These cases receive full media coverage and are forced into the public consciousness because of how shocking, and by proxy, lucrative they are to media companies. The constant reinforcement of issues in a similar manner creates a lingering fear in the public’s consciousness. Such that people fear gun homicide and mass shootings more than they do deaths from motor accidents – of which they are ten times statistically more likely to die from than guns. [17]

See, motor accidents are not as interesting as shootings motivated by jealousy, insanity, or malice. Those are much more interesting and stimulating to report on – and forget reporting on defensive gun use. Unless of course, it can be sensationalised and spun for maximum viewer retention; gotta include some drama! Motor accident deaths are one of the top leading causes of death in Thailand, and yet I never see any activists or policy makers raise as much ruckus and moral alarmism as much as they do compared to mass shootings.

This type of coverage has of course, been incredibly damaging to the public perception of firearms [9], reducing its use to only for murder and victimisations. The public consciousness has no room for defensive firearm use when all they are constantly being bombarded with is tales of gore and death caused by firearms [13]. What a firearm is, fundamentally, is simply a tool. It is no different from any other power drill, saw, or screwdriver - a tool.

What differs firearms from any regular tool is the cloud of perceived danger that public conscience has conjured around it, deeming its only purpose to kill and wound. While that is partially true, any tool can be used for the exact same ends. Firearms can be used to victimise or protect. Data from the most radical pro-gun nation of the world would suggest that it is used far more often for the latter as opposed to the former. The United States’ CDC analysis of 2017 found that for every three hundred thousand victimisations with the use of a firearm, there are two million cases of self-defence and prevention of violence; the inferred of which would be two hundred and thirty-eight lives saved per day against thirty taken unjustly. [10] Additionally, this figure does not account for the number of victimisations prevented because the person was armed (passive deterrence) The noble purpose of a firearm is self- defence, defence of property, defence of life, defence against tyranny, and defence against maniacs who would try and harm children [8]. It really is that simple.

But back to the sensationalising and inequivalent emphasis placed on statistically irrelevant mass shooting cases; back to Nong Bau Lamphu. The majority of gun crime and death in Thailand are committed by those in fits of passion and rage [15] and gang related activity. Mass shootings are so statistically irrelevant that most of us can name the shootings off our head – it is that rare [2]. Media does what media does though, and these cases are drilled into the public consciousness. Activists come out and proclaim an epidemic, although data would suggest otherwise, and the public falls for the lies of gun control. As mentioned, many times before, mass shootings occur so marginally that it is statistically irrelevant; even in Thailand, a nation that leads Asia in gun deaths. And yet it is ever- present in the public consciousness. Since the data in Thailand on mass shootings is so insignificant, I am forced to pull from the perceived school shooting capital of the world on this case, and even then, it is nowhere near as numerous as what the media would lead us to believe. To be exact, over the past twenty-five years, the average amount of children killed in American school shootings are ten per year [1]. And of course, while any number of children killed is one too many, they are extremely rare events, and we cannot allow sensationalism and fearmongering to distract us from the sinister agenda behind gun control. This applies to us here in Thailand as well. We must not allow for marginal, yet tragic and emotional, cases to dictate policy. Firearms have proven themselves a force for great benefit and to remove them from the hands of law-abiding citizens would be catastrophic for law and order.
Secondly, as the quote goes, “He who controls the media, controls the masses.” The news is no place for deep dives and analysis on policy. What it is, is the news of the previous day compacted into a small time slot in recap form made easily accessible to the public. New anchors are no policy geniuses, they are restricted to convey complex issues in an accessible and understandable way to the public. And it is through this compacting and oversimplification that the nuances of issues covered by the media are lost. It is from this exact vain, that the terminology of ‘assault rifle’ and the engraving of one is carved into the public mind. Partially popularised by video games, the rampant use of the term ‘assault rifle’ in media coverage of mass shootings demonstrates perfectly, the lack of information and misinformation perpetuated by the media. In case you were in the dark for this issue, assault weapon is not a real category of firearm.

I would be tongue and cheek here and ask what constitutes an ‘assault’ weapon? A weapon used to assault someone? The origin of this phrase comes from the abbreviation of AR. Those of you tuned into American or gun culture would recognise the nomenclature this abbreviation belongs to: the infamous weapon of war (not), the AR-15. The AR abbreviation here, actually stands for Armalite – the company that produces the AR series of rifles, not assault rifle. Media disinformation on this matter has penetrated itself into the public consciousness so deeply, that it has affected legislation. Notably, the US Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. Note the stupid name with the false nomenclature. Okay, so what if the name and purpose behind the act were all on false premises? If this did an ounce of good by raising public awareness to this issue and allowing for this act to address it, surely it was worth it right? Well, an act crafted upon false data is unlikely to resolve any issue but the lie behind its own origin. And that is what happened with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.

The United States Department of Justice funded a study on its effects in 2004, which concluded “there was no evidence that it caused any decrease in gun violence, and there was no evidence that it saved any lives” - none. And also, that “if it were reinstated the effect should be so minimal that it would be hard to even assess it.” That is what they concluded. [19] This will not be the last time that this act will be mentioned in this dissertation. The media’s misinformation not only damaged the reputation of firearms, but also actively contributed to the hardening of difficulty in firearm ownership, and created loopholes which if not directly, then indirectly, led to two of the deadliest mass shootings in the history of the United States – all because of a talking point that is still in active circulation today. This is only a small example of how media butchers the nuances of stories, and how the public blindly trusting their simplifications cause more damage.
Lastly, this is a point I will expand on at length later, but want to put out there for now. The East is culturally conformist and submissive to authority and seniority, unlike the West which champions personal expression and freedom. We here in the East are still stuck in the archaic mindset where we place our faith and trust in authority without a second thought. We are a culture of conformity and obedience; what our elders and our leaders tell us, we do. Our society has conditioned us to blindly place faith in hierarchy and give up personal autonomy to the state – because this is what the issue of gun ownership is ultimately about, the right to defence of personal autonomy. The truth is, we have been too reliant and compliant with the centralisation of power within the state and the handing over of civilian power. We have entrusted the state to protect us at the cost of our personal freedoms, and as a founding father once said;

“Those who would trade essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither and will lose both” – Benjamin Franklin.

Police are minutes aways when seconds count.
The state is the number one ender of human life in the 21st century.

Chew on these thoughts as you read through the rest of my dissertation.
Part 2. Ineffectiveness/ failures of gun control
The prescription of gun control will not solve this issue, as it is putting a band-aid on the wrong wound. Legislation that aims to restrict or hinder firearm ownership will only affect those who seek firearms for protection. As referenced prior, the disastrous US Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 did nothing to reduce violent crime and only highlighted the lack of knowledge by media talking heads, politicians, and the public on the nuances of firearm ownership. The cases I wish to bring up specifically are the mass shootings of Columbine High School and the shooting of Virginia Tech.
Both shootings were committed when the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was still in effect, but as demonstrated by the fact that they happened, the ban did nothing to prevent these tragedies.

As mentioned previously, mass shootings disproportionately dominate the public consciousness compared to how often and deadly they are in reality. This mind fog dominated the drafting of the act and completely failed to prevent what it set out to do because of how ill-informed the politicians and activists pushing the ban were. Mass shootings, aside from how the media incessantly drills it, resonates with the public because of how tragic and horrific they are, pushes out the everyday representative gun crime and enforces a certain image in the public mind – that of an AR-style automatic rifle as opposed to the handguns that over represent in total gun deaths. This narrative is the cause of the failures resulting in mass shootings of Columbine High School and the shooting of Virginia Tech. The politicians were proven ill-informed and idiotic, when the Tec-9 (used in Columbine) had the exact same ability, like the rifles they railed against in their legislation, but a different form which allowed for it to skate the ban.

This is repeated in the Virginia tech shooting, the third deadliest mass shooting event in US history, surely done by some assault rifle that the legislation accounted for and banned preemptively? Nope, it was not banned and it was not even in fact a rifle. The Virginia tech shooter kill thirty-two people with two handguns – you read that correctly, handguns. See the seeming flippant comment I made earlier about how the majority of gun crime is committed with handguns? The sensationalism and hysteria behind long guns paved the path directly for these shootings.

This view is still reinforced further with frankly crap data and bad statistics [6]. The public, being the public, gravitate towards pseudo-intellectualism and believe any graph you would show them – literally how moronic legislation like the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban got passed. The mass majority of gun related violence are perpetuated by gangs [5] using handguns [14], not AR-15s. So what this legislation was designed to resolve is virtually nothing.

The failure of this legislation is not due to bad information and sensationalism alone, its designated purpose of fixing a downstream cultural issue alone was misguided; as is most gun control legislation. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban attempted to remedy an issue that is a result of a broken society, the real culprits behind such heinous acts.

If Thailand is to learn anything from the failures of our older gun brother, is that gun-grabbing legislation fuelled by a blind sighted society does not work and only serves to cripple the law abiding citizens and empower criminals. As unfortunate as it is, those who wish to do harm, will find a way irregardless of the means available to them. Criminals do not follow laws, and legislating for statistical anomalies will resolve nothing and further damage the lives of the people. Gun grabbing is a bandaid solution to a gaping wound. If your stated mission is truly to preserve the lives of the innocent, then you must address the sources of these issues.
3. The real culprits behind gun violence
Firearms are a means to an end. It is ultimately the wielder who decides on what purpose to utilise the firearm for. And in these horrendous cases, the wielder decides to wield it for great evil. The actions of its owner are not indicative to that of the firearm. Guns cannot suddenly grow a conscience and decide to commit mass murder. It takes either true evil, a shattered mental state, the implicit consent of law enforcement, or all three combined for such an act to occur. For the tragedy of Nong Bua Lamphu, it is unfortunately all three.

As I am penning this piece, the information behind the deadly shooting is slowly trickling out. As of now, the perpetrator has been identified as former law enforcement with a known drug issue. The latter should raise red flags, as to how he managed to procure a firearm even in the state that he is in. The former should raise additional red flags; this was a person close to law enforcement in the area, a former member of the force no less. Did they not at all notice suspicious behaviour in all that time?

My speculation is for all naught, and ultimately inconsequential; as it is abundantly clear, that the presence of all three factors were directly involved with the perpetrator. The issue is not the firearm, it is rather how such a person managed to procure a firearm and function undetected, with his issues mostly open – to this I blame the failures of law enforcement.

Most mass shootings are an expressive outburst of anger aimed at unleashing the perpetrator’s hate against all those implicit in their suffering, but in rare and especially vile cases, perpetrators choose instead to harm society’s most valued. The motive of the shooter behind the Nong Bua Lamphu massacre is unclear, but what is clear is the presence of illegal narcotics in his system and testimonies of his known drug issue.

Thailand is not unique in its struggle against of illegal narcotics. However, it is an issue that is uniquely exacerbated by our corrupt institutions. Thailand is ranked 110th of 180th of the most corrupt nations according to transparency.org. But this is an issue that is known within Thailand itself, external data analysis and extrapolation not withholding. News of corruption within Thailand’s governmental bodies are an almost weekly occurrence with how often it is reported on. Recent examples that come to mind are the ongoing investigations of military quarters fund embezzlement and the high profile case of the police chief allegedly accepting shush money from a leading company in the brewery sector.

As such, I can somewhat confidently assert that illegal narcotics are routinely flagged through by corrupt law enforcement who are in the pockets of these cartels, introduced the vulnerable population and getting them addicted to these nefarious poisons (in Minecraft of course, definitely not accusing anyone of anything here, but we all know deep down what’s up)

For legal reasons; full disclaimer, this is entering personal speculatory/conspiratorial territory.

What I can state confidently ~~without self-censorship~~ though, is the obvious at best negligent, at worst, intentional, ignoring of the perpetrator. As a former office, the perpetrator is at the very minimum, known to law enforcement. His dismissal due to a drug-related issues should have also put him high up on police radar. So how did he manage to commit such a heinous crime?

This failure of law enforcement is akin to the US’s own Parkland shooting. No measure of gun control would be effective if law enforcement refuses to do their due diligence. The Parkland shooter had a similar profile to the Nong Bua Lamphu shooter – as in he was well-known to police. He had police called on him 36 different times, but managed to walk away from all those encounters without a single citation or arrest. The red flags were there, as they were here. Law enforcement unilaterally ignored it. If they did not, it was gross negligence and incompetence to allow for both shooters to exact their heinous plans.

So why again, should we here in the East place our uncontested faith in the institutions and further hand in our rights to a contract not fulfilled?
4. Outsourcing of personal duty
To return to a point I made early on in this piece, us as citizens of the East have been conditioned into a state of undying loyalty to the system. Or to be more accurate, did. While the older generations remain stubborn, even they acknowledge the blight in our institutions. The newer generations are leading the charge out of the conformist, submissive mindset, and finally learning to think for themselves, and question the claims of authority. It is odd to reflect upon, considering that institutional corruption is basically an open secret of Thai society. A bribe here, some embezzlement here and there. What is more bizarre to me personally is how we are still put our faith in these systems to protect us even though we recognise how rotten to the core they are. Even the newer generations are still reluctant to take control over their own lives and cut off government. Maybe this is a sentiment that only I, a Western outsider can observe clearly, because even the newer generations are still entrenched under centuries of traditionalism.

But it is more than abundantly clear, especially with the institutional failures present in this tragedy, that the people must take charge of their own lives and accept the responsibility that comes with it. I cite American gun culture not because of their extreme end and availability of statistics alone, but because the American embrace of firearms is a unique case and the epitome of self-responsibility and the protection of individual freedom.

The smoke and mirrors behind gun control are ultimately always of the authoritarian interest. We here in the East look upon American gun culture with shock and distain because we have been conditioned to do so. What we fail to learn continuously from all these tragedies, is that although we were coerced into signing a social contract that stipulates the trade of personal liberties and freedoms for security, we have never received such payment. This is not an equal trade and it is time that someone pointed it out.

For all the framing and mental gymnastics, gun control is not about the safety of the public. If it was, then these tragedies should provoke people to arm up and protect themselves. Gun control serves the government, a disarmed populace is a populace that must comply. A disarmed populace is a weak populace that must rely on the government for security and safety – is it a coincidence that the first acts of all tyrannical states in history is to disarm their opposition? And dare I say the quiet part out loud as it pertains to Thailand, civilian firearm ownership is last resort of salvaging a fallen republic.
We foolishly put our faith in the system to protect us, that social contract; freedom in exchange for security – all for what? he people we place our faith in to protect us, the people we sign an unofficial social contract with, abandon us in the time of our greatest need. Such is the relationship of the citizen to the state and why we need to retrieve that responsibility and power to ourselves.

History is a cruel mistress. She has shown us time and time again that trusting in the virtuous exercise of centralised power in the hands of few as opposed to the masses is folly and leads to untold amounts of human suffering. This issue goes beyond self-defence and the right to life, its implications reach much further, for at the end of the day, it is about power. And a weakened populace cannot defy its government.

I do not reject discussions about the duty of the government, whether the citizen should carry a firearm, or firearm policy – those are all sound and important discussion we should have. However, those who would unilaterally agree to a seizure of firearms without so much as a critical thought requires ridiculing and criticism. The issue, as I have hopefully demonstrated, is deeper than guns bad, trade them in for government provided safety.

If this piece was too aggressive/provocative, good. Maybe that will get some conversation going and we can all give this issue a deeper, more nuanced thought.

- Yanakorn Kiat.
Citations/Related Reading (sauce):

[1] James Alan Fox, ‘School shootings are not the new normal, despite statistics that stretch the truth’ (USATODAY, February 19th 2018) accessed October 30th 2022

[2] D’Vera Cohn, Paul Taylor, Mark Hugo Lopez, Catherine A. Gallagher, Kim Parker, and Kevin T. Maass, ‘Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware’ (Pew Research Center, 7th May 2013) accessed October 30th 2022; BJ Campbell, ’Gun Laws Have Basically No Impact on Mass Shooter Rate’ (Medium, March 11th 2019) accessed October 30th 2022CPRC, ‘UPDATED: Mass Public Shootings keep occurring in Gun-Free Zones: 94% of attacks since 1950’ (CPRC, 15th June 2018) accessed October 30th 2022

[3] Jack Montgomery, ‘British Police Arrest At Least 3,395 People for ‘Offensive’ Online Comments in One Year’ (Breitbart, October 14th 2020) accessed October 30th 2022 Danny Shaw, ‘Ten charts on the rise of knife crime in England and Wales’ (BBC, July 18th 2019) accessed October 30th 2022

[4] Elizabeth Brown and Randall G. Shelden, ‘Justice Policy Journal - Volume 8, Number 1 - Spring 2011’ (CJCJ, May 12th 2011) accessed October 30th 2022

[5] POL Staff, ‘FBI: Gangs Responsible for 48% of Violent Crime’ (Police Magazine, 25th October 2011) accessed October 30th 2022

[6] For example off flawed data, please see: massshootingtracker.org

[7] Scott R. Kegler, Linda L. Dahlberg, and James A. Mercy ‘Firearm Homicides and Suicides in Major Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2012–2013 and 2015–2016’ (CDC, 9th November 2018) accessed October 30th 2022

[8] Melanie Arter, ‘Texas Man Describes How He Used His AR-15 to Stop Gunman from Sutherland Church Shooting Massacre’ (CNS News, April 29th 2019) accessed October 30th 2022; Jacob Paulsen, ‘Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]’ (Concealed Carry, September 18th 2018) accessed October 30th 2022; Tom Ozimek, ‘Florida Homeowner Armed with AR- 15 Kills 2 Home Invaders in Gunfight’ (The Epoch Time, July 12th 2019) accessed October 30th 2022; Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, ‘Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun’ (Scholarly Commons Law, 1995) accessed October 30th 2022

[9] Being Classically Liberal, ‘Are AR-15 Rifles a Public Safety Threat? Here's What the Data Say’ (FEE Stories, January 11th 2019) accessed October 30th 2022

[10] Paul Hsieh, ‘That Time The CDC Asked About Defensive Gun Uses’ (Forbes, 30th Article 2018) accessed October 30th 2022
[11] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, ‘Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence’ accessed October 30th 2022

[12] Todd C. Frankel, ‘The study that gun-rights activists keep citing but completely misunderstand’ (The Washington Post, January 16th 2015) accessed October 30th 2022

[13] Brian Doherty, ‘CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidences That Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns’ (reason, April 20th 2018) accessed 30th October 2022> accessed October 30th 2022

[14] For the statistic indicating Murder Circumstances by Weapon in 2019, please see: FBI:UCR, ‘Expanded Homicide Data Table 11’ (FBI) accessed October 30th 2022

[15] Reuters, ‘Factbox: Thailand's gun culture and past shootings’ (Reuters, 6th October 2022) accessed 31st October 2022; Thai PBS World, ‘Thailand’s gun control remains problematic’ (Thai PBS World, 16th October 2022) accessed October 31st 2022

[16] Science Direct, ‘Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990– 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019’ (Science Direct, 17th-23rd October 2020) accessed October 31st 2022; Chalapati Rao, Yawarat Porpakkham, Junya Angsachon Pattaraarchachai, and Warangkana Polprasert, ‘Verifying causes of death in Thailand: rationale and methods for empirical investigation’ (Research Gate, May 2010) accessed October 31st 2022; Rolando Y. Wee, ‘Leading Causes Of Death In Thailand’ (World Atlas, April 25th 2017) accessed October 31st 2022; World Health Organizations (WHO), ‘WHO MORTALITY DATABASE’ (WHO, 2019) accessed October 31st 2022

https://he01.tcithaijo.org/index.php/jhealthres/article/view/85472#:~:text=Road%20traffic%20injury%20is%20the,around%205%2C000%20deaths%20each%20year.

https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1478-7954-8-14

[17] Orapin Laosee and Ratana Somrongthong, ‘Incidence of Road Traffic Injury in Thailand: a Comparison of the Hospital-Based Surveillance System and the Thai National Injury Survey’ (Journal of Health Research, October 2012) <https://he01.tcithaijo.org/index.php/jhealthres/article/view/85472#:~:text=Road%20traffic%20injury %20is%20the,around%205%2C000%20deaths%20each%20year> accessed 31st October 2022; Yawarat Porapakkham, Chalapati Rao, and Alan D Lopez, ‘Estimated causes of death in Thailand, 2005: implications for health policy’ (Population Health Metrics, May 18th 2010) <https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1478-7954-8-14> accessed October 31st 2022

[18] For US (2020 outlier data bc crime wave,) please see: CDC, ‘FactStats - Injuries’ (CDC) <https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm> accessed October 31st 2022

[19] For failures of US assault weapons ban, please see: Lois Beckett, ‘Fact-Checking Feinstein on the Assault Weapons Ban’ (Pro Publica, September 24th 2022) <https://www.propublica.org/article/fact- checking-feinstein-on-the-assault-weapons-ban>accessed October 31st 2022; Jeremy Travis, ‘(National Institute of Justice, March 1999); ‘Truth and justice drowned out by media ‘soap opera’ surrounding death of Tangmo (Thai PBS world, March 9th, 2022)’ <https://www.thaipbsworld.com/truth-and-justice-drowned-out-by-media-soap- opera-surrounding-death-of-tangmo/> accessed November 1st 2022

Introduction

Part 1: The Moral Panic component

Part 2. Ineffectiveness/ failures of gun control

3. The real culprits behind gun violence

4. Outsourcing of personal duty

เข้าสู่ระบบเพื่อแสดงความคิดเห็น