News
Gun Crime and Violence in Thailand: A Problem that Can’t be Solved?
BANGKOK – When Sunantha Ratchawat was hit, her body went numb. It was dark inside the bar, popular with young Thais drinking and dancing and on this night, it was crowded. Music – American hip hop – was blasting through the venue’s speakers.
Sunantha, who goes by the name of Pam, was in her early 20s and on a casual night out in 2006 with friends on Khao San Road, a rowdy nightlife district in Bangkok. It was a normal place for her to hang out, and when an altercation broke out near her inside the bar, she initially did not pay much attention.
But when gunfire ripped through the bar, her life changed.
“I heard that someone shot a gun,” Pam said. “My friend was so scared and we tried to sit down and make ourselves as safe as much as we could.
“But unfortunately, the one that was shot and ran away from the bad guy came to us and fell down on us and the bad guy tried to kill him. But it was me and my friend that were shot.”
“The second I got shot, I didn’t know myself because it was very hectic, very loud: Bang bang bang bang, I didn’t know,” she said.
“First, I felt numbness on my under arm first and then I saw my blood on my arms and then I felt hurt, very hurt, and at that second I realized I’d been shot.”
Bleeding profusely, she was admitted to a nearby hospital and stayed in an intensive care unit for seven days. She did not know it at the time, but she had been shot twice; another bullet was still lodged inside her.
Her friend Not had been shot in the stomach, while another victim, someone Pam had never met, was dead.
‘GUNS MAKE PEOPLE EQUAL’
Thailand is known widely as the land of smiles. But within the fabric of its society is an underlying pattern of firearm use.
Studies show that Thailand has a higher rate of gun-related killings per capita than the United States, a country where deadly shootings dominate news headlines and the political agenda. Thailand is second only behind the Philippines within the region.
There are millions of powerful weapons across the country and many of them are illegal and unregistered.
In 2016, there were more than 3,000 homicides by a firearm in the country – a rate of 4.45 deaths per 100,000 people, according to research by the University of Washington.
Thailand’s rate is nearly eight times that of neighboring Malaysia and when deaths from armed conflict are removed, it is even greater than one of the world’s most dangerous countries, Iraq.
Most of the homicides in Thailand are put down to criminal elements, gang activity or conflicts related to a loss of face or personal grievances. There is not the spate of mass shootings that occur so often in the US.
“Sometimes we get in a conflict and guns seem to be the answer. Guns make people equal,” said Pol Col Naras Savestanan, the director general of the country’s Department of Corrections.
Yet despite the high rates of violence, Thai authorities still do not have a clear picture of exactly how many guns are out there on the streets.
A MURKY PICTURE
The man tasked with compiling national data admits that it is incomplete and messy. All of the records throughout the country since gun ownership laws were introduced in 1947 have only ever been recorded manually by hand.
“Not only that, all the records are scattered among the districts and the provincial offices. There are errors. We had five to six million licenses, and now we’re trying to put them into a computer,” said Chamnanwit Terat, the deputy director-general of the Department of Provincial Administration.
“We found that there are duplication’s, or one license that belongs to multiple weapons and therefore we have to go through those errors one case at a time.”
The department is attempting to create a central, online database for national gun records in an attempt to make the country more accountable for its weapons.
Chamnanwit believes self-defence is a justifiable reason for “mature” citizens to own firearms, especially when, he admits, they “can’t always rely on the state’s protection”. However, he wants licensing laws tightened to allow for reviews of a person’s suitability to possess a gun.
“Personally, I think those who possess or use firearms should have their license renewed once in a while. But as of now, once you get the permission to get your gun, you can keep it for life. You might be well behaved this year, but what about next year? What if you get sent to jail?”
MAKING PATRIOTS
More than 30,000 people are held in Thailand’s jail system for gun-related offences. Some of the most common are for lesser crimes like possessing an illegal weapon, or making guns; the homemade trade is known to be rife across the country, particularly by organized crime groups.
Earlier this year, an initiative was launched to give gun offenders three weeks of specialist weapon-making training – overseen by the government and the Royal Thai Army, with the aim of reducing the rates of released inmates re-offending.
“One of the biggest problems in Thailand is recidivism. One of the alternatives to the problem is finding them a job or employment,” Pol Col Naras Savestanan said.
The Department of Corrections handpicks the “geniuses” of homemade weapon making to get a better impression of how criminal groups are operating, and in the process hope to turn them into patriotic citizens.
“Some of those people make the gun themselves. They are a kind of naughty boy making the gun and trying to do something with it. So they will gain the knowledge, skills and experience of how the army works, how we develop our own weapons and on the other hand, the army, the government will gain some new ideas from them,” he said.
And while the law is tough on gun offenders, resulting in mass incarcerations, Pol Col Naras makes no apologies for the hardline stance.
“It’s better than having a high murder rate. Actually, we do have a high murder rate but at least to have a strict gun law might help to reduce that figure.
‘GUN HEAVEN’
Dozens of gun shops line the timeworn avenues of Wang Burapha, an old district in central Bangkok. Some of these establishments are well known for their history as gunsmiths and have been operating for decades. Over time, their windows have filled with modern weaponry.
“It’s kind of a surprise for first time visitors to this neighbourhood because Thailand is not really known to be a gun heaven,” said one firearm enthusiast.
These stores are not hidden and are not secret. It is the embodiment of the engrained nature of gun ownership in Thailand. Even by the government’s incomplete and unreliable count of legal guns, by the numbers, one in 10 Thais owns a firearm.
The paperwork required for gun ownership is not exhaustive. A citizen without a criminal record needs only to produce documents from their district office, a bank statement and a letter from their employer. The process typically takes a matter of weeks to complete and some of the cheapest rifles in Wang Burapha can be purchased for US$1,300.
While the price is much higher than in the United States, it is not out of reach for an ordinary citizen set on buying one.
“To be honest, it’s surprisingly easy,” the enthusiast said. “It depends on how long it takes to get your approval from the authorities. If you’re an ordinary citizen, it should be a very straightforward procedure.”
Buying illegal weapons, apparently the source of most crimes, is even more simple. A number of Thais told Channel NewsAsia that one could be arranged within a day or two via the black market.
There is no push to make gun possession illegal in Thailand and those who arm themselves within the framework of the law defend their rights with the same vigour and reasoning as gun rights defenders in the US.
“I believe a good person can use a gun in a good way. And if a bad person uses a gun, it’s going to be illegal anyway, said professional firearm self-defence trainer David Sutthaluang.
“If you ban guns in Thailand, it means the good guys won’t be having a gun so who can they protect?”
‘EVERY MORNING SOMEONE DIES’
Finding someone with an anti-gun agenda in Thailand is not so easy.
One politician, though, has been willing to take what is proving to be the unpopular side of this debate. As a former foreign minister of the country, the voice of Kasit Pirom stills carries weight.
He wants another nationwide gun amnesty period, where illegal guns could be surrendered without penalty, supported by the government and religious institutions. Thailand has attempted such amnesty periods several times in previous decades.
“It’s time we take stock of where are the guns and where do they come from. I think it’s a human reaction because every day you open a newspaper or you listen on the radio or particularly on television, every morning someone dies,” he said.
“We have so many extrajudicial killings. It seems so prevalent, becoming a sort of norm in the Thai society and yet in the backdrop of being a Buddhist country, a lot of Buddhist traditions, a lot of religious organisation are all about being peaceful and coexistence.
“In that sense I think we should do something about gun control. We do have a law, but there are weaknesses about enforcement.”
No justice was ever delivered for the shocking attack on Pam at the Khao San road nightspot. And the shooting has had a profound effect on her life ever since.
“I almost lost one of my arms but fortunately I was in the doctor’s hands and I did physical therapy for at least one year. Even now, my left hand is not 100 per cent but it’s ok. I got used to it already,” she said.
Thai guns 7
Getting a permit for gun possession is not a rigourous process in Thailand.
Now she is married and the mother of a young daughter. Her life is different from the times she spent frequenting Bangkok night spots.
But for years she says she was scared to be out in loud, public places like bars, in case something like this, a stranger with a gun intent on violence, happened again.
“Yes I was scared a bit. But that’s why I try to be more careful, try to look around and notice if there is anything wrong around me or close to me so I can run away in time,” she said.
“If you see someone that carries a gun, maybe it’s better you stay away from him because it’s not normal.”
By Jack Board
Channel News Asia
PODCAST: Listen to Jack Board’s account of gun violence in Thailand on the latest edition of The Asia Angle.
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
-
Entertainment1 year 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
-
Health2 years agoCan I Buy Ivermectin Without A Prescription in the USA?
-
Movies2 years agoWhat Should I Do If Disney Plus Keeps Logging Me Out of TV?
-
Learning2 years agoVirtual Numbers: What Are They For?