[Weislenalkata]

I'm somewhere in between vc45 and atalderic on this. I do not believe in the total eradication of firearms but I do think the USA itself has too much of a lust for weaponry. And the high homicide and injury rate is directly related to that. Aside from the immediate debate over the right to bear arms, the social cost of footing the medical bills from their use should make any libertarian blush.

I disagree with vc45 on one item. The US Supreme Court has not established a definitive right for individuals to bear arms although this right is often proclaimed by gun-rights advocates (repeat a statement often enough and people start to believe it). I pose the issue this way -- abortion rights advocates have their Roe v. Wade; if the Constitution truly established an individual's right to bear arms, why has the NRA been using the media instead to assert this right? What is the NRA's equivalent Roe v. Wade gun rights case and why haven't they been trumpeting it? Answer -- they know they don't have that right YET, but hopefully a Scalia-led Supreme Court will establish one soon.

That being said, I do not want to take away the ability of individuals to own weapons as long as they are properly regulated. Possessing a shotgun or rifle at home for self protection or hunting/sporting seems fine to me. My dad is a liketime NRA member and hunter and even he sees no point for people to possess semi-automatic and automatic weapons. Having been to the New South Wales Police website and seeing the firearm licensing requirements, I wouldn't mind seeing those adopted in the USA.

I think there is a critical mass of weapons proliferation within a society wherein the social fabric rapidly fractures. That is why I would rather have adequate regulation (maybe overly adequate regulation) of guns rather than less or none at all. In the most simplistic terms, I would rather live in Japan than Somalia.

How do Thais feel about firearms? Do they support their use in the southern provinces?