"Shooting intruders at home": Lawyer Kerdpol states "guns are not the culprit" and urges the government to address the problem directly. The law does not prohibit it but requires that the act be reasonable.
This has become a hot topic in society after signals from the administration about stricter gun control, including rumors that "if a thief breaks into your home, shooting to defend yourself might be illegal or considered a crime," raising public doubts and questions about how much homeowners can protect their lives and property when threatened.
Thairath Online's special news team consulted with renowned lawyer Kerdpol Kaewkerd to explore legal aspects, facts, and his views on the government's gun control measures in detail.
Lawyer Kerdpol clearly affirms that the law never forbids self-defense. It explicitly states that people have the right to protect their life and property, with the key condition being that the action must be "reasonable."
"If it's necessary to shoot, then you must shoot," Kerdpol emphasized, providing a clear example.
Shooting is justified if a thief breaks into a house at night armed with a gun or knife, clearly intending to cause serious harm. Using a firearm to defend life and property in such cases is lawful self-defense.
Shooting is not justified if the intruder is unarmed or merely a child sneaking in to steal toys; using a gun then would be excessive force.
The Firearms Act, under license type Por 4, clearly states licenses are issued to "protect life and property." If lawful gun owners cannot use their weapons to defend themselves at home when threatened, this contradicts the law's original intent.
Kerdpol added a legal perspective that "home is the safest place." The Supreme Court has ruled that homeowners are not obliged to escape from intruders in their own residence.
He questioned societal reality: if an armed thief breaks in at night, the intent is obviously not to "borrow money" but to steal or harm. If the injured thief then reports the homeowner to authorities, how can people live under such laws?
Regarding government attempts to tighten measures to reduce crime, such as controlling licenses or restricting gun ownership rights, Kerdpol sees this as addressing the wrong problem.
Guns are not the root cause of crime. If guns cause harm, then when drunk drivers kill people, should the state confiscate cars or alcohol? Or if people stab each other with knives, should knife sales be banned?
Licenses are screened beforehand. The license issuance process, such as Por 3, requires approval from the district chief, a government representative. If licenses are granted but licensed gun owners are then seen as problems, this unfairly shifts the burden onto citizens.
Kerdpol concluded that if the government truly wants to reduce crime, it should not revoke citizens' right to self-defense but rather
improve crime suppression efficiency: tackle drug problems, crack down on criminals, and seriously pursue offenders. If the state can protect people 24/7, citizens would have no need to own firearms.
Create safety mechanisms locally: strengthen and develop community support forces, such as volunteer defense groups or civil guards, to respond quickly rather than forcing citizens to wait long for officials in emergencies.
"If the state cannot fully protect its citizens, it should not confiscate or restrict their right to defend themselves and their families within their own homes," Kerdpol concluded.