While the issue of the monopolisation of public transport on the island is indeed an emotive subject, and to a certain extent such reactionary, inflammatory comments are to be expected, they should not be accepted, nor endorsed.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Even the Bible seems to suggest there is no problem with meeting violence with violence or the threatening of the odd smiting as a pre-emptive strike.
Can we seriously claim to be living and participating in a civilised society when violence – including the continued use of the death penalty – is often used as the punishment for violence?
Sure, the threat of punishment should be in place, but it should be used merely as a last option for preventing crime. Sociologists in Thailand should have as much impact and influence upon Thai society as the police and ever-changing political parties do.
Rather than simply arrest, beat or lock up the criminal, why not instead question why the Phuket gunman who shot a customer in Tesco Lotus last week had a gun in his hand, felt the need to steal and more importantly, kill without compunction?
While we’re at it, why is the Phuket teen on methamphetamine? Why is the Phuket woman working in a bar? Why not ask these questions now?
These are answers that can only be arrived at with our minds and definitely not our fists. Fighting fire with fire is not the answer. It’s never the answer. The argument in the US right now that everybody should be armed in order to protect themselves against everyone else is both absurd and sad.
Violence is never the answer. Fighting violence with violence in order to instil a greater sense of fear to combat those attempting to scare will just perpetuate a never-ending cycle of negativity. Fear, violence, punishment, retribution, vengeance and injustice and fear.
I don't want to sound like a 1980s action movie hero, but if you fight fire with fire, you’re going to get burned.