Law and Order

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /mnt/stor15-wc1-ord1/334418/472862/ on line 33.

The Armed and the Dangerous: who are they really? (Part 2)

As a follow-up to my article, 'The Armed and the Dangerous: who are they really?', I would simply like to show two interesting figures from the Committee to Protect Journalists.

In all recorded journalist murder cases since 1992:

  • Government officials were the suspected source of fire 71% of the time
  • The overwhelming majority of victims covered politics (61%) and corruption (41%)

So, whenever we hear from politicians and journalists who support anti-gun legislation, we should ask them, who are the real armed and dangerous groups in our society?

Cracking down on civilian firearms ownership will not solve the problem of violent crime in the Philippines. If politicians are serious about tackling this issue, they should be looking elsewhere.

Two pie charts showing breakdown of suspected source of fire and beats in journalist murder cases

The Armed and the Dangerous: who are they really?

In an article entitled 'Armed and dangerous: more civilians own guns than military, police,' Gemma Mendoza of published some quite sensational statistics about weapons in the hands of civilians.

She cites cases of Gerardo Ortega, Venson Evangelista and Emerson Lozano, all who were victims of firearms-related crime. The article then goes on to quote figures about gun ownership, weapon types, and approved licenses. It was all obviously calculated to cause outrage and lead readers to the conclusion that legal firearms owners are the danger to Philippine society.

Anti-gun groups are losing ground in the US

Our PNP claims that in the Philippine public are clamoring for increased gun control. It seems that the complete opposite is happening in the US: the tide of sympathy is turning in favor of gun ownership as more Americans realize that they do not need to become victims of crime.

Here are two stories, one of a father who fought off three armed robbers, and one of an 80-year-old man who used an illegal firearm to protect his family. As you can see, support is clearly on the gun owners' side.

Let's skip the pretense that limiting gun ownership rights will do anything to protect people from crime. We should learn from experience in other countries. The case studies and numbers all point in the same direction—that citizens must play an active part in reducing crime, and sometimes that means bearing arms.

Gun ban: A kneejerk Reaction to Crime

In light of the so-called "road rage incidents" by Jason Ivler and Richard Ordonez, and the Ampatuan Massacre in Maguindanao, there have been the usual calls by the police and anti-gun groups to impose further restrictions on civilian firearms ownership and to impose gun bans as a means of curbing such violence. PROGUN being an anti-crime organization has always condemned such criminal acts. But is a gun ban the solution to such problems? Will the suspension of licensed civilians who have permits-to-carry outside of residence ("PTCFOR") solve these problems of crime on our streets?

Syndicate content