Prohibition

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /mnt/stor15-wc1-ord1/334418/472862/www.progun.ph/web/content/modules/taxonomy/taxonomy.pages.inc on line 33.

Why would anyone need guns in a modern society?

Britain, the gold standard for gun control

Once again, gun control debates are raging in the United States and now, in the Philippines. Every time there is talk about restricting firearms, anti-gun advocates love wheeling out Great Britain as some sort of gold standard. The old narrative should be familiar:

The United States, with 90 guns for every 100 citizens, is the most heavily armed society in the world. As a result of Americans' stubborn love of their right to bear arms, its cities have become mired in violence, gang shootings and school massacres. Britain, on the other hand, known as having among the strictest gun laws in the world, is a far safer society. Gun crime in the UK is minuscule compared to America and its crime rate is much lower.

Reinforcing this view are the recent spate of mass shootings in the US, together with the announcement that homicide in Britain is at a 30-year low.

Anti-gun politicians are the same the world over

Once again, an anti-gun politician shows his hypocrisy.

Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago and long-time anti-gun advocate, has reportedly requested for at least three police bodyguards to provide him with around-the-clock protection after he leaves office. So while pushing for measures to disarm his fellow citizens, he wants special privileges to keep his own family safe. The very same tax payers whom Mayor Daley wants to deny the means of self-protection will soon be paying to protect him.

In the Philippines, a number of our own politicians are known to favor gun control yet surround themselves with armed bodyguards.

Why the double standards? Perhaps they believe that their lives are worth more than ours.

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 Newsbreak.ph 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.

Official response to Senate Bill No. 129

PROGUN has released an official response to Senate Bill No. 129. You can read it here. Please disseminate it as widely as possible.

Pro-ban advocates: October stats show no decrease in violent crime

The October 2010 crime figures from the PROGUN Crime Statistics Project are now available.

Chart showing increase in incidents for October 2010

As you can see, there was a slight upsurge in incidents and fatalities during the Barangay Election gun ban. The difference isn't statistically significant but it is interesting to note that there was no definite decrease in violent crime.

The Real Reason for stricter Gun Control

Fallujah posted this as a comment on the PNP Firearms Circulars thread. However, I think it is important enough to be highlighted in its own article.

Why are the PNP clamping down on the licensed gun owners and not the criminals?

UK: Gun-free zone and unarmed victim zone - 12 killed in mass shooting

The UK was rocked by a rare multiple shooting incident on Wednesday. At least 12 people were killed and 25 injured when taxi driver Derrick Bird opened fire in a shooting rampage in Boot, West Cumbria. For around six hours, Police were unable to apprehend him as he was loose in the area. Bird was later found to have committed suicide in a nearby forest.

A perspective from Cambodia and Vietnam

Karlon Rama, who writes for Sun Star was recently in Vietnam and Cambodia. From there he gives us a perspective of other Southeast Asian countries that have enforced a gun ban. Can we expect the Philippines to be much different?

"Unarmed. Cambodia, which I had just left days ago, and Vietnam, where I am currently, are two Southeast Asian countries where private firearm ownership is restricted.

Only policemen and soldiers have guns. It is a badge of power.

They carry it proudly as they enter bars and help themselves to a bottle of Anchor, Heineken or Halida.

The ordinary resident can do nothing.

Not surprisingly, stories of human rights abuses here are commonplace. This is the utopia people like Jesus Versoza want to bring about.

And yet, on a more mundane level, there is also the existence of crime--the absence of private firearm ownership notwithstanding.

Syndicate content