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?
PROGUN believes that legitimate licensed gun owners have nothing to do with the commission of such crimes. In fact, the statistics of the PNP indicate that of all crimes committed with the use of firearms 98% are committed with unlicensed firearms, and less than 2% are committed using licensed firearms. Thus, if such crimes were committed with the use of unlicensed firearms, by criminals, then the police should go after and arrest the criminals, not the licensed firearms holders. Stated otherwise, since the problem of crime involves unlicensed or loose firearms, these should be the object of the police actions.
While we sympathize with the victims of these henious crimes, PROGUN believes that the solution to such crimes is not a gun ban of licensed firearms nor a suspension of the PTCFOR’s of civilians but rather the full might of law enforcement must be directed towards apprehending and putting in jail, the criminals. To blame the gun (which is an inanimate, unthinking object) for unlawful shootings is akin to blaming cars for the acts of drunk drivers. It is the person who commits the crime, hence the person should suffer for the consequences of his act.
It is our weak law enforcement and justice system which is responsible for letting criminals roam the streets. The problem is crime and drugs, not guns. Get tougher on crime, but allow legitimate gun owners the right to protect themselves and their families.
The problem with knee-jerk reactions is that they are fuelled by emotion and not reason. When faced with anyone who proposes gun bans as a means of reducing crime and violence, I think it’s best to get down to basics. Ask them why they think that a violent criminal, who already flouts the law, would suddenly decide to obey a gun ban.
Once you start analysing their assertions logically, it becomes very difficult for them to come up with any rational arguments.
Firearms advocates are usually put on the defensive position. Whenever there is a sensational headline about gun crime, are made to justify our position. Maybe it’s time we turn the tables and ask the anti-gun groups to prove how their measures will reduce crime and violence.
It would seem that once a sensational crime is committed, and there is a public outcry for the police to do something, the police resort to the kneejerk reaction of suspending all permits-to-carry (PTCFORs) of licensed gun owners. The philosophy behind this move seems to be that if the police cannot immediately apprehend the perpetrator and bring him to justice, they lose face. Consequently, a suspension of licenses and PTCFORs would, with the stroke of a pen, give the justice-hungry public IMMEDIATE and TANGIBLE results. However, the logic behind such a move is absurd since the concentration of efforts by law enforcement should be to catch the criminal and not oppress the licensed gun owners. Again, by punishing legitimate and licensed gun owners, the police are barking up the wrong tree. The police should go after the criminals, not the honest law abiding gun owners.
Suspending PTCFORs and increasing the cost of firearms license and PTCs do not affect the criminals it only affects those who follow the law. Meaning we are the ones affected by these and we are not doing anything illegal. Criminals do not bother to procure Permits to own or carry. I spent a lot of my hard earned money on these licenses and they are going to suspend them because somewhere in the Philippines many people were massacred with the use of guns and Jason Ivler shot someone? What if the people in the Maguindanao Massacre and Ivler’s victim were stabbed to death? Do we ban knives then?
hi iam Mr. britte T. See from ozamiz city in mindanao. i hope this comment could reach tomorrows gun summit.. in our province our ratio of PNP-community is 1-3000. yes 1pnp-3,000 civilians
i am a biznesman and could afford to apply PTC but not a personal bodyguard..i have heard PNP would require us PTC applicant to get a death threat report.. every person that goes out of his house or even in his house has a potential treat to be rob and killed. eh.. even students are rob and killed much more i biznesman have little more earnings than those students
and talking about roadrage and ampatuan massacre.. even before guns were invented people are already killing people.. its not the GUN. its who use it.. bakit di nila e ban ang KUTSILYO marami naman ang nasaksak sa kutsilyu.
my father dont like guns but he respects me to own one as long as its legal
i humbly appeal/request or beg to c-pnp to reconsider on its proposal to extend the gun ban.
Thank you for your comments. Yes your message will be included in our statements tomorrow at the Gun Summit, along with all our other arguments which we are preparing right now for our position paper.
Bonne Chance! Fallujah!
attorney,
in behalf airsoft team L.O.S.T.best of luck sir.
we hope the sports of airsoft will be also considered on the summit.
Godspeed brother Fallujah!
sir falluja,
pls include that its not the gun ban that lower the crime rate its the police check point and police visibility.
they should continue the check point its effective but not the gun ban..
thank you and more power
Done! I think that this is the consensus among gun owners.