Musings of an anonymous gun aficionado

MANILA, Philippines - I just don’t get it.

There’s an upcoming Gun Summit, but it might as well be a funeral because the intended objective is expected to be a total and permanent gun ban in the Philippines.  

Ironically, in the US, where law enforcement is more advanced, 48 states have passed laws allowing their law-abiding citizens to carry guns concealed on the streets, for self-protection. In this country, our licensed firearms owners will be stripped of that privilege, which many need to protect home and family.

It must certainly be because of the high incidence of crimes committed by our licensed firearms owners?  Nope. Sorry. Less than 1% of licensed guns are actually involved in crime incidents. In fact, most of the violent incidents with guns utilize loose firearms. But, who uses loose firearms anyway? The NPA, the MILF, the Abu Sayaff, criminal syndicates, drug lords, a sprinkling of political warlords to name a few.

Will the planned total and permanent gun ban reduce, eliminate and eradicate the unlicensed guns and illegal assault rifles in the hands of these gentlemen? We can ask the NPA hierarchy, but I believe a gun ban isn’t needed to apprehend those with loose firearms. And I will bet these folk don’t respect such a ban either.

Then how come, the PNP says that the percentage of violent incidents during the last elections was much lower than the previous elections and that their election gun ban was the reason for this remarkable statistic? Let me guess…

Usually, the groups that shoot at each other during intense political contests and rivalries are the armed partisans belonging to rival camps. In short, the private armed groups as they are called. The PNP and AFP reportedly effectively put in check most of these armed groups during this election as compared to previous ones. Thus, lower violent incidents reported.

Hmmm, is the PNP telling us that the firearms in the hands of private armies are actually licensed and legal, and that the owners of these, fearing the penalties of the gun ban, decided not to use these on their rivals in the elections? If these are loose, then a gun ban on licensed guns isn’t necessary. And there were still 100 violent incidents or casualties this election, if the papers are correct.

Less than 1% of licensed guns are involved in crime. So, why the proposed ban on licensed firearms? Don’t be misled. The gun ban only affects 100% licensed gun owners and no one else. Is it because our bishops clamor for it? Of course, religious leaders would be fools not to advocate peace, love, and “melt your swords and make them into ploughshares” as the Bible says. That’s their job.

But in reality, countries still go to war, armies still do battle against each other. And the military and police still have to keep peace and order, combat armed insurgents in the countryside, and fight criminals, who roam the streets and prey on the helpless and defenseless.

In 1986 after the first People Power revolution, the number of police and military personnel still number THE SAME, as they do today, or after 24 years with a population that has not stopped growing at a ferocious pace. The ratio of police to citizens has much deteriorated, therefore the right to self-defense has become even more important.

How does the US, with more and better-equipped law enforcers per million, than this country hopes to have, react to their citizens’ concerns for personal security? Yup, after 30 years since the first state passed a concealed carry law, 48 states have now passed laws allowing their law-abiding citizens to carry their guns on the street concealed for self-protection. We on the other hand want to ban ours.

As I said, I just don’t get it.