Monsters with Guns [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Monsters with Guns


brawnless
05-19-2008, 18:03
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/editorial/view/20080520-137614/Monsters-with-guns

Editorial
Monsters with guns

Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 03:09:00 05/20/2008

MANILA, Philippines—The robbery-massacre at the Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. branch in Cabuyao, Laguna last Friday has once again prompted Nandy Pacheco, proponent of the Gunless Society, to call for stricter gun control.

Pacheco urged President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to ask Congress to increase the penalty for illegal possession of firearms to reclusion temporal (from 12 to 20 years imprisonment), without possibility of pardon or parole, and to order a total gun ban in public places except for uniformed police officers who are on duty.

The killing of 10 people (the initial death toll of nine increased to 10 when one wounded victim died two days later in the hospital) is truly a heinous crime committed by men who are less than human. If it was only the money that they were after, they could have gotten it without having to kill so many people. If the robbers feared identification, they could have worn bonnets or masks. Or they could have ordered everyone to lie face down, tied them up, blindfolded them and gone about their business of robbing the bank. But no, these were monsters—ruthless, remorseless killers. The police should exert extra effort to arrest them before they kill other people.

The robbers were able to kill the victims because they had easy access to guns. Anyone who has the money can buy guns—even from soldiers and policemen who are supposed to protect the people from criminals and other lawless elements.

Something has to be done to close down this “official” source of guns used in crimes.

The first step in dealing with the problem would be, as suggested by Pacheco, to enforce a total gun ban on everybody in public places except for uniformed police officers who are on duty. This can be done, as our experience in the 2004 and 2007 elections has shown. In the 2004 and 2007 elections, the election gun ban helped restrict the movement of criminals and resulted in the arrest of hundreds of people illegally carrying firearms.

The police will have to conduct an extensive campaign to collect illegal firearms during the enforcement of the gun ban. All persons carrying firearms outside their houses and who cannot show valid mission orders or permits to carry would have to be challenged and forced to surrender their guns. The government was able to rid the country of loose firearms during the Marcos dictatorship. There is no reason why, with the exercise of political will, it cannot do the same now.

The worldwide trend has been to strengthen domestic controls on guns. The United Kingdom, for one, has long had strict controls on firearms. Most of its policemen (“bobbies”) usually do not carry guns and do so only to deal with sieges, armed robberies, terrorist attacks or to protect diplomats. The gunless police are backed up when needed by units intensively trained not only in marksmanship but in discriminating among dangerous criminals, deranged people and lads out on a lark with air pistols.

After the March 1996 killings of 16 primary school children and their teacher by a gun club member in Dunblane, Scotland, a law was passed banning 95 percent of handguns and requiring that the remainder (.22 cal. pistols) be stored at gun clubs.

New Zealand amended its gun laws in 1992 following the shooting of 13 people in Aramoana by a young man who was licensed to carry a gun under the regulations existing at that time.

In Australia, the National Committee on Violence recommended the national registration of all firearms in 1990 and in May 1995 the former federal justice minister advocated a national system of gun registration as part of crime prevention strategy.

Japan has a level of community safety that is unmatched by most of the world and this is reinforced by strong cultural norms. In 1993, some 93 percent of guns seized in Japan were from organized crime. This decreased to 74 percent in 1995.

Like most of these countries, the Philippines could pass stricter gun control laws and enforce them without exception. Right now, the Philippines cannot adopt the general British practice of having unarmed policemen. The presence of armed policemen on foot patrol or going around the community in patrol cars could greatly help bring down the crime rate.

In the meantime, a nationwide campaign has to be waged to smash armed gangs that have lately been committing robbery-killings, car thefts and kidnappings. Put pressure on the crime syndicates and deprive them of sources of guns and the opportunity to prey on people and very soon they will be out of business.

3kings
05-19-2008, 18:19
here he goes again.
if it was implemented, ang saya ng mga criminal sa kalsada fiesta sila araw araw

deenoh
05-19-2008, 18:59
IIRC, in Switzerland, all males are issued assault rifles for militia service and are required to keep them at home, and they still have lower crime rates there.

lawman_77008
05-19-2008, 19:11
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/editorial/view/20080520-137614/Monsters-with-guns


MANILA, Philippines—The robbery-massacre at the Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. branch in Cabuyao, Laguna last Friday has once again prompted Nandy Pacheco, proponent of the Gunless Society, to call for stricter gun control.

Pacheco urged President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to ask Congress to increase the penalty for illegal possession of firearms to reclusion temporal (from 12 to 20 years imprisonment), without possibility of pardon or parole, and to order a total gun ban in public places except for uniformed police officers who are on duty.

The robbers were able to kill the victims because they had easy access to guns. Anyone who has the money can buy guns—even from soldiers and policemen who are supposed to protect the people from criminals and other lawless elements.

The police will have to conduct an extensive campaign to collect illegal firearms during the enforcement of the gun ban. All persons carrying firearms outside their houses and who cannot show valid mission orders or permits to carry would have to be challenged and forced to surrender their guns. The government was able to rid the country of loose firearms during the Marcos dictatorship. There is no reason why, with the exercise of political will, it cannot do the same now.

Like most of these countries, the Philippines could pass stricter gun control laws and enforce them without exception. Right now, the Philippines cannot adopt the general British practice of having unarmed policemen.

Put pressure on the crime syndicates and deprive them of sources of guns and the opportunity to prey on people and very soon they will be out of business.

I think the main points the article makes are that anyone with enough money, or willing to steal it, will always have access to firearms. The second point seems to be that the anti-gun nut seems to miss the Marcos dictatorship and wants to go back to the good old days. The third point is that the Philippines is such a dangerous place that even an anti-gun nut wants the police to have guns (for now). And the last point, if you put enough pressure on the crime syndicates, you can drive them out of business, so why mess with the common citizen?

Clusterbomb
05-19-2008, 20:22
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/editorial/view/20080520-137614/Monsters-with-guns

The government was able to rid the country of loose firearms during the Marcos dictatorship.


Well of course Marcos had to do that- he had just declared martial law!

And if I remember it right, many licensed firearms were confiscated simply because they were of the larger calibers or the owners were simply scared of this novel phenomenon called martial law.

To institute an oppressive regime, one of the first things to do is to disarm the populace. And to make sure it sticks, the punishment for illegal possession has to be increased.

Thus the punishment was made heavy not because it was proportionate to the gravity of the offense but because the law had to be used as an instrument of repression.

So if Nandy Pacheco would have his way, ang swerte naman ng Presidente na aabutan nun! Same effect but without even having to declare martial law. A very fertile ground for further repression will be set.

stussy
05-19-2008, 21:09
I'm swiss. and hear stories for days from my grandfather. Good stuff

Wp.22
05-20-2008, 01:20
sadly mr. pacheco cannot win a debate over coffee with regards to his advocacy of gunless society with my uncle who is his brother in-law. Magaling lang yan sa interview and press release.

edtf
05-20-2008, 04:21
Come on guys don't pop a vein about this. We all know that the highest crime rate/murder rates are from places that ban firearms - name places - Washington DC and New York to name a few. We all know this but this nut of a person thinks that there are no bad people out there and that no one wants to do us any harm - ARGH :steamed:
Breath in breath out - hmmm..... I might just pop a vein alright :(

Evan N. Payawal
05-20-2008, 04:36
If some employees in that bank were legally armed, do you think it would still have turned out that way?

Who in his right mind would expect two security guards armed with revolvers older than most of us, loaded with few pieces of even older ammo, to be able to prevent something like that?

Does anybody even listen to Pacheco?

brawnless
05-20-2008, 05:57
His statements do get published A LOT. I've seen more from him than from pro gun groups / people.

:upeyes:

horge
05-20-2008, 06:22
What pro gun groups would you be talking about? :)
No such animal in the Philippines.

Eye Cutter
05-20-2008, 07:06
maybe the BoGs can issue a press release? watyasay boss horge?

MERCMADE
05-20-2008, 08:18
maybe the BoGs can issue a press release? watyasay boss horge?

+1 .....

9MX
05-20-2008, 08:22
i suggest the govt try enforcing gun ban sa mindanao, iba daw kasi culture dun sabi ni ex pnp chief calderon.

why don't they emphasize the stats of licensed guns used on crimes vs. unlicensed ones. licensed fa owners, think twice or thrice form using their registered FAs to commit crime for obvious reasons. Unless their name starts with Ryan:steamed:

TTPower
05-20-2008, 08:22
i know this is wrong but for a while i was wishing pacheco was one of the people in the bank when it happend! (may their souls rest in peace).

lets just see if he sill wouldn't want a gun in his hand!

wtf jack
05-20-2008, 09:15
I find it amusing that some people would argue that if the western cultures (read white people) are doing it, then it must be good. Gun control advocates would list countries and cities that enforced stricter gun control and then conviniently forget to include the cost and the effect of the bans. For example, the gun registration drive in Canada had already cost them 2 billion dollars (yup, billions) with no end in sight, and no discernible benefit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

The National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank, reported the following statistics:[99]

New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures, and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977.
In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.
In addition:

Over 50% of American households own guns, despite government statistics showing the number is approximately 35%, because guns not listed on any government roll were not counted during the gathering of data.[100]
Evanston, Illinois, a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982 but experienced no decline in violent crime.
Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.[101]
Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population—New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C.—and each has (or, in the case of Detroit, had until 2001) a virtual prohibition on private handguns.
UK banned private ownership of most handguns in 1997, previously held by an estimated 57,000 people—0.1% of the population.[102] Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled.[103] In 2005-06, of 5,001 such injuries, 3,474 (69%) were defined as "slight," and a further 965 (19%) involved the "firearm" being used as a blunt instrument. Twenty-four percent of injuries were caused with air weapons, and 32% with "imitation firearms" (including BB guns and soft air weapons).[104] Since 1998, the number of fatal shootings has varied between 49 and 97, and was 50 in 2005.
Australia forced the surrender of nearly 650,000 personal firearms in 1997. A study published in 2001[105] shows a 47% decrease of firearms related deaths, but also reveals an overall rise in non-firearm related violent crime[not in citation given].
Violent crime accelerated in Jamaica after handguns were banned.[106]
The FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report ranking of cities over 40,000 in population by violent crime rates (per 100,000 population) finds that the ten cities with the highest violent crime rates for 2003 include three cities in the very strict state of New Jersey, one in the fairly restrictive state of Massachusetts, whereas the rest have recently adopted laws that allow for the carrying of a handgun with a permit.

scubagun
05-20-2008, 09:21
i suggest the govt try enforcing gun ban sa mindanao, iba daw kasi culture dun sabi ni ex pnp chief calderon.

why don't they emphasize the stats of licensed guns used on crimes vs. unlicensed ones. licensed fa owners, think twice or thrice form using their registered FAs to commit crime for obvious reasons. Unless their name starts with Ryan:steamed:



gun ban sa mindanao? huwag naman sir, paano naman kaming mga legal gun owners dito?

ans3288
05-20-2008, 15:46
i DONT THINK they have the stats committed between licensed and unlicensed firearms! and most of the time when ur thinking of committing a crime, i agree that you dont use a legally registered FA of yours, obviously :rofl:

i suggest the govt try enforcing gun ban sa mindanao, iba daw kasi culture dun sabi ni ex pnp chief calderon.

why don't they emphasize the stats of licensed guns used on crimes vs. unlicensed ones. licensed fa owners, think twice or thrice form using their registered FAs to commit crime for obvious reasons. Unless their name starts with Ryan:steamed:

pipo
05-20-2008, 16:10
"an armed society is a polite society" ....

3kings
05-20-2008, 17:13
a true blooded pinoy cant let go of his trusty old .45. its like telling lapu lapu letting go of his sword.

or maybe he is not pinoy. perhaps pinay ;-)

saki1611
05-20-2008, 19:30
maybe the BoGs can issue a press release? watyasay boss horge?

I think this is a good idea, and let's hand in hand with the pinoyguns, for the same advocacy. We need funds in doing this, so let's pass the hat. Let us put all our names and signatures in our press release in newspapers.

Clusterbomb
05-20-2008, 19:32
What nobody will ever figure out is how many instances where a legitimate gun owner had effectively used his gun(s) to thwart, foil or fight a crime that would have harmed their person, property or loved ones.

And part of the reason for the lack of stats is unfortunately the lack of trust or confidence with the police.

For example, if I was able to use my gun to scare off robbers without firing a shot, hindi ko na ire-report yun sa pulis. What for? Wala na naman silang magagawa pa. And besides, baka makursunadahan pa yung baril ko, i-confiscate pa.

horge
05-20-2008, 20:07
maybe the BoGs can issue a press release? watyasay boss horge?

:)
Hey, sure, Boss Alvin...
Some have the gift of expression, others also have the gift of comprehension
A few even have the gift of perseverance.
If someone wants to take this up... they have my full support.
I'm presently trying to nudge firearm owners towards more
political and legal awareness; and projecting a more responsible image.


[rant mode]
Too many firearm owners, BoGs included, have unwittingly
voted a number of Congresscreatures into office: the sort of politicians
who honestly believe that a gunless society is viable, especially when
they themselves get to stay heavily armed.
Worse, I suspect too many BoGs didn't even bother voting.

When an organization like "PROGUN" does not even maintain a list
of firearm-friendly candidates that we can vote for,
politicians won't bother thinking of firearm enthusiasts as
a political force to be respected and accomodated.

It doesn't cost much to maintain a list of candidates.
Put it up on the web for free, and promote the heck out of it.
If the politician profiles are VERY intelligently written up, simple
and attractively presented, it can draw visitors.

Drape the issue of firearm rights in the colors of our flag. Show that truly,
disarmament is the common thread through 500 years of our oppression.
Even if only firearm owners ever read the stuff, at the very least
you will give firearm owners something in common to consider;
something far beyond their individual, personal concerns.

We can think of owning firearms the way government wants us to.
as personal privileges; as individual perks; as case-to-case exemptions...
one's private concern; a matter between government and single citizens
Or, we can look at them, NOT from the standpoint of individuals,
but from the standpoint of a Filipino people.

If government is screwing over my less-wealthy, less-connected fellow Filipino,
then government might as well be doing it to ME.

Are we Filipinos united and free, as our forefathers gave up their lives to preserve us?
Are we lowly subjects of an Imperial Malacañang?
Are some of us an apatheticaly comfortable elite who, when the whole country
is subjected to arrogantly-dictated laws, think first to escape individually,
rather than stand and fight together?
[/rant mode]

h.

BrassKnuckle
05-20-2008, 20:48
In the 2004 and 2007 elections, the election gun ban helped restrict the movement of criminals and resulted in the arrest of hundreds of people illegally carrying firearms.


Has Mr. Pacheco forgotten the number of people gunned down by goons during the camapaign periods of those years? :dunno:

A gun ban doesn't work!

mikey177
05-20-2008, 21:40
I believe a number of BoGs have made individual small steps towards promoting responsible and patriotic gun ownership. However, as Horge has pointed out, lone voices crying out in the wilderness won't cut it anymore.

I also used to think of gun ownership as a privilege granted by our government, until I read more about the history of the Filipino people, about other nations, and about the clear relationship between disarmament and tyranny. Now I have seen the light. Guns aren't just personal defense weapons, they are necessities that safeguard our national freedom.

The question now is, where do we go from here? If there is no "legitimate" pro-RKBA group in the country at present, how can we form one? Moreover, how can we get gun owners and people who share our sentiments to unite behind the common objective of promoting the right to keep and bear arms in order to ensure our freedom as a people and our security against criminality and oppression?

horge
05-20-2008, 22:25
Hi, Mike,

The question now is, where do we go from here? If there is no "legitimate" pro-RKBA group in the country at present, how can we form one? Moreover, how can we get gun owners and people who share our sentiments to unite behind the common objective of promoting the right to keep and bear arms in order to ensure our freedom as a people and our security against criminality and oppression?



The US experience should be instructive.
We can't rely on a Constitutionally-guaranteed RKBA to protect us,
so obtaining one via constitutional rewrite/amendment may be misleading.
You can see how the law is flouted regularly in this country.
Where the law takes a backseat to political favor and fashion...

The only way to improve and preserve our choice to arm ourselves
is to ensure that those in administrative government, and to a
slightly lesser extent the legislature, and even the judiciary
are always the sort of persons who respect our choice to arm ourselves.

That is why a list of good political candidates is important.
bBecause bad candidates will still get elected, firearm owners need to
present themselves as a voting sector worth not displeasing.

First real step is to better define what firearm owners want.
This should be easy, given the presently confusing way
that government chooses to 'interpret' existing firearm law:
We thus are freer to state our honest answer to the question:
What are our rights/expectations with respect to firearms?

FWIW, here's what I believe, basically:

I believe no government has a right to confiscate or outlaw our firearms,
just as it has no right to confiscate any other form of property already
safely in our possession.

I believe any Filipino adult demonstrating safe capability and capable safety
with a firearm type should have full, unrestricted ability to purchase and own
said type of firearm.

I believe it is the firearm owner who should be licensed, with only
one license per person, per firearm type, renewed regularly.
Licensing, like all public services,* must be geared only towards the public good,
and not towards maximizing any agency's revenue.
If an agency needs more funds, that's what our existing taxes and the National Budget are supposed to pay for.

I believe harsh penalties must be imposed upon anyone abusing their
possession of firearms, most particularly if leading to the discomfort, injury
or death of others.


h.

*Licensing protects the general public from unfit firearm owners.

edtf
05-20-2008, 22:57
Hi, Mike,




The US experience should be instructive.
We can't rely on a Constitutionally-guaranteed RKBA to protect us,
so obtaining one via constitutional rewrite/amendment may be misleading.
You can see how the law is flouted regularly in this country.
Where the law takes a backseat to political favor and fashion...

The only way to improve and preserve our choice to arm ourselves
is to ensure that those in administrative government, and to a
slightly lesser extent the legislature, and even the judiciary
are always the sort of persons who respect our choice to arm ourselves.

That is why a list of good political candidates is important.
bBecause bad candidates will still get elected, firearm owners need to
present themselves as a voting sector worth not displeasing.

First real step is to better define what firearm owners want.
This should be easy, given the presently confusing way
that government chooses to 'interpret' existing firearm law:
We thus are freer to state our honest answer to the question:
What are our rights/expectations with respect to firearms?

FWIW, here's what I believe, basically:

I believe no government has a right to confiscate or outlaw our firearms,
just as it has no right to confiscate any other form of property already
safely in our possession.

I believe any Filipino adult demonstrating safe capability and capable safety
with a firearm type should have full, unrestricted ability to purchase and own
said type of firearm.

I believe it is the firearm owner who should be licensed, with only
one license per person, per firearm type, renewed regularly.
Licensing, like all public services,* must be geared only towards the public good,
and not towards maximizing any agency's revenue.
If an agency needs more funds, that's what our existing taxes and the National Budget are supposed to pay for.

I believe harsh penalties must be imposed upon anyone abusing their
possession of firearms, most particularly if leading to the discomfort, injury
or death of others.


h.

*Licensing protects the general public from unfit firearm owners.

Sir Horge. I agree 100% especially with licensing - it should truly be person specific and not firearm and person specific. Not only should we have harsh penalties but we should also have convictions - I see so many motorcycle riding people with their guns sticking out - most if not all weren't even wearing any uniform.

mikey177
05-21-2008, 06:40
I agree on all the points you mentioned, horge.

Here's a relevant quote I found on http://www.rkba.ca/

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
-- Jeff Snyder, Oct 20, 1994

brawnless
05-21-2008, 06:57
horge,

any possiblility of having a list of politicos, groups, etc. as a sticky? name plus a links / references on why that particular individual / group is for or against firearms.

... and add a link to BOGs number thread. ilan na ba tayo? :supergrin:

brawnless

horge
05-21-2008, 16:51
:)

List? Start one, b :)

As for BoG Nos... I must confess I stopped counting mid 2007,
and then the webpage storing the data went Tango Uniform on me.
I'm sure I have a backup CD somewhere, hehe...

deadday
05-21-2008, 18:24
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/editorial/view/20080520-137614/Monsters-with-guns

Editorial
Monsters with guns

Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 03:09:00 05/20/2008

MANILA, Philippines—The robbery-massacre at the Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. branch in Cabuyao, Laguna last Friday has once again prompted Nandy Pacheco, proponent of the Gunless Society, to call for stricter gun control.

Pacheco urged President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to ask Congress to increase the penalty for illegal possession of firearms to reclusion temporal (from 12 to 20 years imprisonment), without possibility of pardon or parole, and to order a total gun ban in public places except for uniformed police officers who are on duty.

The killing of 10 people (the initial death toll of nine increased to 10 when one wounded victim died two days later in the hospital) is truly a heinous crime committed by men who are less than human. If it was only the money that they were after, they could have gotten it without having to kill so many people. If the robbers feared identification, they could have worn bonnets or masks. Or they could have ordered everyone to lie face down, tied them up, blindfolded them and gone about their business of robbing the bank. But no, these were monsters—ruthless, remorseless killers. The police should exert extra effort to arrest them before they kill other people.

The robbers were able to kill the victims because they had easy access to guns. Anyone who has the money can buy guns—even from soldiers and policemen who are supposed to protect the people from criminals and other lawless elements.

Something has to be done to close down this “official” source of guns used in crimes.

The first step in dealing with the problem would be, as suggested by Pacheco, to enforce a total gun ban on everybody in public places except for uniformed police officers who are on duty. This can be done, as our experience in the 2004 and 2007 elections has shown. In the 2004 and 2007 elections, the election gun ban helped restrict the movement of criminals and resulted in the arrest of hundreds of people illegally carrying firearms.

The police will have to conduct an extensive campaign to collect illegal firearms during the enforcement of the gun ban. All persons carrying firearms outside their houses and who cannot show valid mission orders or permits to carry would have to be challenged and forced to surrender their guns. The government was able to rid the country of loose firearms during the Marcos dictatorship. There is no reason why, with the exercise of political will, it cannot do the same now.

The worldwide trend has been to strengthen domestic controls on guns. The United Kingdom, for one, has long had strict controls on firearms. Most of its policemen (“bobbies”) usually do not carry guns and do so only to deal with sieges, armed robberies, terrorist attacks or to protect diplomats. The gunless police are backed up when needed by units intensively trained not only in marksmanship but in discriminating among dangerous criminals, deranged people and lads out on a lark with air pistols.

After the March 1996 killings of 16 primary school children and their teacher by a gun club member in Dunblane, Scotland, a law was passed banning 95 percent of handguns and requiring that the remainder (.22 cal. pistols) be stored at gun clubs.

New Zealand amended its gun laws in 1992 following the shooting of 13 people in Aramoana by a young man who was licensed to carry a gun under the regulations existing at that time.

In Australia, the National Committee on Violence recommended the national registration of all firearms in 1990 and in May 1995 the former federal justice minister advocated a national system of gun registration as part of crime prevention strategy.

Japan has a level of community safety that is unmatched by most of the world and this is reinforced by strong cultural norms. In 1993, some 93 percent of guns seized in Japan were from organized crime. This decreased to 74 percent in 1995.

Like most of these countries, the Philippines could pass stricter gun control laws and enforce them without exception. Right now, the Philippines cannot adopt the general British practice of having unarmed policemen. The presence of armed policemen on foot patrol or going around the community in patrol cars could greatly help bring down the crime rate.

In the meantime, a nationwide campaign has to be waged to smash armed gangs that have lately been committing robbery-killings, car thefts and kidnappings. Put pressure on the crime syndicates and deprive them of sources of guns and the opportunity to prey on people and very soon they will be out of business.



Seems like this type of thinking is not only a plague of the United States anymore....We all saw what happened to the UK, and this seems to be shaping into a worldwide fight against the illogical...Best of luck to you guys..





drew

horge
05-22-2008, 04:09
Best of luck to you guys..
drew

Thanks. We're going to need it.

Poodle
05-24-2008, 06:09
Is there a possibility of a renewed interest in the Joson Bill? Total gun ban even for cops - non-lethal weapons na lang daw. Matutuwa ang mga kriminal. It seems that for the moment, this is not feasible here in the Philippines.

Manila Standard Today (March 6, 2008)
Joson stumped by gun ban question
By Romie A. Evangelista

GUN proponents, firearms dealers, and gun-less society advocates on Tuesday argued extensively at the House of Representatives over a bill seeking a total gun ban and promoting the use of non-lethal weapons in the area of law enforcement.

Gun enthusiasts and officials of the Association of Firearms Dealers argued that a total gun ban is more dangerous as civilians, particularly those whose lives are in imminent danger from criminals, would become defenseless.

The bill’s author, Nueva Ecija Rep. Nonato Joson, failed to respond to a query by one of the gun enthusiasts from the “Pro-Gun” group who had asked if all lawmakers are also willing to disarm their family members, children and other relatives.

At the hearing of the committee on public order and safety, Gina Angcangco from the firearms dealer Armscor, showed the lawmakers present that even in the United States, many qualified civilians are allowed by their government to own and possess guns for their home and family’s protection.

Joson said there is an urgent need to re-visit the campaign for a gun-less society as “many lives have been lost, in the realm of politics, business, ideology,religion because of the lack of a truly effective system for the control and use of guns and firearms,” he said.

In his bill, Joson said the use of non-lethal weapons by the country’s various law enforcement agencies would mean lesser abuses and unnecessary killing of civilians and crime suspects by law enforcers.

Non-lethal weapons refer to devices, paraphernalia, equipment, gadgets or similar devices which are non-life threatening per se and which are used to disable, paralyze or to shock a person to submission or to yield to law enforcement authorities.

The AFAD officials were concerned that if Joson’s bill is enacted into law, their respective businesses would be adversely affected as the measure calls for a stop in the “sale of deadly weapons to the general public” during its first year of implementation.

GMA News (April 30, 2008)
Home > Nation > Top Stories House committee rejects gun ban proposal
04/30/2008 | 05:19 AM

Email this | Email the Editor | Print | Digg this | Add to del.icio.us MANILA, Philippines - As far as the House of Representatives is concerned, there will be no gun ban law.

This after the committee on public order and safety rejected a bill which seeks to impose a nationwide gun ban, except for policemen, the military, and members of certain law enforcement agencies.

Nueva Ecija Rep. Edno Joson, principal author of House Bill (HB) 2206, said the committee decided to instead consolidate all bills seeking to regulate the possession and carrying firearms.

This decision practically rejected the Joson bill, which provides for a total gin ban to include law enforcers.

Pro- and anti-gun ban advocates attended Tuesday’s committee hearing on four different gun control bills that included the regulation of the sale, disposition, and carrying of firearms, and the rationalization of fees and charges on firearms, ammunition, spare parts and components of explosives.

Mr. Joson, who represents a province having one of the highest incidence of political violence, himself admitted that enforcement of a total gun policy may be difficult for law enforcement agencies.

"But the bills to be consolidated contain stringent measures that will make it practically illegal for anybody to carry firearms," he added.

Committee chairman and Nueva Ecija Rep. Rodolfo Antonino (4th district) noted that HB 2206 contained "unrealistic" provisions.

"It’s enough that we observe strict measures in allowing anybody to own or carry firearms. The qualifications for possession and licensing should be limited," said Mr. Antonino.

Gunless Society President Nandy Pacheco said they are not against gun ownership so long as they keep their weapons at home.

Mr. Pacheco said many firearm owners argue that they can only accede to the appeal of his group if "there are no more criminals."

Selfish

He said the argument espoused by pro-gun advocates is "selfish and anti-communitarian because it does not promote common good."

"How then can the millions of unarmed, peaceful citizens of this country be protected against guns whether they are licensed or unlicensed?"

On the other hand, the Peaceful Responsible Owners of Guns (Progun) said authors of the gun ban should note three facts on the peace and order situation.

First, the government cannot guarantee the safety of each individual citizen; second, citizens are deprived of the right to protect themselves and third, criminals take advantage of the above two conditions, said group director Orly Marquez.

"If you want to stop crime, you do not crack down on the law-abiding citizenry. You crack down on the criminals," he added.

Bills seeking to regulate the possession and carrying of firearms were filed by Reps. Mark Llandro Mendoza (Batangas), Emilio Abaya (Cavite ), and PL-ARC party-list Rep. Narciso D. Santiago III.

Quezon Rep. Danilo Suarez filed HB 593 that seeks higher fees and charges for firearms, ammunition, explosives, explosive ingredients and pyrotechnics.- BusinessWorld

anticentipede
05-24-2008, 20:35
The right to bear arms is a God-given right, and no one has the right take that away, not even the govt, especially not the gov't because it is the God-given duty of the govt to protect the God-given rights of citizens, and other people within its jurisdiction.

Mr.Pacheco should read his Bible.

He probably thinks he is more Catholic than the Pope.

The Vatican certainly doesn't advocate this gunless society nonsense.


Fees and charges are high enough as it is, there is no need to increase them even more. These hoodlums in barong simply want to fleece the gunowners of their hard earned money.


What we need is a constitutional amendment to guarantee and protect our God-given right to bear arms.


Ban immorality, not weapons.

When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that this statement is true.

Clusterbomb
05-25-2008, 21:30
Many gun owners suspect that Mr. Pacheco's advocacy will not stop there. If his campaign pushes through and there is no big opposition from gun owners, the next logical (and tempting) step is to go for full disarmamentof civilians.