Judges will get a gun allowance of 1200 USD. What kind of gun are they buying?

[gearhead]

Must be a testament to the sad state of affairs when our law enforcers can't even protect our own judges.

Are the law enforcers also to blame for the spate of killings?

[mikey177]

Rather than spend money providing guns, the money (and everybody's comments so far) would be better channelled into ridding society of firearms.
Have you not looked across the Pacific and looked at the mess that 'freedom to bear arms' has cause in the U.S.?
Take a leaf out of Uk's book - ban firearms completely from public use - replicas too.
Make the country safe!
Rant over.

Banning guns will not make the Philippines safe. On the contrary, it will ensure that only the government, the well-connected, and criminals have access to guns. Ordinary citizens will be at the mercy of anyone who desires to trample on their rights as they have no effective means to defend themselves.

Granted that there is a lot of gun-related crime in the US. However, as Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck discovered in his 1993 statistical analysis of crime in the United States, for every incident of gun crime, there were six incidents of civilian self-defense using a firearm. These include incidents where civilians didn't even have to shoot at their attacker --the mere display of the gun deterred the bad guy from carrying out his robbery, rape, kidnapping or assault.

As for the UK, I don't think my family would draw any consolation from the fact that my killer can be positively identified from surveillance footage of my being attacked. I'd rather that I have the means to defend myself from attack in the first place.

...RE: gunless society: Only works if the police force is adequate to the task. Aside from first world countries with a very high standard of living, such as the UK, Japan and other European societies, you don't see this implemented in many places...

Until our police forces become better equipped and better manned, there's just not enough protection for government employees like this, so a gun load allowance is perfectly acceptable.

There's something that many people do not know about Japan, and it is that they have a higher than 90% conviction rate, and this is possible because the Japanese police are even more ruthless than their Pinoy counterparts when it comes to obtaining a confession from a suspect.

Do a Google search on "japan police interrogation" and see what I'm talking about.

Personally, I will feel less safe if only the police and military in our country have access to firearms. Remember Martial Law, which kicked off with the confiscation of all licensed guns by the Philippine Constabulary, and which concluded with the unsolved disappearance of hundreds of persons who were believed to be opposed to the Marcoses.

Besides, no matter how efficient or omnipresent the police are, they cannot be everywhere. In fact, they are not even obligated to protect individual persons, but only "society in general." Hence, you cannot sue the PNP if it the cops fail to come to your aid when your wife is being raped or you are being abducted for a kidnap-for-ransom gang.

For me, guns are mere tools. They are not evil in and of themselves, no more than kitchen knives or motor vehicles are evil (yet, persons also get killed by crazed knife-wielding psychos and drunk drivers on a daily basis). It is the intent of the person using the tool that should be considered. The person, not the tool, has the ultimate responsibility for the life he either takes or saves.

[safeorigin]

i think a kevlar vest and a stun gun is enough. pero dito sa pinas, you'd be needing a private militia.

[ghosthunter]

I think for our crime problem, this is the only solution...

[Fozzie Bear]

Banning guns will not make the Philippines safe. On the contrary, it will ensure that only the government, the well-connected, and criminals have access to guns. Ordinary citizens will be at the mercy of anyone who desires to trample on their rights as they have no effective means to defend themselves....................

.........................As for the UK, I don't think my family would draw any consolation from the fact that my killer can be positively identified from surveillance footage of my being attacked. I'd rather that I have the means
to defend myself from attack in the first place.

.............................................
For me, guns are mere tools. They are not evil in and of themselves, no more than kitchen knives or motor vehicles are evil (yet, persons also get killed by crazed knife-wielding psychos and drunk drivers on a daily basis). It is the intent of the person using the tool that should be considered. The person, not the tool, has the ultimate responsibility for the life he either takes or saves.

I agree to your first point...it won't make Philippines safe but it will make it safer. The situation here is now so crazy that you can't even walk into Jolibee without being confronted with a heavily armed guard.
In UK the only place you will see a gun is in an airport (carried by highly trained special forces police).
For me, I don't know anybody who owns a gun....and I don't know anybody- who knows anybody- who owns a gun, but I know that I can walk about in any town centre with my family, into and out of banks, in the park, wherever and not worried that some maniac is going to jump out who definitely HAS got a gun.

Crime levels in UK are DROPPING, and the police put most of this down to surveillance cameras (the highest number in the world I believe). Yes there is still gun crime, but the vast majority of this is inter-gang rivalry.
The British police do not carry guns - they don't need to, and I firmly believe that if the public were asked, they would almost unanimously vote to continue with this policy.

The opposite of this is what has happened here......firstly some robbers carried maybe a knife, so if the public then all start carying knives as protection, the robbers carry bigger knives; so then the public do the same; then the robbers carry guns...etc....etc....etc!
What's the end result? Do you want us all to drive around in armoured Hummers do go and buy a dozen eggs and some babyfood?

In UK when there is a crime involving guns, it is NATIONAL HEADLINE NEWS! I doubt if it even gets a mension here in Philippines anymore, and if it does the reaction now is, 'Oh well I'll have to go out and buy a bigger gun.'

Your last point is absolutely correct though. A gun is just a tool. It's the person who pulls the trigger that makes it a lethal weapon. However it must be society's fault if it is an accepted course of action.

[ghosthunter]

Crime levels in UK are DROPPING, and the police put most of this down to surveillance cameras (the highest number in the world I believe). Yes there is still gun crime, but the vast majority of this is inter-gang rivalry.
The British police do not carry guns - they don't need to, and I firmly believe that if the public were asked, they would almost unanimously vote to continue with this policy.

Dunno about you but I am just saying what an investigative UK news service reported a couple of weeks ago.

[mikey177]

The opposite of this is what has happened here......firstly some robbers carried maybe a knife, so if the public then all start carying knives as protection, the robbers carry bigger knives; so then the public do the same; then the robbers carry guns...etc....etc....etc!

What's the end result? Do you want us all to drive around in armoured Hummers do go and buy a dozen eggs and some babyfood?

This reminds me of a bit of dialogue between Commissioner Gordon and the Batman at the end of Batman Begins. The commissioner was asking if having a high-tech caped crime-fighter on the streets wouldn't lead to escalation: the bad guys use pistols, so we use shotguns, then the bad guys acquire bigger guns, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

My take on this is that there will always be evil persons in the world. Even if a government somehow manages to legislate every weapon or potential weapon off the street (which is what the UK is attempting, first with guns, then with knives, then with hard objects like D-cell Maglites), evil men will continue to use whatever advantage they can to dominate their victims. They may roam around in packs, they may prey on weak and infirm individuals, they may obtain weapons from the black market.

So, regardless of any weapons ban, criminals, who by definition to not adhere to the rule of law, will still find a way to engage in their illegal activities.

Now, for us ordinary folks --most of us, myself included, do not have the physical strength and skill to go up unarmed, mano-a-mano against a gang of thugs. Try calling for police backup while your car or your person is being forcibly taken, and see how good their response time is.

This is why I train using guns (I shoot at the range monthly) and knives (I practice FMA), so that I will have an effective deterrent and equalizer to preserve my life and the lives of my wife and children.

For the record, I drive around in a six-year-old Korean minivan. No vehicular armor, no body armor. It has been about 10 years since I last had a permit to carry, but I have learned to compensate for this deficiency by training myself to be more aware of my surroundings and by prudently avoiding high-risk or crime-prone parts of the metropolis. Still, I'll probably apply for a PTC again when I save up enough funds for it.

I also actively work for the promotion of responsible gun ownership in the Philippines, as I believe that a vigilant, responsibly armed citizenry is a surefire way of decreasing not only violent crime but also political tyranny.

The UK is not the Philippines. If a total ban on civilian gun ownership passes in the Philippines, then I guarantee that news items such as these, where the law enforcers become the law breakers, will increase ten-fold:

Cops nab 2 Marines for alleged kidnapping
2 cops found positive for drugs
Bank manager killed

[Fozzie Bear]

.................................................. ...............................................

The UK is not the Philippines. If a total ban on civilian gun ownership passes in the Philippines, then I guarantee that news items such as these, where the law enforcers become the law breakers, will increase ten-fold:

Cops nab 2 Marines for alleged kidnapping
2 cops found positive for drugs
Bank manager killed

Excuse me for this question but are you suggesting that if the Philippines were to successfully pass this law then the police would use their legal ability to carry arms and in fact 'turn' on the civilians or did I miss something here?

May I also enquire, what are the current regulations on gun ownership? Can anybody own one? Can anybody buy one? Do you need a licence and if so what are the requirements for getting one? Are you allowed to carry it in public 'legally'?
I'm trying to get a perspective on the size and complexity of the problem here.

As a comparison, in UK you are allowed to own a hand gun, but you must have a license for it (and I admit that I do not know how you go about getting one). I also believe that you can only use it in a licenses shooting range, and I think the weapon has to be kept there. You would certainly not allowed to carry it loaded in public.
Shotguns are more widely owned, but these are almost entirely by farmers for protecting their animals from predators like foxes. When carrying it, it must be in full view, and open. You are not allowed to carry one loaded and you would never see one carried in public: only ever on the farmers land. The other owners of shotguns are for sporting use (clay pidgeon shooting or grouse shooting).

[mikey177]

Excuse me for this question but are you suggesting that if the Philippines were to successfully pass this law then the police would use their legal ability to carry arms and in fact 'turn' on the civilians or did I miss something here?...

Yes, I most certainly am.

Human rights violations and abuse of authority have happened repeatedly in the Philippines. It happened during the Martial Law years. It continues to happen at present with "rub-outs" and "salvagings" of both alleged criminals and individuals who are critical of the current regime.

Pardon me if I do not trust my government. It's difficult to trust a bureaucracy that has been exposed as corrupt and unscrupulous, and that is only clinging to power by the most fragile of threads.

May I also enquire, what are the current regulations on gun ownership? Can anybody own one? Can anybody buy one? Do you need a licence and if so what are the requirements for getting one? Are you allowed to carry it in public 'legally'?

I'm trying to get a perspective on the size and complexity of the problem here.

Any adult Filipino citizen who has not been convicted of a crime may apply for a license to possess a firearm. The firearms that Filipino civilians are allowed to possess range from handguns, shotguns and rifles below .50 caliber.

When you apply for a license, you must submit the following requirements to the Philippine National Police:

• Proof of employment or self-employment (tax records and the like)
• Police clearance
• Court clearance
• Certificate of attendance in a gun safety seminar
• Neuropsychiatric examination
• Drug test

The license authorizes the gun owner to keep his weapon at his residence. In order to bring it to a shooting range for practice or competition, one must apply for a separate "permit to transport" that is generally valid for three months and that imposes restrictions on how the weapon is transported (e.g. it must be stored unloaded in a locked container, ammunition must be stored separately in a different section of the vehicle, and the owner must travel directly from his residence to the range, and back again, without making any detours).

To carry a handgun in public, the gun owner must apply for a "permit to carry," which has its own set of restrictions (e.g. the gun must be concealed from public view, it should not be brought to amusement places, religious or political meetings, and other prohibited places). The main requirement for obtaining a permit to carry is that the gun owner must present a certification from the chief of police in their area that his life is under imminent and observable threat.

Admittedly, most of the requirements I mentioned above can often be circumvented, and I admit that the licensing system is full of loopholes --so much so that a blind person was able to obtain a firearms license in the past.

I will argue however, that the solution to these loopholes is not the suspension of gun ownership privileges for civilians, but rather the reform and cleansing of the system. The gun owners that I know and interact with all aspire for a better regulated system of screening for firearm applicants --we don't want to encounter a nutcase with a gun on the road any more than you do.

[Altis6453]

Yup. It's difficult to have any confidence at all with our PNP and NBI when you find out that a lot of them ARE IN FACT INVOLVED IN VIOLENT CRIME. I'm sorry to say that our law enforcement organizations are a far cry from professional police personnel you see abroad (i.e. the UK, HK, US, etc.). If we ever hope to have one, then the sanctions and punishment for police and other law enforcement personnel who are engaged in crime should be dealt with even more brutaly to protect the integrity of the service.

That being said, the 70's era had a total gun ban and what good did that do to the citizenry? Absolutely nothing.