Ban the gun?

I used to think guns were accessories of excess and compensating mechanisms for the genetically challenged. Having grown up in the gun loving and macho world of sugarcane planters, I've seen family and friends display the latest pistols and rifles all the time. It wasn't a big deal. It was like having a new car and showing it off to friends.

I remember my dad asking a friend why he always carried the latest M-16 assault rifle and a few pistols for good measure. We were on vacation then in a rest house north of Bacolod City. The friend thought it prudent to lend my dad his assault rifle for protection during our stay. His reply echoed the argument most if not all planters use when justifying their considerable collection of guns: For protection. Against what? My dad queried. Well against the communist insurgents and bandits known to roam the area. I don't recall if dad accepted his offer. What I do remember is ogling the spread of guns that had been laid on a bed and the same friend urging my dad to make sure the kids know how to shoot and handle guns when they grow up.

Call me decadent. Call me stupid or naive. But you can never call me dishonest when I say my heart skipped a beat when I was handed the heavy Colt carbine to see how much it weighed. Whether it was juvenile fascination for all things dangerous or real interest in the weapons of death, I could not tell.

On circumspect a real assault by a band of rebels or a handful of determined thugs would have rendered that small arsenal useless. But I guess back then, and even up to the present, winning a shoot out with rebels or criminals was not the point. The weapons gave men a choice over uncertainty: to lay down quietly or to sell your life and dignity as dearly as possible to those who had no qualms of visiting their evil upon you and your family.

Of course there were also harrowing tales of gun toting parents barging into the school grounds to confront teachers that had allegedly mistreated their children. Or a handful of rich punks brandishing automatic weapons at fellow students during the inevitable youthful altercations. Here and there one hears of the mentally unstable uncle of some classmate shoot his brains out or vent his ire (and bullets) on hapless bystanders. And then there were the close calls or accidents at home or at the range where a curious child picked up his dad's pistol or a gun going off nearly killing someone.

Guns made all these past incidents possible. But it took the will, omission or conscious decision of men to make it real.

The recent massacre in Cavite that left at least ten dead, many of them children, is merely one of the many recent incidents that has once again pitted the old arguments on gun control against each other.

Those espousing the total ban on civilians owning guns argue incidents like these will be lessened to a great extent if law enforcement personnel are the only ones allowed to carry firearms. The argument goes something like this: If civilians are not allowed to own guns, there will be a lesser chance civilians will intentionally or accidentally kill someone. Gun ownership is not necessary since the government assures its citizenry of quick response to crime especially crimes of violence against persons.

Those seeking to ban guns will oftentimes Australia and Singapore as shining examples of how the system works.

Yes, incidents of gun related crimes in these countries have gone down. Yes there are less deaths associated with or involving firearms in these countries.

The gun advocates say the inability of the government to secure life and property of its citizens make civilian gun ownership a neccesity. Most people don't need fancy statistics to prove that there aren't enough police to effectively secure our neighborhoods much less discuss their attitude or motivation (or lack thereof) to thwart break ins and petty crimes. For majority of gun owners protection is the major motivation to purchase and own firearms.

Again the familiar mantra goes: If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

While this statement is quite general and not entirely true, neither is it completely false.

A foreign small-arms monitoring group based in Switzerland has pegged the number of loose firearms in the country at over 500 thousand. These are firearms that have never been registered and therefore untraceable. And not surprisingly since these guns are beyond the reach of ballistic investigations and forensics, the weapons of choice of criminals and armed insurgents.

The PNP Firearms and Explosives Office say this figure is a gross over estimation. That is also true. There is simply no empirical data to base these claims. But neither is there evidence that these loose guns do no exist in the aforesaid quantities.

On the brighter side, the PNP is starting to computerize the ballistic record of each legally sold firearms in the country. So technically all crimes or incidents involving these guns can theoretically be traced to a specific gun.

The sad truth however is that most of the crimes committed using guns involve the untraceable loose firearms.

So what we have in reality is a sort of Catch 22. We have inadequate law enforcement and a whole plethora of untraceable guns in the country. For some, this is enough reason to purchase a gun as a final option.

Who should own guns.

Ownership of firearms is guaranteed by law. A whole battery of requirements accompany each individual firearm license application. Aside from clearances from various government agencies there a prospective gun owner must also pass a battery of psychological tests.

The PNP argues that the requirements alone should serve as an efficient method to determine who should own guns.

I hear a distant wail in the background coming from the anti-gun people.

No seriously, I agree with you. People who have no business owning guns are out there oiling and fawning over their bestiary of death.

The process by no means guarantee legally purchased guns will never be involved in crimes or accidents. There are simply too many factors involved.

Firstly, the gun licensing process is a sham. No really it is.

I remember going to a gun show and looking over some 45 caliber pistols when a salesman sidled next to me and offered to have the gun ready to take him in as little as two weeks time. He told me I didn't even have to apply for any clearance or show up for the neuro-psychiatric examination.

That guy could have been talking to a serial killer and would not have known any better.

And one doesn't have to be in the same league as Charles Mason to inflict harm on others. There are instances of perfectly sane, responsible and God-fearing individuals who have whipped out their guns and used them in traffic altercations, misunderstandings and heated arguments.

Even police and military personnel have been known to use guns on others for the same reasons.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, any criminal can get his hands on a gun. There are after all over half a million loose firearms floating and being traded about under the radar.

Hell even our old farm foreman had a 45 caliber automatic stashed inside a bag of rice.

It is a matter of choice.


Both gun advocates and those opposing their views have valid points. I cannot in all honesty say one argument outweighs the other.

You can own a gun should you wish to. What you do with it is really up to you.

I respect the arguments offered by those calling for the total gun ban. In my profession as a journalist I have seen the tragedy and unnecessary loss of life because of guns. Banning guns may actually lower incidence of crimes and incidents involving firearms as the experience of some countries have shown.

Everyone has a story to tell about abusive gun owners who bandy their weapons about to intimidate other people. We don't need Sandy Hook to remind us how things can go terribly wrong when people decide to use firearms.

But I have also seen how guns were used to protect life and property from the evils of men.

So which side of the fence am I on one may ask?

Let's just put it this way. I acknowledge the fact that guns are weapons of death and destruction. These things were built to kill people swiftly and efficiently.

It is a tool much like a knife or a car. With the proper motivation, it can and have been used to kill people. While it is true these three things have different functions in the first place entirely misses the point.

If unnecessary and unwanted death is the main issue why people want to ban guns, then why arent these same people railing against drunk driving or the flawed transport industry licensing processes? It is a a fact that road traffic accidents kill more people each year than guns, disease and other accidents combined.

The reason why people want to ban guns is that it gives power of life and death in the hands of some men who are not fit to own them. In the same vein this argument says that guns make it possible for law-abiding, perfectly sane individuals to unintentionally kill someone in the midst of heated argument.

That these same people can use knives, a tire wrench, their hands or their cars to visit their evil upon each other, while perfectly true, dosen't seem to be a point of consideration for anti gun advocates.

I am no gun lover. I didnt play cops and robbers when I was growing up and I don't own a small arsenal in my home. I hate people with guns who swagger about town with guns hidden in their cars or trailing a troop of armed thugs masquerading as bodyguards. But I do recognize the right of individuals to carry guns to protect themselves and those they love.

Personally I'd rather own a gun and contend with the hazards and consequences of ownership than come to a point of desperately needing but not having one.

Lets not even discuss gun safety seminars or the proper handling of firearms. These are givens for anyone seeking to responsibly own guns. There are unalterable risks when you have a gun in your posession. Like driving a car, it is up to to you to minimize these risks as the very nature of guns make these dangers unavoidable.

Until there is a guarranteed government solution to the masked man in your living room in the dead of the night, the armed group of men trying to bring down your bedroom door or the unwanted stranger creeping into your daughter's bedroom I shall and will always choose to have that final option.