Prohibition

In an article entitled 'Armed and dangerous: more civilians own guns than military, police,' Gemma Mendoza of Newsbreak.ph published some quite sensational statistics about weapons in the hands of civilians.

She cites cases of Gerardo Ortega, Venson Evangelista and Emerson Lozano, all who were victims of firearms-related crime. The article then goes on to quote figures about gun ownership, weapon types, and approved licenses. It was all obviously calculated to cause outrage and lead readers to the conclusion that legal firearms owners are the danger to Philippine society.

However, the article presented no strong evidence to link legal ownership as a contributing factor to crime. In line with tactics used by anti-gun advocates, all she could do was make a tenuous correlation and through a few cognitive leaps, propose that for the good of society, the best way forward is for only police and military to be armed. Inferences, suggestions and innuendo are the best they can do because, in reality, there are no links.

There can be no doubt that the Philippines has a serious problem with violent incidents leading to death and injury. So just who are the perpetrators? Who are the real dangers to society? Which groups have the established, well documented track-record of posing a danger to innocent civilians?

As a direct result of the huge numbers of journalists being harassed, detained, tortured, and killed, Reporters Without Borders ranked the Philippines 156th place out of 178 in its Press Freedom Index of 2010. Just a year before, the Committee to Protect Journalists said that the Philippines was the world's most dangerous country for journalists, topping Iraq for the number killed on the job. As of 2007, at least 830 people have been killed in an extrajudicial fashion and Amnesty International has said that over 200 Filipinos have been victims of enforced disappearance in the past decade. The Campaign for Human Rights in the Philippines estimates that we have had over 1200 political killings since 1991.

Let me ask this: were these killings perpetrated by sport shooters or the average PTCFOR holder?

Amnesty International, in their 2006 paper, Political Killings, Human Rights and the Peace Process, described attacks as, "mostly carried out by unidentified men who shoot the victims before escaping on motorcycles, have very rarely led to the arrest, prosecution and punishment of those responsible."

It goes on to say that, "the common features in the methodology of the attacks, [has led Amnesty International to believe that] they constitute a pattern of politically targeted extrajudicial executions... The organisation remains gravely concerned at repeated credible reports that members of the security forces have been directly involved in the attacks, or else have tolerated, acquiesced to, or been complicit in them."

In 2009, the US Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices states that, "Arbitrary, unlawful, and extrajudicial killings by elements of the security services and political killings, including killings of journalists, by a variety of actors continued to be major problems."

Since 2005, over 3,000 military and police personnel have been accused of human rights violations. In 2008, the Commission on Human Rights chair, Leila de Lima reprimanded the Philippine National Police for its reputation of not observing human rights, citing as examples, "the Kuratong Baleleng massacre, the Ortigas Highway Patrol rub out, and the killing of suspects in the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation robbery in Laguna."

There is no need to beat around the bush here. We, the average armed citizens, are of no danger to society. In fact, the very groups that anti-gun advocates believe should be bestowed the exclusive privilege to carry firearms have, themselves, a traceable history of violence.

Responsible civilian firearms owners are an easy target because despite our skill in the use of a dangerous tool, we do not force our views on anyone else and are ironically quite powerless. Nevertheless, politicians and the media alike vilify us and paint us as violent, anti-social lunatics. The truth is that we are often better trained, better equipped and show more self-restraint than many of the so-called professionals. This is not to boast of our superiority but to highlight the sad state of affairs that our country faces.

The Maguindanao massacre is said to be the single worst mass killing of journalists in history. It was carried out by a political clan with the support of government security forces and officials. The deaths of innocents should not be placed at the feet of ordinary citizen firearms owners. To do so would make a mockery of those who died and trivialize the true dangers in our country.

This debate¹ is not really about guns, crime or even corruption, but two different world-views.

One is where people believe that responsibility for your life lies with someone else, and that other people know better about how you should live. That is a world-view of dependence and authoritarianism.

The other is one of self-reliance—that responsibility for your life and your family begins with yourself.

Petals ² demands that government should be 100% effective in defending him and his family. But who is the government but a group of people? In other words, Petals insists that someone else takes care of his family. He demands that others risk their lives for him. So sure is he of these convictions that he advocates that everyone else should be forced to do the same. These are heavy demands to make of strangers!

Expecting the government to guarantee us a safe and happy life is a fool's dream. There have always been bad people who want to harm innocents. Sometimes these people are labeled criminals or sociopaths. Oftentimes in history, they have been from the government itself.

Still, there are those out there who say, "Leave it to the government. They will take care of us!" But did the government prevent the Maguindanao massacre? More recently, were the police able to protect those poor tourists during the Mendoza bus hijack?

The truth is that we alone have the primary responsibility to take care of ourselves and our families. The government can be there to provide support, but safeguarding an individual's life is not the government's job.

Walang armas ang demokrasya ("democracy doesn't have weapons"), says Petals. Such platitudes may sound righteous but are completely meaningless. Tell that to the victims in the 'Democratic' Republic of Congo, where world's second-largest peacekeeping force were unable to prevent 7,000 rapes and 1,433 civilian killings in 2009. (Source: Genocide Intervention Network)

Freedom is protected by strength and arms. Eloquent speeches and the ability to vote are worth nothing if someone has a gun to your head. The only thing that keeps that gun away is another gun.

1. This post is an edited version of my contribution to a firearms discussion on President Noynoy Aquino's Facebook page.

2. 'Petals' is the nickname that people have given to one of the vocal gun control advocates on the discussion. I'd say that you can use him as a stand-in for progressives in general.

Those keeping an eye on the Philippine news would probably have noticed regular reports about the rising tally of gun ban arrests. Encouraged by its apparent success, the Chief of PNP is pushing to have it made permanent. Of course, he is also doing this because of the 'overwhelming clamor' from the people for more gun control.

This is propaganda. The facts do not support his claims. I know because I started a project to create an independent database of violent crime incidents during the gun ban. So far, volunteers have recorded over 300 injuries and 440 fatalities due to violent crime between January and May 2010. The ban did not help any of these victims.

Lies, damn lies and ERVIs

Of course, statistics are easily manipulated to fit any point-of-view. The problem with the official figures are that only election-related violence incidents (ERVIs) are counted. That does not take into account what happens to over-all violent crime during the gun ban period. Also, since the country does not live under a permanent state of election fever, there is no reason why ERVIs should be used as a metric to decide a permanent ban.

The proposal to extend the ban comes after series of sudden moves to tighten firearms controls. As usual, the public is supposed to believe that these steps are all geared to make us safer. But why is the PNP feeding us with information that is blatantly wrong? Some of us pro-firearms and liberty-minded people see this trend as somewhat suspicious.

The authoritarian nature of anti-gun

In light of all this, the pro-gun groups are now up in arms. (Figuratively, of course.) They are now getting organized and starting their opposition by releasing to the media their statements against the ban. The situation took a malevolent turn on 27 May with an article published in the Manila Bulletin.

The Chief of PNP is quoted as saying, "There now appears to be some sectors that do not want a gun ban [so] maybe let's check the background of these sectors or these individuals that are giving unnecessary comments."

This simple statement should send alarm bells ringing. Background check? Unnecessary comments? The threat is plain enough for anyone but the most naive. It is a phrase that evokes not-quite-buried memories of dictatorship and political repression. Why should anyone peacefully protesting undergo a background check? Is freedom of speech in the Philippines to be regarded as 'unnecessary comments'? I'm afraid that in one statement, our Chief of Police has shown his true authoritarian nature.

We should always be wary when our leaders start taking away the ability to defend ourselves. The true motives rarely correspond with their outward claims. Firearms control is the biggest but most insidious threat to freedom in our country. History provides us with a consistent lesson: people control and firearms control always go hand-in-hand. Always.

While our Philippine lawmen are busy trying to restrict the freedoms of ordinary Filipinos, the Americans are steadily strengthening the rights of their citizens.

On May 20, the Service Member Second Amendment Protection Act of 2010 was enacted to the United States Senate. The bill protects the rights of Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees by prohibiting any requirement to register privately owned firearms.

This ruling follows on from a wave of pro-firearms laws in the USA such as:

• the overturning of Washington DC's ban on handguns
• allowing concealed firearms carry in national parks
• expanding the lawful use of deadly force in self-defense
• Right-to-Carry reform and the growing number of "Shall-issue" states

Legislators in the US are realizing that gun control, just like alcohol prohibition, does more harm than good. How long will it take before those in the Philippines come to their senses?

In the hope of avoiding violence during the 2010 general elections, the Philippines was put under a nationwide total gun ban for the period between January 10 and June 9. The ban, according to Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief General Jesus Verzosa, has been such an effective crime deterrent that they are considering a permanent total gun ban.

His statement seems brush aside reports from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) that the 2010 elections are turning out to be the most violent. As with other gun control adherents, he also ignores is the fact that there have been no cases anywhere in the world where a ban has effectively prevented criminals from obtaining weapons.

It is a fact that the gun ban failed to stop violent criminals from murdering hundreds of people during the 5 months since it started. Further, many of the much publicized arrests were made up of—had it not been for the ban—otherwise legal gun holders.

This development comes in the wake of a series of moves to tighten firearms controls, such as the ludicrous ban on inside-waistband carry and an attempt to reclassify airsoft replicas as firearms. As usual, the public is supposed to believe that these steps are all geared to make us safer.

Some of us, however, may find this trend somewhat suspicious, and rightly so; those who look at history know that one of the first steps of the aspiring autocrat is to disarm the population. The Philippines may not be at risk of another Ferdinand Marcos just yet, but someone is pulling our government's strings.

Judge Jim Gray on why we need to rethink drug laws.