“Never Forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t allow him to do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians. ” — Alexander Hope. Gun ban has always been an issue here in our country and certain groups have been arguing about what should be the decision over the said issue.
The PROGUN (Peaceful Responsible Owners of Guns) who claim that guns should not be banned because self-defence is a natural right; it is one of the most basic rights accorded to a human being and it must not be taken away from law abiding citizens. Gunless Society believes that guns are the main cause of the gradual increase in crime rates and thus should be banned immediately. Are guns really the main cause of killing? Will the gun ban policy have the potential to decrease the crime rate?
So many questions that can be affiliated with the gun ban, but what should be the real decision for it? Should it be implemented to prevent gun-related crimes or should it not be banned which can make crimes increase due to the knowledge of the criminals about the gunless law abiding citizens which makes them unsafe and easier to be oppressed. The gun ban has always been an issue in our country. The first argument of the pros is guns are the reason why crime rates are high (e. g. hold-up, robbery, gun for hire groups, hostage) and should be eradicated to attain peace and order because according to a news, the Philippine National Police (PNP) claimed that during the gun ban in 2010 elections, 70 % of the crime rate decreased. This only shows that gun ban is an effective means of decreasing gun-related crimes. . On the other hand, the opponents of the gun ban states that if it is to be implemented, it will only increase crime rates because everything illegal related to guns (unlicensed, smuggled) will go high and the free people are defenceless which can make the criminals confident in using unlicensed guns.
According to the Senate Bill No. 48 by Senator Lacson during the Fourteenth Congress of the Republic of the Philippines, this country (Philippines) is the second in terms of bringing smuggled firearms in Japan and the Philippines is also the final destination of smuggled firearms, and the opponents believe that this rate will only increase due to the gun ban because it is the best and most efficient way for criminals to obtain their guns in doing crimes to the defenceless and law abiding citizens.
The second argument in favour of the gun ban is that guns are made for cops/military people to protect the citizens in our country because guns are complex and an individual must need special training to learn how to use guns. It is said that guns are not simple defence materials because before one must have a gun, he need to pass certain tests. The pros believe that guns are not toys that are needed to be obtained, and kept by anyone and it would be better if the security people are the ones who have guns because they are more skilled than ordinary people.
While the proponents believe that guns should be for cops/military people, the opponents claim that the number of police officers in our country is not enough to provide each one of us security/protection and we need to learn how to protect ourselves in an easy and convenient way. Self-defence is a natural right; it is one of the most basic rights accorded to a human being. Not only the manpower is lacking, but also the firearms of the policemen are not enough to provide them guns for protection.
According to Representative of Second District Cagayan de Oro, Rufus Rodriguez, “It is clear that our PNP is definitely short-changed and it is troublesome to know that our policemen have to purchase their own guns using their meager salaries just so they can perform their duties properly. Using that statement, not all police officers can provide their own guns using their salaries because they also have their families to feed, and even the guns for the police officers have issues that is why they cannot have their guns to perform their jobs well and it will be better if the civilians can have their own guns which are licensed.
Also, there is an article by Tito Fiel of the Philippine Daily Inquirer that the PNP are looking for manpower volunteers because they lack manpower which is not a good issue because it only show that the PNP does not have enough police officers to provide us security. Lastly, the pros believe that most people nowadays cannot be trusted and thus there must be a law regarding the guns to be banned because the prohibition of guns will result in public safety.
They claim that people nowadays are starting to be reckless and not trustworthy and thus must not be permitted to have guns because it will only cause an increase in crime rate. For the cons, people must own guns for their safety and all they need to enhance is the responsibility in owning a gun. A gun does not kill but a person does. If we allow guns to be banned, we will only be controlled by our government which can lead to fear and chaos. All the people need are responsibility and discipline and they will not have a gun without passing certain tests that could prove that they are eligible to handle a gun for their safety.
If the government will ban guns, a lot of people will find a way to protect themselves like the use of knives, bombs, and even physical injury. Some cons will also make rallies for banning the guns which can lead to chaos. In the place we are living today, a lot of us will need firearms to arm ourselves. The gun itself does not kill; it will always depend on the person handling the gun. The gun does not even have a life, how can it control itself? There are certain rules that must be followed before obtaining a gun; therefore, guns must not be banned.
The bottom line is, guns do not have lives. It is with the people who have the gun. For me, guns must not be banned because a lot of people use it for self-defence, especially if their work requires strong security and there are certain laws that are implemented before giving someone a gun. It is better not to ban guns but people have it in a legal way than to ban guns while the smuggled ones are flowing freely in the market while the law abiding citizens’ lives are in harm. Guns must not be banned. Self-defence is a natural right and no one must interfere with it. In a society like this, all of us have their self-defence gears which we can use whenever an emergency arises.
REFERENCES:
Horn, Norman. 40 Reasons to Ban Guns. Retrieved from http://libertarianchristians. com/2009/02/13/40-reasons-to-ban-guns/ Issues in the Philippines: Pro-Gun or Gunless Society?. Retrieved from http://travelman1971. hubpages. com/hub/Issues-in-the-Philippines-Pro-Gun-or-Gunless-Society Lawmakers want probe into police’s lack of firearms. Retrieved 21 November 2012 from http://www. sunstar. com. h/cagayan-de-oro/local-news/2012/01/27/lawmakers-want-probe-police-s-lack-firearms-202885 PROGUN, INC. About Us; A message from the Secretary General. Retrieved 21 November 2012 from http://progun. ph/about_us Ramos, Marlon. PNP claims 70% drop in crime, credits election gun ban. Retrieved from http://newsinfo. inquirer. net/breakingnews/nation/view/20100724-282915/PNP-claims-70-drop-in-crime-credits-election-gun-ban Senate Bill No. 48. Retrieved 21 November 2012 from http://www. senate. gov. ph/lisdata/40963488!. pdf
