Gunless

Written on Monday, May 19th, 2008 at 2:02 pm | by Rom

In the aftermath of the murders in Laguna, the gun-less society folks have started coming out of the woodwork. But honestly, what good will it do?

This morning, a guy named Nandy(?) Pacheco was ranting and raving on radio (hey! awesome alliteration!) about how his group - something called the “Gunless Society” - has been advocating a total gun ban. When he explained a little further, it turned out that it was nothing of the kind. They will still allow private gun ownership, but they won’t allow the issuance of permits to carry or PTCs.

Basically, you need two licences if you have a gun: a licence to possess the firearm, and a permit to carry it around with you. If you don’t have the first one, your possession would be illegal. If you have the first but not the second, your possession would be legal but the gun will have to stay wherever you put it first - such as your home or your office. Having both licences means your possession is legal and you can bring the gun around with you wherever you go.

So, the Gunless Society’s solution will actually still allow you to have guns, only you can’t carry it with you. According to them, that’ll cut down on gun related crimes. And that’s where it gets funny. By definition, a law (or a policy) that prohibits either the private ownership or transportation of weapons will be respected only by people who obey the law anyway. And these are the same people who don’t do things like massacre people or go Columbine on your ass for no reason at all. Criminals - those guys who don’t obey the law - will hardly feel the passage of gun control laws for the simple reason that they don’t bother with niceties like that.

Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws.

And so, the net effect of the Gunless Society’s proposition - or its eponymous ultimate goal - will be to deprive law-abiding citizens of their guns, while leaving law-breakers armed to the teeth. Seriously, I don’t see how that is going to make life safer for the rest of us when the threat from guns doesn’t come from accidents or such things, but from people who have made the conscious and deliberate decision to point, shoot, and kill. Guns, as they say, don’t kill people. People kill people.

~

The most commonly repeated argument against the “guns for defense” argument is that it’s pretty pointless when all it takes is one bullet to snuff you out. True enough. But just like seatbelts won’t do a damned thing for you if you drive your car off a cliff but will transform certain fatal crashes into survivable accidents (like if you wrapped your car around a tree or something), having a gun will help ensure your continued survival if you’re lucky enough to survive the initial blow. That is a very important thing.

~

My heart goes out to those who were killed in that bank robbery; and my heart bleeds for the Balisong and Pili families who were killed in Laguna just last night - but gun control won’t help them out any more than it’ll help us out. I wish people would stop using them as posthumous poster-children for a naive and wistful advocacy like a gunless society. Guns are like the demons in Pandora’s box. Once we’ve learned how to use them and profit by them, we can’t simply wish them away.

I wish I could present a solution - a better alternative to just praying for justice and agitating for gun control - but I’ve got nothing. And even if I had any proposal, I wouldn’t want to go into it just yet. Y’see, right now, I’m dancing too close to the edge of my principles and I might end up endorsing a course of action that I would - under less clouded circumstances - never even consider.

Tags: , , ,
Add to del.icio.us | Digg this! | Yahoo MyWeb | Google Bookmark It! | Stumble It!
About The Author: Rom is the writer behind the blog Smoke. In her own words, "I write better when I smoke. Don't ask me to reduce it to a science."

Filed Under Local News

Related Entries:
  • No related posts

Comments

6 Responses to “Gunless”

  1. Pochero on May 19th, 2008 2:56 pm

    The flaws in Mr. Pacheco’s arguments should be apparent during times when there is an actual gun ban and that is during the election periods. Violence and murders still occur and even increase, and people with influence and money are able to get “exemptions” from the ban.

  2. Jon Limjap on May 19th, 2008 3:02 pm

    Ah, now I agree with you. It’s not the presence of guns.

    Hell, guns aren’t even all that accessible to the ordinary Filipino (unlike in the US where, it is accessible to the ordinary lunatic).

  3. cocoy on May 19th, 2008 9:58 pm

    Well, home made guns are out there. Bad enough the country can’t regulate guns but there are lots of homemade guns no body knows about except well in the dark shanty towns.

    The Philippines is like the Wild West.

    A law banning guns will be just as useless today, as it was when those poor souls at that bank got shot. I’m sorry to be a cynic, but hell, we can’t even regulate jaywalking. What makes anyone think, we can regulate guns?

    I’m not an advocate for people using guns. I don’t want a gun, nor do I want to use it. I also don’t believe that having one will make me or my loved ones any more or less safe. But I also believe that having one will make the temptation to use it greater. Sometimes in the heat of anger, we think less and feel more.

    I believe owning/knowing/using a gun is and should be a personal choice.

  4. Pochero on May 20th, 2008 4:45 pm

    Strangely enough, Mr. Pacheco also cites the election gun ban to support his arguments as mentioned in the Inquirer editorial today, May 20. Hmmm, maybe I didn’t read the statistics correctly.

  5. Jake Hwang on May 21st, 2008 2:14 pm

    I guess some advocates of a “Gunless Society” are romanticizing what should be called the “real world,” even to the extent of using religion as an excuse. Some argue that Jesus was a symbol of non-violence, a symbol of love…READ CAREFULLY!!! And unless you can read hebrew, or unless if you’re a theologian recognized by the Vatican, do not attempt to reinterpret the scriptures. This will only sow confusion among our people who are already too feeble about their faith, sometimes confusing it with their fate. I say this because the same people who advocate for a “Gunless Society” are recognized “lay religious leaders” in their own confines. The same people, who few years ago, included in their political platform, a
    “Tax-Free Philippines,” if I remember correctly.
    Now, if we’re talking about preserving peace, may I remind them of a few thoughts to ponder:
    1. Buddhist Communities, throughout history, had been known to be among the most peaceful in the world. But, they train in shaolin in order to secure “peace.” And for those who are familiar with “shaolin”/Kung FU, they know its as lethal as a gun.
    2. The men who were followers of Jesus, Simon & James included, were known to have been involved in a violent uprising as members of the zealoths, and they carried concealed weapons. Had they been born during our time, they would have been carrying machine pistols, instead of blades.

    There are more arguments but i leave only these two.

    Once more, we cant use “holy water” on criminal elements trying to cause harm on us or our families. Nor can we stop them by reciting a scripture, unless they allow you to read the bible before killing you, and unless there is a gun hidden in your bible. Are you kidding me?

    In this country, taxpayers are restricted by law from gun-ownership, it seems more like a privilege than a matter of right. There should be a law that guarantees the right to bear arms among peaceful citizens trying to protect themselves. This is much better as an alternative to a “Gunless Society”, while armed criminals prey on the helpless. I would rather go to hell killing criminals, than have my children go to heaven after getting killed by criminals!!!!

  6. pinoyapache on September 29th, 2008 8:59 am

    just the same, it is still a safe society if people bring few guns on the streets, with or without criminals…that’s the logic.

Leave a Reply