# Documentary on Guns in the Philippines



## UltraFJ40 (May 20, 2014)

I just caught this documentary on Al Jazeera about guns in the PI and thought I'd share it with anyone interested. I think it's a pretty decent piece and definitely worth a look even though the commentary is one sided (anti-gun). 






*Feel free to delete or locate this to the best place, including file "13" if need be. I don't intend to start a political argument, just thought I'd pass this along.


----------



## Asian Spirit (Mar 1, 2010)

Good post and long overdue here on the forum.

Having grown up in the Western United States, I am pro-gun ownership - provided it is in the United States.

Just like the saying goes, "guns don't kill people; people do." However, IMO legalizing gun ownership here to the general public would be tantamount to a form of population control.

The vast majority of locals lack of education, coupled with emotional and physiological immaturity even in adulthood along with an extremely high level of mental illness in the general population, this country would turn into a civil war zone. 
Anger management here is almost non existent and gun ownership would make any street an unsafe place at all times.

It's not difficult to see that if this law were passed that in the years to come, some governments might even prohibit their citizens from traveling here due to the danger guns would bring to the country.



Just my 2 cents worth after years of living here and service on the Brgy Police and PDEA.

Jet Lag


----------



## UltraFJ40 (May 20, 2014)

I fell very much the same as you do. It did surprise me, while I am aware of various problems in various places documentaries like this (even jaded ones) bring the severity to the forefront.

Even if it's only for a fraction of time I think it's educates and benefits more than it hurts.


----------



## 197649 (Jan 1, 2013)

HMM well first I must say that Al Jazeera is to liberals what FOX is to conservatives. As Jet mentions People kill people as a guns are an object and must be loaded and operated by people to do anything. Just as a knife cuts things it cannot cut unless it is in the hands of a person. As a retired military guy I have used many types of weapons (guns) from a tank to a slingshot. With strict gun laws in Detroit and Chicago it still has not prevented deaths. Laws are not going to impact anyone except a law abiding person. A criminal by definition is involved in illegal activity. Other words are:lawbreaker, offender, villain, delinquent, felon, convict, malefactor, wrongdoer, culprit, miscreant; thief, burglar, robber, armed robber, gunman, gangster, terrorist; informalcrook, con, jailbird, hood, yardbird, perp.
Any law written is NOT going to prevent criminals from harming others. The criminals will always get a gun.


----------



## galactic (Dec 2, 2014)

You have to realize gentlemen, that the US founding fathers lived in very similar situations as stipulated above but chose to include the 2nd amendment in the US constitution. 

Philippine laws after the Spanish were very much written by Americans but did not include a Right to bear arms. The Japanese took advantage of that. Now China is at our door step with barely 1.5 million legally registered firearms by only almost 500 thousand civilian firearm owners and almost zero training because of governmental red tape. 

Im not saying that every filipino should be allowed to bear arms but since the laws here are patterned after the US. Why not go all the way and let it be a Right rather than a privilege for the moneyed few.

Just my dos centavos


----------



## Gary D (Oct 28, 2013)

galactic said:


> You have to realize gentlemen, that the US founding fathers lived in very similar situations as stipulated above but chose to include the 2nd amendment in the US constitution.
> 
> Philippine laws after the Spanish were very much written by Americans but did not include a Right to bear arms. The Japanese took advantage of that. Now China is at our door step with barely 1.5 million legally registered firearms by only almost 500 thousand civilian firearm owners and almost zero training because of governmental red tape.
> 
> ...


"Philippine laws after the Spanish were very much written by Americans but did not include a Right to bear arms."

The local population was largely hostile to their US overlords at the time. Give them the right to carry guns, I don't think so.


----------



## EuroBob (Feb 23, 2015)

My thought is that the right to bear arms and any associated controls should be up to the society to decide for itself.
The society can also decide if it wants mandatory military service or civilian service for x-number of years.


----------



## UltraFJ40 (May 20, 2014)

I'm still not totally sold on the possession argument. It's tough to say but if the guidelines were (and are) in place then they need to be made affordable to a pretty good segment of the population.

With as little disposable income as there is in the Philippines, how low should it be? Surely, if you can afford a firearm, black market or not then you've got to be able to pay to have it registered along with taking the necessary classes or exams, wouldn't you?

The idea of an amnesty period where you could register and take the required classes for free or reduced cost might work but how many of the illegal guns are in the hands of "the good guys"? Probably not a very big percentage. 1, 5, 10%?

It certainly is an interesting topic and I'd imagine one that'll not be easily resolved.


----------



## UltraFJ40 (May 20, 2014)

As soon as I posted and re-read what I had typed, I thought of my mother-in-law pawning nearly everything she owns (including her house) about a half dozen times. 

H*ll, I don't know what to think...


----------



## EuroBob (Feb 23, 2015)

UltraFJ40 said:


> I'm still not totally sold on the possession argument. It's tough to say but if the guidelines were (and are) in place then they need to be made affordable to a pretty good segment of the population.
> 
> With as little disposable income as there is in the Philippines, how low should it be? Surely, if you can afford a firearm, black market or not then you've got to be able to pay to have it registered along with taking the necessary classes or exams, wouldn't you?
> 
> ...


Who really benefits if the new law is passed?
90% of the Philippines is fairly poor and perhaps will find the financial requirements as restrictive.
The other 10% may be able to afford a gun, but don't the one's who think they need protection already have body guards?
So, is it some fraction of the 10% group who might benefit?
Is that benefit worth the increased availability of firearms?
Is that benefit worth the increased cost and burden on law enforcement?
I doubt there is a significant percentage of the Philippine society clamoring for the right/privilege to bear arms.
So I wonder, who benefits from a change in gun ownership laws?
What is the real motivation behind this change to society?


----------



## UltraFJ40 (May 20, 2014)

EuroBob said:


> Who really benefits if the new law is passed?
> 90% of the Philippines is fairly poor and perhaps will find the financial requirements as restrictive. *My family finds that buying beef is restrictive*
> The other 10% may be able to afford a gun, but don't the one's who think they need protection already have body guards? *True, but that's a fraction of the total*
> So, is it some fraction of the 10% group who might benefit? *I think more like 1-5%*
> ...


* My asterisk point above is due to the fact that many, many people I know in the provinces have firearms. While they struggle to make ends meet on a daily basis, they contend that having one is paramount to their protection from the NPA? or the banditos that roam around the countryside.

My take on that is many, many of them belong, if not formally to the NPA then loosely. Many of our friends are charcoal makers, small farmers of salt and bagoon and in an area that was highly conducive to Jo-Ma creating the NPA about 25 kms from our house. The majority of the people in the area don't talk about the NPA but do talk willingly about the scourge of banditos in the area. This gives them an ability to acquire and carry for a variety of reasons. 

Personally, I'd rather have a non-registered weapon if I could only have one.


----------



## UltraFJ40 (May 20, 2014)

I'm not trying to argue with anyone (for the record) but just thought this is just another aspect of government that will be lost on the front page.

Here in the US, there are so many laws on the books that it is nearly impossible to count. I have yet to find an approximate number but I'm guessing that "we" don"t/didn't agree to most of them.


----------



## EuroBob (Feb 23, 2015)

UltraFJ40 said:


> I'm not trying to argue with anyone (for the record) but just thought this is just another aspect of government that will be lost on the front page.
> 
> Here in the US, there are so many laws on the books that it is nearly impossible to count. I have yet to find an approximate number but I'm guessing that "we" don"t/didn't agree to most of them.


I am enjoying this conversation and do not mind if we happen to have different opinions. 
I am taking your comments as free of malice.

I am from Texas. Firearms are just another tool, like a knife. For the U.S., I support the Constitutional Right to bear arms. I think it is wise to vet/confirm that the person trying to buy a weapon does not have a history as an agressor or a history of pyschological problems which are viewed as too high of a potential risk that the weapon may be used to commit unprovoked violence on society. (I grant you that we do not vet/confirm people before they purchase a knife, so I guess it is not completely fair of me to say that "Firearms are just another tool, like a knife".)

For the Philippines, of course I would appreciate having my own weapon, but I see a lot of potential problems to the majority of the society if firearms become even more prevalent. I do see that most people who are motivated to obtain a firearm can already do so. I concede that there are members who would like a firearm who are not allowed one, like expats (like me). But I fear if current gun laws are relaxed or the availibility of guns is increased, it will have an overall negative impact on society and as usual it will be the lowest denominator which suffers the most.


----------



## galactic (Dec 2, 2014)

Gary D said:


> "Philippine laws after the Spanish were very much written by Americans but did not include a Right to bear arms."
> 
> The local population was largely hostile to their US overlords at the time. Give them the right to carry guns, I don't think so.


Let me re phrase. After the Spanish and during the US occupation up to the Commonwealth, Philippine laws were written by the Americans but they never included the Right to Bear Arms.

During the Commonwealth and after the Philippine liberation from Japan there was no perceived hostilities to the US but still no dice on the right to firearms.


----------



## galactic (Dec 2, 2014)

EuroBob said:


> Who really benefits if the new law is passed?


It is already a Law and the Implementing Rules approved.


----------



## galactic (Dec 2, 2014)

EuroBob said:


> Who really benefits if the new law is passed?
> 90% of the Philippines is fairly poor and perhaps will find the financial requirements as restrictive.
> The other 10% may be able to afford a gun, but don't the one's who think they need protection already have body guards?
> So, is it some fraction of the 10% group who might benefit?
> ...


Legal firearms Manufacturers benefits heavily because penalties for illegally manufacturing firearms has almost increased 200 folds.
Actually, if an employee on minimum wage sets his goals straight and saves he could own a legally purchased firearm. (an Armscor .38 is only about 9-12K pesos, documentation and license permits would cost around another 10K pesos which is renewable bi-annually)
Being able to defend oneself, loved ones and properties is always a benefit.
Firearms licensing is one of the major revenue generator of the police, so no burden there.
There is no overwhelming clamor because of the Filipino colonial mentality which dictates that the police can take care of everyone.
The United Nations also benefits, because the Philippines is also a signatory on the UN convention on small arms. China and other would be bullies in the future also benefits because the population is weak and uneducated in small arms training.

_Im not an expert_


----------



## galactic (Dec 2, 2014)

EuroBob said:


> But I fear if current gun laws are relaxed


The opposite happened.
The Aquino government and the former Chief of the National Police Alan Purisima imposed laws and regulations stricter than those of the Martial Law era.

_Police Chief Alan Purisima was indicted and dismissed on charges filed by ProGun on firearm license delivery fraud._


----------



## EuroBob (Feb 23, 2015)

galactic said:


> The opposite happened.
> The Aquino government and the former Chief of the National Police Alan Purisima imposed laws and regulations stricter than those of the Martial Law era.
> 
> _Police Chief Alan Purisima was indicted and dismissed on charges filed by ProGun on firearm license delivery fraud._


I appreciate your comments, because apparently I misunderstood the situation.
I thought the laws being discussed would be a change to society in that they would result in a greater availability of firearms.
I thought the laws would help increase the number of people who had firearms.

From your posts, I understand you to be saying that the laws will NOT result in a greater number of firearms in the society. 
I understand you to say that the new law(s) tighten control of the firearms and may even reduce the number of firearms in the society.


----------



## galactic (Dec 2, 2014)

EuroBob said:


> I appreciate your comments, because apparently I misunderstood the situation.
> I thought the laws being discussed would be a change to society in that they would result in a greater availability of firearms.
> I thought the laws would help increase the number of people who had firearms.
> 
> ...


The new law is designed to specifically target and weed out illegal manufacturers, rebel groups with explosives capabilities and other terror groups with much severe penalties and longer prison sentences. 

But in it's wake even the existing firearms owners who legally abided by each law and regulation since the 60's are also being included in some provisions and legal gun owner groups have filed suit in the Supreme Court. They are questioning the implementing rules that specifically govern ownership. Some provisions made "legal before firearms" now illegal eg; full auto weapons must now be converted to semi auto and a mountain load of redundant requirements which legal owners now have to comply even if they have existing valid licences. 

In essence they will come a time that firearms in society will be lessened because only those who will not abide by the law will own firearms.


----------



## colemanlee (Nov 17, 2014)

Its interesting, as usual it only hinders the law abiding folks here....you can still buy anything you want on the black market


----------

