Gun ownership debate continues in the Philippines

Conrado de Quiros, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Asia News Network, Manila

Let us take the arguments of the pro-gun group one by one. Or more specifically the group that is loudly protesting President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's order canceling the permits of those who want to carry guns outside their houses.

One, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right.

Why so? There is nothing in the Constitution that says so, as Carlo Ybaqez, a lawyer who helped Frank Chavez draft the petition to the Supreme Court asking for a suspension of Macapagal's order, admits. Unlike the American Constitution, the Philippine Constitution does not guarantee the right to bear arms.

But that is nothing. What is a constitutional right basically? A constitutional right is one that aspires toward universality, or applies to everyone and not just a few individuals. If it benefits only a few individuals, then it is not a right, it is a privilege. The Constitution has no business sanctioning privileges. That is clearly the case in this country.

Pro-Gun president Mike Melchor says the President's order has affected 12,000 people who have had their permits to carry guns in public revoked. Well, the loss of 12,000 Filipinos is the gain of 70 million.

Clearly, the only people who can carry guns in this country are those who can buy them and buy government officials to expedite the permits. That is to say, a privileged few. The protesters complain that the President's order leaves gun-toting only to the criminals and the rebels. Well, by the same token, allowing them to carry guns leaves gun-toting only to them. That possibility is precluded for most of the 70 million residents of this country.

Is the solution to encourage gun ownership and the issuance of more permits to make things more democratic? Clearly, we need that like a hole in the head. We see that from nothing less than the United States itself, where the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution and buying guns is the easiest thing in the world. The ensuing scale of mayhem, not least on campuses, has sparked widespread protest against the National Rifle Association.

Two, people need guns for protection. "Especially," says Ybaqez, "in the Philippines where we all know the police can't protect the citizens."

Well, to begin with, the law allows people to have guns at home, where they can protect themselves and their families. It merely forbids them from carrying their guns outside. Carrying guns outside the home has not been known to protect people, if we are to go by the alarming number of public officials who have been gunned down of late. We may presume that they were carrying guns. Some of them even had bodyguards. Carrying guns does not naturally protect people from harm.

On the other hand, it has been known to cause mayhem, not least on the road and in karaoke bars. Road rage changes even the most responsible gun owner into an irresponsible one. And the culture of machismo in open display in beer houses makes toting guns dangerous in the extreme.

Even when no mayhem occurs, injustice does. Guns do not have to be used to achieve an intimidating, or abusive, effect. You are not going to protest the reckless driving or overbearing conduct of someone who has a gun, or whom you presume to have one, as proclaimed by the Pro-Gun sticker pasted on his windshield. Ostensibly, nothing happens between you two because you let it pass. In fact, you've just been screwed.

As to the police being unable to protect the citizens, well, if that is the case, then the solution is not to allow the citizens to carry guns, it is to abolish the police. Or more specifically the PNP and replace it with a small and better force, composed of people who employ detection rather than extortion and are paid well. I've been arguing that for a long, long time. The PNP is hopeless; it is steeped in crime. Gun toting won't solve the problem of its uselessness, or indeed harmfulness, it will merely make things worse. It will turn us into a Wild Wild West, with the culture of the fast draw to boot.

Three, canceling the permits of gun owners to carry guns outside their homes leaves the itinerant guns only in the hands of criminals and rebels.

So what? At the very least, the protective capacity of carrying guns outside the house is little in evidence. The NPA got its arms largely from agaw-armas. Carrying guns, particularly sophisticated ones, outside the house is only likely to improve the rebels' and criminals' arms stockpile.

More than that, that is precisely why they are classified as rebels and criminals. They are outside the law, they may not enjoy the protection of the law. Rebels and criminals by their very nature are subject to arrest and incarceration. Their carrying guns makes them subject to being shot at and killed.

That is the price they carry for being rebels and criminals. That is the price they carry for carrying guns. Unless the gun owners are willing to take the same risks, they shouldn't be complaining about gun-toting being reserved only for rebels and criminals.

Finally, licensed gun owners are a responsible lot.

I won't delve again into the blind man who almost got a license to own a gun, except for the watchful eye of a reporter. I will merely point to the quality of mind of those pushing for the "liberalization" of gun ownership. Which really means the proliferation of guns. I don't know about you, as the Filipino expression goes, but I have no desire to trust my welfare and that of my family to their tender mercies.

The President's order is right and just. I can only hope she sticks by it.