close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Monsters with Guns

Discussion in 'Band of Glockers' started by brawnless, May 19, 2008.

  1. brawnless

    brawnless Junior Member

    304
    0
    Dec 5, 2004
    Asia
    http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/editorial/view/20080520-137614/Monsters-with-guns

    Editorial
    Monsters with guns

    Philippine Daily Inquirer
    First Posted 03:09:00 05/20/2008

    MANILA, Philippines—The robbery-massacre at the Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. branch in Cabuyao, Laguna last Friday has once again prompted Nandy Pacheco, proponent of the Gunless Society, to call for stricter gun control.

    Pacheco urged President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to ask Congress to increase the penalty for illegal possession of firearms to reclusion temporal (from 12 to 20 years imprisonment), without possibility of pardon or parole, and to order a total gun ban in public places except for uniformed police officers who are on duty.

    The killing of 10 people (the initial death toll of nine increased to 10 when one wounded victim died two days later in the hospital) is truly a heinous crime committed by men who are less than human. If it was only the money that they were after, they could have gotten it without having to kill so many people. If the robbers feared identification, they could have worn bonnets or masks. Or they could have ordered everyone to lie face down, tied them up, blindfolded them and gone about their business of robbing the bank. But no, these were monsters—ruthless, remorseless killers. The police should exert extra effort to arrest them before they kill other people.

    The robbers were able to kill the victims because they had easy access to guns. Anyone who has the money can buy guns—even from soldiers and policemen who are supposed to protect the people from criminals and other lawless elements.

    Something has to be done to close down this “official” source of guns used in crimes.

    The first step in dealing with the problem would be, as suggested by Pacheco, to enforce a total gun ban on everybody in public places except for uniformed police officers who are on duty. This can be done, as our experience in the 2004 and 2007 elections has shown. In the 2004 and 2007 elections, the election gun ban helped restrict the movement of criminals and resulted in the arrest of hundreds of people illegally carrying firearms.

    The police will have to conduct an extensive campaign to collect illegal firearms during the enforcement of the gun ban. All persons carrying firearms outside their houses and who cannot show valid mission orders or permits to carry would have to be challenged and forced to surrender their guns. The government was able to rid the country of loose firearms during the Marcos dictatorship. There is no reason why, with the exercise of political will, it cannot do the same now.

    The worldwide trend has been to strengthen domestic controls on guns. The United Kingdom, for one, has long had strict controls on firearms. Most of its policemen (“bobbies”) usually do not carry guns and do so only to deal with sieges, armed robberies, terrorist attacks or to protect diplomats. The gunless police are backed up when needed by units intensively trained not only in marksmanship but in discriminating among dangerous criminals, deranged people and lads out on a lark with air pistols.

    After the March 1996 killings of 16 primary school children and their teacher by a gun club member in Dunblane, Scotland, a law was passed banning 95 percent of handguns and requiring that the remainder (.22 cal. pistols) be stored at gun clubs.

    New Zealand amended its gun laws in 1992 following the shooting of 13 people in Aramoana by a young man who was licensed to carry a gun under the regulations existing at that time.

    In Australia, the National Committee on Violence recommended the national registration of all firearms in 1990 and in May 1995 the former federal justice minister advocated a national system of gun registration as part of crime prevention strategy.

    Japan has a level of community safety that is unmatched by most of the world and this is reinforced by strong cultural norms. In 1993, some 93 percent of guns seized in Japan were from organized crime. This decreased to 74 percent in 1995.

    Like most of these countries, the Philippines could pass stricter gun control laws and enforce them without exception. Right now, the Philippines cannot adopt the general British practice of having unarmed policemen. The presence of armed policemen on foot patrol or going around the community in patrol cars could greatly help bring down the crime rate.

    In the meantime, a nationwide campaign has to be waged to smash armed gangs that have lately been committing robbery-killings, car thefts and kidnappings. Put pressure on the crime syndicates and deprive them of sources of guns and the opportunity to prey on people and very soon they will be out of business.
     
  2. 3kings

    3kings SalingPusa

    699
    0
    Jan 4, 2005
    Makati
    here he goes again.
    if it was implemented, ang saya ng mga criminal sa kalsada fiesta sila araw araw
     


  3. deenoh

    deenoh

    615
    0
    Feb 3, 2003
    Philippines
    IIRC, in Switzerland, all males are issued assault rifles for militia service and are required to keep them at home, and they still have lower crime rates there.
     
  4. lawman_77008

    lawman_77008 JBT

    1,680
    0
    Jul 20, 2005
    Houston
    I think the main points the article makes are that anyone with enough money, or willing to steal it, will always have access to firearms. The second point seems to be that the anti-gun nut seems to miss the Marcos dictatorship and wants to go back to the good old days. The third point is that the Philippines is such a dangerous place that even an anti-gun nut wants the police to have guns (for now). And the last point, if you put enough pressure on the crime syndicates, you can drive them out of business, so why mess with the common citizen?
     
  5. Clusterbomb

    Clusterbomb

    350
    0
    Jan 22, 2008

    Well of course Marcos had to do that- he had just declared martial law!

    And if I remember it right, many licensed firearms were confiscated simply because they were of the larger calibers or the owners were simply scared of this novel phenomenon called martial law.

    To institute an oppressive regime, one of the first things to do is to disarm the populace. And to make sure it sticks, the punishment for illegal possession has to be increased.

    Thus the punishment was made heavy not because it was proportionate to the gravity of the offense but because the law had to be used as an instrument of repression.

    So if Nandy Pacheco would have his way, ang swerte naman ng Presidente na aabutan nun! Same effect but without even having to declare martial law. A very fertile ground for further repression will be set.
     
  6. stussy

    stussy New Blood

    13
    0
    May 9, 2008
    So Cal
    I'm swiss. and hear stories for days from my grandfather. Good stuff
     
  7. Wp.22

    Wp.22

    3,326
    0
    Jan 17, 2005
    philippines
    sadly mr. pacheco cannot win a debate over coffee with regards to his advocacy of gunless society with my uncle who is his brother in-law. Magaling lang yan sa interview and press release.
     
  8. edtf

    edtf

    2,172
    0
    Oct 10, 2007
    QC
    Come on guys don't pop a vein about this. We all know that the highest crime rate/murder rates are from places that ban firearms - name places - Washington DC and New York to name a few. We all know this but this nut of a person thinks that there are no bad people out there and that no one wants to do us any harm - ARGH :steamed:
    Breath in breath out - hmmm..... I might just pop a vein alright :(
     
  9. If some employees in that bank were legally armed, do you think it would still have turned out that way?

    Who in his right mind would expect two security guards armed with revolvers older than most of us, loaded with few pieces of even older ammo, to be able to prevent something like that?

    Does anybody even listen to Pacheco?
     
  10. brawnless

    brawnless Junior Member

    304
    0
    Dec 5, 2004
    Asia
    His statements do get published A LOT. I've seen more from him than from pro gun groups / people.

    :upeyes:
     
  11. horge

    horge -=-=-=-=- Lifetime Member

    3,045
    19
    Jan 22, 2004
    almost home
    What pro gun groups would you be talking about? :)
    No such animal in the Philippines.
     
  12. Eye Cutter

    Eye Cutter Moderator

    8,193
    1
    Nov 21, 2002
    Dr. B. Eye
    maybe the BoGs can issue a press release? watyasay boss horge?
     
  13. MERCMADE

    MERCMADE BULLET PROOF

    +1 .....
     
  14. 9MX

    9MX Rei!

    5,952
    0
    Sep 29, 2003
    Shooting
    i suggest the govt try enforcing gun ban sa mindanao, iba daw kasi culture dun sabi ni ex pnp chief calderon.

    why don't they emphasize the stats of licensed guns used on crimes vs. unlicensed ones. licensed fa owners, think twice or thrice form using their registered FAs to commit crime for obvious reasons. Unless their name starts with Ryan:steamed:
     
  15. TTPower

    TTPower

    553
    1
    Aug 2, 2006
    philippines
    i know this is wrong but for a while i was wishing pacheco was one of the people in the bank when it happend! (may their souls rest in peace).

    lets just see if he sill wouldn't want a gun in his hand!
     
  16. wtf jack

    wtf jack

    277
    0
    Sep 1, 2007
    I find it amusing that some people would argue that if the western cultures (read white people) are doing it, then it must be good. Gun control advocates would list countries and cities that enforced stricter gun control and then conviniently forget to include the cost and the effect of the bans. For example, the gun registration drive in Canada had already cost them 2 billion dollars (yup, billions) with no end in sight, and no discernible benefit.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

    The National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank, reported the following statistics:[99]

    New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
    In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures, and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977.
    In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.
    In addition:

    Over 50% of American households own guns, despite government statistics showing the number is approximately 35%, because guns not listed on any government roll were not counted during the gathering of data.[100]
    Evanston, Illinois, a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982 but experienced no decline in violent crime.
    Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.[101]
    Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population—New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C.—and each has (or, in the case of Detroit, had until 2001) a virtual prohibition on private handguns.
    UK banned private ownership of most handguns in 1997, previously held by an estimated 57,000 people—0.1% of the population.[102] Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled.[103] In 2005-06, of 5,001 such injuries, 3,474 (69%) were defined as "slight," and a further 965 (19%) involved the "firearm" being used as a blunt instrument. Twenty-four percent of injuries were caused with air weapons, and 32% with "imitation firearms" (including BB guns and soft air weapons).[104] Since 1998, the number of fatal shootings has varied between 49 and 97, and was 50 in 2005.
    Australia forced the surrender of nearly 650,000 personal firearms in 1997. A study published in 2001[105] shows a 47% decrease of firearms related deaths, but also reveals an overall rise in non-firearm related violent crime[not in citation given].
    Violent crime accelerated in Jamaica after handguns were banned.[106]
    The FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report ranking of cities over 40,000 in population by violent crime rates (per 100,000 population) finds that the ten cities with the highest violent crime rates for 2003 include three cities in the very strict state of New Jersey, one in the fairly restrictive state of Massachusetts, whereas the rest have recently adopted laws that allow for the carrying of a handgun with a permit.
     


  17. gun ban sa mindanao? huwag naman sir, paano naman kaming mga legal gun owners dito?
     
  18. ans3288

    ans3288

    668
    0
    Nov 29, 2004
    i DONT THINK they have the stats committed between licensed and unlicensed firearms! and most of the time when ur thinking of committing a crime, i agree that you dont use a legally registered FA of yours, obviously :rofl:

     
  19. pipo

    pipo

    240
    0
    Feb 20, 2006
    "an armed society is a polite society" ....
     
  20. 3kings

    3kings SalingPusa

    699
    0
    Jan 4, 2005
    Makati
    a true blooded pinoy cant let go of his trusty old .45. its like telling lapu lapu letting go of his sword.

    or maybe he is not pinoy. perhaps pinay ;-)