Drizzt
January 15, 2003, 04:40 PM
Philippine Daily Inquirer
January 15, 2003
SECTION: 8
LENGTH: 943 words
HEADLINE: WITH A GUNLESS SOCIETY, LLAMAS WOULD STILL BE ALIVE
BYLINE: Neal H. Cruz
BODY:
THE FATAL shooting of Ateneo law graduate Jose Ramon Llamas by a motorcycle-riding wacko after a minor traffic accident is one more proof that the issuance of gun licenses should be severely and strictly limited, as the Gunless Society has long been advocating. It is reminiscent of the killing of Eldon Maguan by Rolito Go, now serving time in prison for the killing, and a long list of similar shootings cited by the Inquirer's editorial yesterday. The editorial attributed the shootings to the Filipino male's "false idea of machismo" and "his bloated ego" that is easily offended.
Right. But I would like to add one more reason: because the shooters had guns. Or, more accurately, the government allowed them to carry guns. Even if they believed they were macho and had egos as bloated as that of Michael Jackson, if they were not carrying guns, their victims would still be alive today and they would not be in jail. I bet the greatest regret of those in trouble now is that they ever touched any gun at all. If they were allowed to live their lives all over again, I bet they would not even want to look at a gun again. If they had not been carrying guns then, the most that their machismo and ego would provoke is fisticuffs or a duel with knives or steel bars. But they are not as deadly as guns. At most, they'll land in the hospital; with guns, they invariably land in the funeral parlor, and the gunwielder in jail.
For a gun does something to the Filipino male that turns him into a Jekyll-and-Hyde personality. A Filipino as meek as "mild-mannered" Bruce Banner without a gun suddenly becomes a ferocious Incredible Hulk if you give him a gun. A man packing a gun should be required to hang a sign across his chest: "Please don't make me angry."
For anger releases hormones in the body that makes a person aggressive and brave but sometimes makes him lose reason. I am sure those gunwielders mentioned earlier never intended to kill their victims. But the "unreason" provoked by anger, coupled with the guns they carried made them do it. That's probably what happened to that mild-mannered family man who accidentally shot and killed the wife of the driver with whom he had an altercation over a parking space at a memorial park in Marikina. That's what most likely happened to the others.
That's what almost happened to me many years ago when I was editor of a newspaper. I closed the front pages and drove home after midnight. For protection, I always carried a revolver in the glove compartment of my car.
As I was rounding the corner of the Recto underpass to go up to Espana, the left front door suddenly flew open, almost hitting an overtaking car. I closed the door and thought no more of it until I came up to Espana. I saw that the other car was running alongside my car and that its passenger was pointing a gun at me. Anger pumped adrenalin into my body and I tore open the glove compartment to grab my gun and start shooting. Luckily, it wasn't there; I left it at home. The other car sped off and I continued driving thinking what would have happened had the gun been there? If it had happened there, there would have been a shootout, and I would have ended up either dead or in prison.
How often have we heard of machos in nightclubs shooting it out for such inconsequential reasons as giving another a dirty look or staring too much at one's woman companion. An imagined slight that one ordinarily shrugs off if he had no gun suddenly provokes an insane rage on the same person if he is packing a gun. Similarly, minor traffic accidents that can be settled by compromise and a few thousand pesos in damages suddenly become a life and death struggle for gun-toting drivers.
What I am driving at is this: Remove guns from the hands of Filipino males and there would be less carnage, no matter how macho they are. The excuse of the pro-gun advocates is that people need them for protection as the police cannot protect them. They got it wrong. People can still possess guns, but keep them at home where they are needed for protection. What the Gunless Society has long been urging is to limit the carrying of guns outside the home. If those gunwielders had kept their guns at home, they could not have killed their victims and they would not be in trouble now.
But nobody paid attention to the Gunless Society and Nandy Pacheco seems to have abandoned the movement and turned to politics instead. Maybe it is because the name is misinterpreted. It does not really mean a "gunless society." It means strictly limiting the carrying of firearms outside the home to a very select authorized few such as policemen; soldiers, security guards, cashiers and others whose jobs are to carry a lot of money around.
Unfortunately, although this is a good subject now for editorials and columns-and needed legislation-it would be forgotten as soon as Llamas is buried and forgotten by mass media. Until the next victim is shot by another wacko.
A word on the drug and psycho tests for applicants for gun ownership. Obviously, they are not an effective way to weed out those who are not qualified to possess guns. How else would those wackos have gotten licenses to own and carry guns? Psychological tests in the Philippines are very erratic ways to determine potential killers. When Sen. Panfilo Lacson was PNP chief, only he could issue gun licenses and issuances were severely limited and shootings by civilians became almost nil. With him out to the PNP, gun licensing was liberalized. Why?
Giving too many guns to civilians is an admission that the police is falling down on the job of protecting them.
January 15, 2003
SECTION: 8
LENGTH: 943 words
HEADLINE: WITH A GUNLESS SOCIETY, LLAMAS WOULD STILL BE ALIVE
BYLINE: Neal H. Cruz
BODY:
THE FATAL shooting of Ateneo law graduate Jose Ramon Llamas by a motorcycle-riding wacko after a minor traffic accident is one more proof that the issuance of gun licenses should be severely and strictly limited, as the Gunless Society has long been advocating. It is reminiscent of the killing of Eldon Maguan by Rolito Go, now serving time in prison for the killing, and a long list of similar shootings cited by the Inquirer's editorial yesterday. The editorial attributed the shootings to the Filipino male's "false idea of machismo" and "his bloated ego" that is easily offended.
Right. But I would like to add one more reason: because the shooters had guns. Or, more accurately, the government allowed them to carry guns. Even if they believed they were macho and had egos as bloated as that of Michael Jackson, if they were not carrying guns, their victims would still be alive today and they would not be in jail. I bet the greatest regret of those in trouble now is that they ever touched any gun at all. If they were allowed to live their lives all over again, I bet they would not even want to look at a gun again. If they had not been carrying guns then, the most that their machismo and ego would provoke is fisticuffs or a duel with knives or steel bars. But they are not as deadly as guns. At most, they'll land in the hospital; with guns, they invariably land in the funeral parlor, and the gunwielder in jail.
For a gun does something to the Filipino male that turns him into a Jekyll-and-Hyde personality. A Filipino as meek as "mild-mannered" Bruce Banner without a gun suddenly becomes a ferocious Incredible Hulk if you give him a gun. A man packing a gun should be required to hang a sign across his chest: "Please don't make me angry."
For anger releases hormones in the body that makes a person aggressive and brave but sometimes makes him lose reason. I am sure those gunwielders mentioned earlier never intended to kill their victims. But the "unreason" provoked by anger, coupled with the guns they carried made them do it. That's probably what happened to that mild-mannered family man who accidentally shot and killed the wife of the driver with whom he had an altercation over a parking space at a memorial park in Marikina. That's what most likely happened to the others.
That's what almost happened to me many years ago when I was editor of a newspaper. I closed the front pages and drove home after midnight. For protection, I always carried a revolver in the glove compartment of my car.
As I was rounding the corner of the Recto underpass to go up to Espana, the left front door suddenly flew open, almost hitting an overtaking car. I closed the door and thought no more of it until I came up to Espana. I saw that the other car was running alongside my car and that its passenger was pointing a gun at me. Anger pumped adrenalin into my body and I tore open the glove compartment to grab my gun and start shooting. Luckily, it wasn't there; I left it at home. The other car sped off and I continued driving thinking what would have happened had the gun been there? If it had happened there, there would have been a shootout, and I would have ended up either dead or in prison.
How often have we heard of machos in nightclubs shooting it out for such inconsequential reasons as giving another a dirty look or staring too much at one's woman companion. An imagined slight that one ordinarily shrugs off if he had no gun suddenly provokes an insane rage on the same person if he is packing a gun. Similarly, minor traffic accidents that can be settled by compromise and a few thousand pesos in damages suddenly become a life and death struggle for gun-toting drivers.
What I am driving at is this: Remove guns from the hands of Filipino males and there would be less carnage, no matter how macho they are. The excuse of the pro-gun advocates is that people need them for protection as the police cannot protect them. They got it wrong. People can still possess guns, but keep them at home where they are needed for protection. What the Gunless Society has long been urging is to limit the carrying of guns outside the home. If those gunwielders had kept their guns at home, they could not have killed their victims and they would not be in trouble now.
But nobody paid attention to the Gunless Society and Nandy Pacheco seems to have abandoned the movement and turned to politics instead. Maybe it is because the name is misinterpreted. It does not really mean a "gunless society." It means strictly limiting the carrying of firearms outside the home to a very select authorized few such as policemen; soldiers, security guards, cashiers and others whose jobs are to carry a lot of money around.
Unfortunately, although this is a good subject now for editorials and columns-and needed legislation-it would be forgotten as soon as Llamas is buried and forgotten by mass media. Until the next victim is shot by another wacko.
A word on the drug and psycho tests for applicants for gun ownership. Obviously, they are not an effective way to weed out those who are not qualified to possess guns. How else would those wackos have gotten licenses to own and carry guns? Psychological tests in the Philippines are very erratic ways to determine potential killers. When Sen. Panfilo Lacson was PNP chief, only he could issue gun licenses and issuances were severely limited and shootings by civilians became almost nil. With him out to the PNP, gun licensing was liberalized. Why?
Giving too many guns to civilians is an admission that the police is falling down on the job of protecting them.