Duly licensed civilian gun owners help law enforcers

Gun Owners in Action, or Go Act, a nonstock, nonprofit organization advocating the right of qualified and responsible citizens to own and carry licensed firearms for self-defense, take exception to Rina Jimenez David’s claim that the “ready availability of the handguns found at the scene of drug shootings” is a “very good argument for gun control” (“One gun to kill them all,” Opinion, 11/6/16).

David says that “private handgun ownership outside of the police and military and licensed security personnel” should be limited as this (supposedly) would ensure that “there would be no need for police to fire at drug suspects, and none or a lot fewer of the thousands of victims so far would be dead.”

As legitimate, responsible civilian gun owners, we are completely against illegal/unregistered firearms and the use of a firearm (licensed or otherwise) in any sort of illegal or unscrupulous activity.

That said, we decry David’s sweeping and baseless proposition that depriving qualified civilians of gun ownership will somehow solve the drug menace and prevent other crimes.

The fact is, not a single firearm recovered at the scene of any drug-related shooting was found to be lawfully registered. In the same breath, not one legitimate civilian gun owner has ever been reported involved in such incidents.

Indeed, it would be highly unlikely for a licensed civilian gun owner to use his firearm in any sort of drug-related crime, or even be involved in drugs or a crime. Under Republic Act No. 10591, or the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Act of 2013, civilians, must pass a drug test and be proven, through the appropriate government certification, to be free from any sort of criminal activity in order to legally own and possess firearms.

Significantly, statistics show that since the legalization of civilian ownership and possession of firearms following the 1986 Edsa Revolution, 99 percent of gun-related crimes in the Philippines involved unlicensed firearms; the remaining 1 percent mostly involved rogue military/police personnel and security guards. To cite an example, the 2009 Ampatuan massacre reportedly involved policemen and local government personnel using government-issued firearms.

Clearly then, David’s vision of a “Gunless Society,” where only state security forces and private guards are allowed to possess firearms, is intrinsically flawed. More important, such a vision ignores the fact that duly licensed civilian gun owners (all of whom are responsible, hard-working, law-abiding members of the community) can and do lawfully defend themselves and their families against criminals (as regularly featured in the media). Not only that, they also assist law enforcers in securing their communities, if only because they relieve the already undermanned police from the burden of guarding them and their families.

We respect the choice of David and others who share her view not to arm themselves. But we likewise ask David and all who share her vision to also respect our right—nay, obligation—to empower ourselves, our families, and our communities with the physical and mental tools necessary to ensure our survival, wellbeing and dignity as individuals and as a nation.

RODRIGO G. MORENO, vice president and general counsel, Gun Owners in Action (Go Act)