Best Posts in Thread: Series of shootings/killings in Negros Oriental

I bought my wife (In her name) a light weight pistol 10 yrs ago. Showed her how to load it and fire it but never once fired it. As my son got older and reached the top of the Safe where I stored the gun and magazine, I didn’t like haven’t a gun in the house. I read the stories regarding revenge murders (you killed my brother (while he was robbing your house) so you are now a target. So I turned the gun into the PNP HQ.

 

You mean the pink riders of food panda didn’t stop the number of shootings in negros?! Insert gasp.

I do not think it is the poor man living in a hut who has access to these guns apparently circulating. The ordinary poor man barely has any money to feed himself much less buy a weapon. If the poor man has that weapon, it is likely because he is ex-military, ex-PNP, or a member of the NPA. These people have had practice and know how to use guns. Investigations are stalling because the police are mostly investigating their own people. Two known shootings in Negros were discovered to be done by the police. They were hired guns because you don’t hire people who have no clue how to use guns.

 

Sad to see a citizen saying that.

But, in my country I owned a shotgun - it was a semi-automatic and could fire 5 shots in quick succession. When a terrible shooting tragedy occurred at a school by a man using a shotgun, we were made to have our guns marked, registered and the number of 'shots' reduced (they changed mine from 5 cartridges to 4!). BUT only the law abiding handed theirs in - the crooks never did and they remained unmarked, unregistered and uncontrolled or traceable. That is another problem - asking crooks to follow the law!

 

We have investigators but how effective or serious are they is something else. I have noticed that they do try to do some sort of investigating after a crime but it just stops there. There seems to be a lot of dilly dallying and slackness in this area. Nothing concrete ever results from these crime probes in the Philippines.

 

i cannot cite the source but i have read that foreign residents can own guns here but that the process for expats or citizens is pretty stringent.

i recent bought a self defense weapon downtown and was able to ask a PNP officer was present if it was ok foreigners to own such a weapon. his reply was, "yes as long as you don't brandish it"

recent conversations here on dgt info make me realize that slander or defamation might be handled differently here including the possibility of criminal charges. this all would lead me to be pretty fearful of owning a gun here even if it is possible for fear that if i even pulled it to try to ward off an attack the result might be some sort of charge that might have fearful consequences.

i know for a fact that black market guns are available even to expats here but i would not even contemplate that idea. i would move elsewhere to a safer climate then to buy such self protection here. (i do have an assortment of devices including bright lights, dogs, security doors and good relations with my neighbors as my means of discouraging any more serious conflicts)

 

To own a gun you must be a citizen. A license is required as well. From what I have heard the licencing process is fairly involved, even including a phycological evaluation.
Foreigners need not apply

 

As you say, emotions can run high, for some people at least. I just want you to see the issue from one American perspective.

As for the people in “some countries” ( I wonder which Country that could be) who are oblivious, people in “other countries” who obviously did not/could not attend USA civics classes and whose constitutions are based on a principle that governments grant certain rights to the people, they need to understand the philosophy of our Constitution.

Our country’s bill of rights does not “grant” basic rights but it “respects” certain rights inherent to humanity. The difference between “grant” and “respect” is key.

The right to defend life and property already existed at the time our Constitution was first written in 1781, when single-shot long rifles were the norm but the right still exists today. The right to bear “arms” doesn’t specify Kentucky long rifles (actually quite deadly in self-defense) or AK-47 or AR-15’s. It just says “arms”. Arms are used to defend people, their families and if necessary their elected government. Yes, like all natural rights they can be abused.

But how can any government legitimately grant a right to self-defense that we already have, or, take it away? Answer: Only if the people cede one or more of their natural rights to the government. Our founders believed that doing do was unwise. Indeed modern history has shown many times that governments can turn from benign to tyrannical in just a few years; perhaps you know examples of some Country(s) I am referring to here.

If I still lived inside the boundaries the country you referred to, I probably wouldn’t bother buying a gun, just a good alarm system and a reliable sheriffs department would probably suit me well in rural NC. At least, as long as things remain as safe as they are today. But I defend the fact the no government has the right to take away any rights inherent to people including the right to self defense by any means equivalent to force that may be used against me.

The mere existence of abusers of the second amendment does not take away any right that is naturally endowed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk