January 4th, 2013

Gun control in the Phillipines…

doesn’t seem to be working out so well:

While the United States has the highest per-person percentage of gun ownership in the world, according to Reuters, the Philippines has a much lower gun-ownership ratio. There are a mere 4.7 guns for every 100 Filipinos and there are 3.9 million privately licensed firearms in the Philippines. In the United States, there are 88.8 guns per 100 people and 270 million in the country, reports GunPolicy.org, a web site hosted by the Sydney School of Public Health at the University of Sydney.

Despite those numbers, the Philippines has a much higher gun-related homicide rate than the United States.

According to the most recently available data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, there were 8.9 homicides per 100,000 people in the Pacific island archipelago in 2003, while in the United States there were 3.3 homicides per 100,000 people.

Illegal gun ownership and gun trade in the Philippines are also problems.

Filipinos are required by law to be licensed to possess a firearm, and civilians are restricted to a single pistol and either a rifle or shotgun. Even so, there are an estimated 160,750 illegal guns in the Philippines, according to GunPolicy.org, which did not have comparable U.S. data available.

Tighter gun restrictions actually encourage illegal gun trade, Reuters notes. “With legal access denied, Filipinos simply turn to the many illegal gunsmiths who ply their trade in back alleys and on the edge of rice fields despite government crackdowns.” In addition, gun laws are not vigorously enforced, and availability is as easy as visiting a gun shop in a Manila shopping mall.

26 Responses to “Gun control in the Phillipines…”

  1. KLSmith Says:

    Prices are going up and stock is selling out.

  2. Steve D Says:

    ‘Tighter gun restrictions actually encourage illegal gun trade, Reuters notes.’

    Kind of like the war on drugs, you mean?

  3. blert Says:

    How can it be that the Swiss Army requires EVERY reservist to maintain a Fully Automatic Weapon in the home — ready for action on short notice….

    But Switzerland is not notorious for crazed assaults — most particularly murder-suicides?

    How can it be that the IDF requires reservists to maintain combat capable weapons in the home — ready for action on short notice…

    And that Israelis routinely sport military grade weapons while at work or play…

    Yet, Israel is not overrun with paranoid-schizophenic murder-suicides?

    ————-

    If totalitarian police states can’t thwart murder-suicide by sanctions — to what level of Hell does the Left expect America to reach before they’ve attained enough State absolutism?

    With tens of millions of State Victims murdered during the last century — because they were personally defenseless — how does the Left balance that manifest threat with the paucity of wacko murder victims?

    Are we to ban the automobile because it’s a killer? After all, it inflicts more youth fatalities than guns — by a country mile. Road casualties are so great — they’re not even newsworthy.

    As for enforcement: the Left doesn’t even begin to enforce the Law on the Books — when it intersects the wrong Victim Class.

    Witness David Gregory… and the armed to the teeth drug gangs in Ghetto America. Metal detectors would be singing in stereo if cut loose in the ‘Projects.’

    ————

    The American Revolution was triggered in 1775 by a high-minded British officer, recently arrived, who was shocked, shocked, at the amount of black powder and ball out in the ‘sticks’: Concord, Mass.

    Most histories are all fouled up: the ‘militia stores’ were THE communal stash of ball and powder. Because of its touchy nature — and its obvious hazards — black powder was not stored, in quantity, with regular trade goods — or near residences. It was normal practice to store it within churches and other, designated, public spaces.

    (Black powder HAS to be kept DRY. Good roofing was an iffy proposition centuries ago. As a high dollar asset, it was commonplace to secure it with priests/ reverends — in the best structure in town.

    Steeples invite lightning — which made Ben Franklin a global hero when he devised lightning rod protection. American and European churches stopped blowing up.)

    The move against the communal ball and powder supply was a direct threat to the entire community. In 1775 everyone was still getting their meat by hunting in the woods — with gunpowder. Further, it took gunpowder to save the family vegetable plot: else the deer would wipe it out in one night.

    (Deer proof fencing was centuries into the future.)

    And, lastly, the King Phillips War left a mark: no-one dared not be ready in a hot minute to repel hostile tribes. Unlike Europeans, they’d attack without any notice, whatsoever. This tendency was the wellspring of the Minutemen. Absolutely no-one was training to repel the British Army at that time. It never entered anyone’s head.

    Which explains the whole impromptu nature of Lexington and Concord.

    ———–

    It’s not enough that Barry is destroying the US Dollar. Now he wants to out Buchanan — Buchanan!

  4. thomass Says:

    Hey, Mexico has tight gun control too.

    As to us; we still have more murders via blunt objects than rifles (all types of rifles).

  5. rickl Says:

    Tighter gun restrictions actually encourage illegal gun trade, Reuters notes.

    The deuce you say!

  6. Artfldgr Says:

    Its not working here either…

    Ex-Burglars Say Newspaper’s Gun Map Would’ve Made the Job Easier, Safer

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/ex-burglars-say-newspapers-gun-map-wouldve-made-job-easier-safer/

    the point makes no sense…
    OTHER than Luddites have a natural fear of technology…

    and they hide that irrational fear behind a seeming rational fight… but its not rational, as its all about surface appearances, and ignores facts, and basically says, i hate technology (but i dont want to live with the Amish or give it up myself – so like suicide by cop, they will force the state to do it, and they will remain normal compared to others through the whole process, which no other alternative does that.. so they protect their appearance)

    what it mostly shows is that the vast majority of the concerned and the professional political have no idea how anything works or functions or what is even out in the world, and all those kinds of things… yet do not have the honesty, integrity and such to bow out of such. like those that discuss things here but dont know either, they just make something up and participate and pretend rather than ask questions and take the unequal low position temporarily.

    but if this is actually going to logically go someplace, the first question is now how can we make ourselves safe, but whether the point is even attainable.

    Is it possible to be safe?

    no…

    any idea of safety you have is an illusion.
    you are never safe, your just safer than other times where your less safe.
    the goal is unattainable… like utopia…

    So its impossible to be safe, but it IS possible to be “safer than”.

    it only took me a few minutes after writing the above to find others who understand this.

    The Psychology of Security
    http://www.schneier.com/essay-155.html

    “The reality of security is mathematical, based on the probability of different risks and the effectiveness of different countermeasures.”

    “But security is also a feeling, based not on probabilities and mathematical calculations, but on your psychological reactions to both risks and countermeasures.”

    So right here you can see that what you have is a “set” (class) that is irrational as to the subject (with a rational position arrived on by just as much rationality as a irrational position. and you have a set that has rational thoughts on the subject.

    the first rule here is that the irrational set has to present its points as rational

    however the irrational set did not arrive at that state that way, and so from a political strategy standpoint, you can make doppelgangers of rationality who will NOT respond to any rational argument as to do so would be asking them to admit they are irrational in the base of their thinking and choosing.
    [edited for length by n-n]

  7. Artfldgr Says:

    you can be secure even though you don’t feel secure. And you can feel secure even though you’re not. The feeling and reality of security are certainly related to each other, but they’re just as certainly not the same as each other. We’d probably be better off if we had two different words for them. – The Psychology of Security

    Security is a trade-off. This is something I have written about extensively, and is a notion critical to understanding the psychology of security. There’s no such thing as absolute security, and any gain in security always involves some sort of trade-off.

    Security costs money, but it also costs in time, convenience, capabilities, liberties, and so on. Whether it’s trading some additional home security against the inconvenience of having to carry a key around in your pocket and stick it into a door every time you want to get into your house, or trading additional security from a particular kind of airplane terrorism against the time and expense of searching every passenger, all security is a trade-off.

    so the idea is to get you to make a feelings based choice to make the trade without knowing the terms of the outcome of the choice being made.

    its an irrational trade that their egos will invent and try any and every way to prove its not feelings based but rational.

    its a cow for magic beans

    which is always what the left offers (and in western literature, how evil works and operates at its most evil – even Dante expressed that!!!!)

    they are always offering a dream tomorrow for material today

    avoiding them would be as easy as understanding why you don’t give wimpy a hamburger today as he will still be broke on Tuesday, and there is no way to get the hamburger back after he consumes it.

    once your feelings based matriarchal based not merit based, then you have no way to know which idea is operable, and which idea is not. you just accept what sounds best from the people you think you trust.

    not only is feelings better than logic, but so is one class’s intuition…

    this is why the lefts movements are so irrational and chaotic..
    we gave up more than our prurient ways in 1968, we gave up rationality for irrationality with a coating to hide what it is – feelings arguments that sway the ignorant, the sensitive (who may logically know better, but still choose the feelings point), etc.

    Fienstein was the whom who wrote things for a reason…
    If a male would have written it, it would not have what guarding it?
    in this way, women can get behind it without supporting a non woman.

    There are several specific aspects of the security trade-off that can go wrong. For example:

    The severity of the risk.
    The probability of the risk.
    The magnitude of the costs.
    How effective the countermeasure is at mitigating the risk.
    How well disparate risks and costs can be compared.

    The more your perception diverges from reality in any of these five aspects, the more your perceived trade-off won’t match the actual trade-off. If you think that the risk is greater than it really is, you’re going to overspend on mitigating that risk. If you think the risk is real but only affects other people–for whatever reason–you’re going to underspend. If you overestimate the costs of a countermeasure, you’re less likely to apply it when you should, and if you overestimate how effective a countermeasure is, you’re more likely to apply it when you shouldn’t. If you incorrectly evaluate the trade-off, you won’t accurately balance the costs and benefits.

    A lot of this can be chalked up to simple ignorance. If you think the murder rate in your town is one-tenth of what it really is, for example, then you’re going to make bad security trade-offs. But I’m more interested in divergences between perception and reality that can’t be explained that easily. Why is it that, even if someone knows that automobiles kill 40,000 people each year in the U.S. alone, and airplanes kill only hundreds worldwide, he is more afraid of airplanes than automobiles? Why is it that, when food poisoning kills 5,000 people every year and 9/11 terrorists killed 2,973 people in one non-repeated incident, we are spending tens of billions of dollars per year (not even counting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) on terrorism defense while the entire budget for the Food and Drug Administration in 2007 is only $1.9 billion?

    i hope i explained why…

  8. rickl Says:

    I don’t have the link, but I recently read that violent crime in England has skyrocketed since their gun ban. First of all, criminals there as elsewhere seem to have no problem obtaining guns, and secondly, if they don’t have guns, they can use knives or beatings to get what they want.

    Take home burglaries: In the U.S., about 80% of break-ins occur when the homeowner is not at home. The burglar just grabs whatever he can see lying around and leaves. He would prefer not to confront the homeowner if he doesn’t know whether the homeowner is armed.

    The other 20% are home invasions, where one or more burglars forces their way in while the owner(s) are at home. They tend to be concentrated in areas that have strict gun laws. That apparently tends to embolden criminals, surprisingly enough.

    In England, the proportions are almost exactly reversed. The vast majority of break-ins are home invasions. They don’t even need to use any weapons other than their fists. A couple of 20 year old thugs can kick in the door of a 60 year old, and simply beat him to a bloody pulp until he tells them where he keeps his valuables.

  9. rickl Says:

    Neo, I’m curious: Do you own any guns, or have any experience with them? I know Massachusetts does not have a reputation as a gun-friendly state, but I don’t know exactly what the laws are there.

    If you’d prefer not to discuss what you do or don’t have, that’s OK.

  10. holmes Says:

    It doesn’t matter- this debate isn’t about facts, at least for the Left.

  11. holmes Says:

    I think one thing that would help the gun lobby is if they borrowed this thought from my favorite pastor, Tim Keller. He said, “Democracy is medicine, not food.” Meaning, it’s a remedy for a problem, it’s not in and of itself a sustaining thing. It’s, in some ways, it’s own necessary evil. And our Founders sought to restrain democracy is many ways for that reason.

    Guns are medicine, not food. If that is the stance, I think the message is better. But the “You’ll take my gun from my cold, dead hand” stuff doesn’t play as well these days.

  12. southpaw Says:

    If you befriend a any policeman in any state, he will tell you he has no fear of a law abiding citizen with a firearm. And he will also tell you neither he nor any other policeman has much chance of protecting you from a violent crime, and you should have a way to do that yourself. All he can do is try to find the criminal afterward, but there’s usually a long waiting list, assuming it matters to you after the fact.
    If the conversation were turned toward the government’s effectiveness at crime prevention, the ownership issue would be less on the defensive. The whole premise that violent crime would not exist if guns were outlawed is false, as anybody with a brain knows, but the finger needs to be pointed at law enforcement’s inability to prevent crime too. There are no crimes prevented by law enforcement except by chance or dumb luck. Violent Crime isn’t deterred by law enforcement except where they happen to be standing. These things seem obvious, but apparently I’m missing some key information the gun control people have.

  13. Sam L. Says:

    (Singing, poorly) If I had a hammer, …

    Some knights used war hammers.

  14. parker Says:

    Hoplophobia is a mental disorder that should require forced commitment to an institution

  15. David Yotham Says:

    @ rickl Says:
    January 4th, 2013 at 7:32 pm

    I don’t have the link, but I recently read that violent crime in England has skyrocketed since their gun ban.
    ————————–
    I was also told that the criminal statistics in the UK are cocked-up as well. From whom I was speaking to, you can only be a statistic once. Example: You’re walking home and get robbed. (you are now a violent crime stat). Six months later the same thing happens to you, elsewhere. No stats are generated for this violvent personal crime upon you, since you’re already been added. This technique is used to keep the stats artificially low.

    Other thoughts: Thanks Artfldgr! Something that occured to me after the school children slaughter – our government is more afraid of law-abiding citizens owning weapons for self-defense than they are criminals. Criminals they can deal with – but thinking citizens are a whole nother kettle of fish! NO COGNIZANT CITIZENS ALLOWED to protect themselves – let Darwin sort it all out; the wolves can eat the sheep and save the government the effort. Security – what security?

  16. Doom Says:

    What I wonder is, has gun control every worked, anywhere? I don’t believe in it, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t looked for the opposite. The problem is I only have two eyes and limits of time and effort on any one topic. There are so many to disprove and only so much time in a day. I literally haven’t found one successful case where crime doesn’t increase, murder by the state become common, and just as often both of those.

    I love being shown to be wrong if only to figure out what is wrong with that “right solution”, too. It’s usually not very difficult.

  17. RickZ Says:

    Were I to demand of my Congressbastards (I live in NY, so they are de facto bastards, including Gillibrand [no feminizing 'bastards' for me]) that all muslim immigration be stopped, and all visas, tourist, student or whatever, no longer be issued to muslims as muslims have committed mass murder in this country, and more than just on 9/11, would that argument fly? What was it the libtards used to say to this argument? You can’t condemn a whole group of people because of the actions of a ‘crazed’ few? Funny how that argument goes out the window when it comes to a deranged young man using a gun to commit mass murder: They demand all the law-abiding gun owners be held responsible and accountable for the criminal actions of a very few, so let’s ban guns.

    I also think it’s important for newspapers to publish interactive lists of those who have had abortions (neighbors who murder kids are in the ‘public interest’), are on psychotropic drugs (you need to know the crazies around you), are on welfare (my money, so no expectation privacy), food stamps (see welfare), live in Section 8 housing (see welfare), are on probation for any crime (public interest again), and other such people directly impacting public safety.

    I really am getting awfully fed up with all the demonization of legal gun owners exercising their 2nd Amendment RIGHT (not ‘need’) coming out of progressive totalitarian thugs’ mouths. Enough of this Tyranny.

    I do believe it’s time to fully exercise our 2nd Amendment rights in the way Jefferson, et.al. intended: Hunting tyrannical politicians (and their media propagandists), thereby watering the Tree of Liberty.

  18. SteveH Says:

    Haven’t we come full circle? Last century at this time progressives were insisting on alcohol prohibition to create their utopia. Now it’s prohibition on guns, fatty foods, tobacco and non PC expression.

    At what point do we rid ourselves of these fundamentalist control freaks? Talk about unsustainable.

  19. thomass Says:

    Doom Says:

    “What I wonder is, has gun control every worked, anywhere?”

    Germany, USSR, Turkey…

  20. Occam's Beard Says:

    the armed to the teeth drug gangs in Ghetto America.

    This.

    If the liberals are serious about gun control, let them start in the ghettos, if they dare, because that’s where most gun violence takes place. Homicide is the leading cause of death of black males 15-25 or so, and most of that is by firearms. So start there, comrades. Or shut up.

  21. DonS Says:

    Homicide is a result of culture. This was clear back in the 80s, when the US non-hispanic white homicide rate was around 6 (per 100,000), vice 4 in England. The US hispanic rate was 26; the US black rate was 34. Oh, and the Jqapanese American rate was slightly lower then the actual Japanese rate.

    Now the US non-hispanic white rate is about 2.5, the black rate about 17. Despite the fact that
    Americans own more and better guns then ever.

    Places like Russia and most of Latin America have rates in excess of 20 per 100,000, despite strict gun control laws.

  22. DonS Says:

    rickl Says:

    January 4th, 2013 at 7:32 pm
    I don’t have the link, but I recently read that violent crime in England has skyrocketed since their gun ban.

    It shot up sharply after the late 90s handgun and semiauto bans. They banned ALL handguns (the olympic team has to travel elsewhere to practice with .22 handguns) and ALL semi auto rifles. All that is allowed are shotguns and manually operated rifles, and those are strictly regulated.

    IIRC, the year after the ban gun crime shot up 40% aned the following year a further 60%, at a time US rates were dropping. I think it is the decay of culture in the UK, along with immigration, which is the key problem, but the inability of Brits to defend themselves can only make things worse.

  23. DonS Says:

    I’m also curious if neo owns guns. I sorta figured she was more inclined towards gun control then more long term/western conservatives. Her pro gun views are very positive.

    My view is that a key reason the left supports gun control is for a cultural reason: guns make for an independent people.

  24. thomass Says:

    Sam L. Says:

    “Some knights used war hammers.”

    heck, most of the two handed swords were just hammers with the edges sharpened…

    I can’t lift them and if I did; my back would go out. :)

  25. thomass Says:

    Well; we never got facts on the air during the healthcare debate so I figure most people will never hear any of this / arguments like in this thread.

    Really; team lefty pulled out arguments for healthcare that have been used for ten years… and already debunked / had great responses laying around… that no one heard.

  26. Daniel Says:

    That might explain the propensity to use grenades to attack their rivals…

    On a business trip a few years ago, there were a couple of grenade attacks in the city I stayed in. Motorcyclists would pull up with a pinoy sitting on the back, they’d toss a grenade or two into the open shop of the target (3 wall shops abound there) and drive off. Sure, there was always collateral damage, but that was probably preferred.

    Of course, I also saw a huge amount of gun toting guards while I was there, so I’m actually surprised to hear that they actually have this level of gun control.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge