“The PNP should rethink this new move (of allowing gun ownership by the public) and stick to its core mission of law enforcement and crime prevention”
The announcement from the PNP weeks back it is allowing civilian ownership of semi-automatic firearms understandably created very negative reactions from several legislators.
It does seem inexplicable why the PNP would want more guns in the hands of the public instead of limiting them as a measure of crime prevention.
It is true some so-called safeguards were announced but those safeguards are actually already in force.
They are, therefore, nothing new.
What could have been in the minds of the PNP leadership that instead of reducing the number of firearms in the hands of civilians, semi-automatic weapons can now be licensed by them?
We are now like the United States that allows ownership of semi-automatic firearms such as AR 15.
The PNP seems to be forgetting that, first and foremost, it is a law enforcement and crime prevention organization.
With a communist insurgency still going on with the presence of other terrorist groups in the country, why would the PNP want to add to its problems?
It does not make any sense at all. One would think the PNP would be the first to prevent gun proliferation instead of promoting it.
I would hate to think this move has anything to do with trust funds.
When I was still in the service, the amount collected from firearm licensing was already in the hundreds of millions.
That was about two decades ago.
So, one can imagine how much that collection must be today with increased fees and all.
The amount must have grown a lot.
And the fees the PNP collects from firearm licensing are not remitted to the national government but stays with the PNP to support various operational and administrative activities.
If this is the case, it speaks volumes about the priorities of the organization and some quarters might rightly question whether the PNP has its priorities right.
In a way this PNP move is similar to what happened a few years ago during the debate about the recreational use of marijuana.
Instead of the PNP keeping quiet and just let those who were for or against debate the issue, the PNP joined those opposing the recreational use of marijuana.
In other words, the PNP wanted more work instead of less.
In this current case, however, it is a truism that more guns in the hand of people means more crimes using guns not less.
Statistics have also shown that societies with less guns in the hands of the public have less violent crimes.
Maybe the PNP planners are not reading the news about what is going on in the United States where gun violence is responsible thousands of civilian deaths every year.
It is not true what some PNP officials are saying that deaths by the use of firearms here is negligible.
We are not immune to gun violence if one reads the newspapers and watch TV.
There is not a day that there is no reported death by the use of firearms. Yet, the PNP wants more firearms in the hands of the public.
As an unsolicited advice, perhaps what the PNP should be doing instead is think of ways on how to modernize the organization so it can keep up with 21st century crime fighting.
As it is, there have been really very little changes in the organization as it continues to increase in personnel strength.
Much of what we read in the news are the constant reshuffling of key positions which, although announced as part of a reform process, is actually affecting negatively police efficiency.
Criminals nowadays are of different breed from a generation ago.
They are now a lot smarter especially white collar criminals.
Most of all, many crimes now have become transnational requiring new skills and training.
Add cybercrimes and the PNP will hardly have time to rest on its laurels.
As I see it, the PNP should be constantly restructuring to meet new challenges with new doctrines and training for a truly professional police force.
The PNP should, therefore, rethink this new move and stick to its core mission of law enforcement and crime prevention.
