Guns: Fighting fire with fire

So, the old saying goes, an old scourge of Moros in Mindanao decides to resurrect itself in light of the recent atrocities committed by the MILF. Known as the Ilaga, an armed Christian group organized to counter the Moro threat that was sweeping Mindanao in the 70s, the civilian “vigilante” group has vowed to retaliate ten-fold for any Christian or Muslim civilian killed by the MILF. Even civilians have expressed a need to arm themselves, should the MILF return and subject them to more violence and atrocities. Nobody can blame them if they want to defend themselves. But the danger lies in the very nature of wielding weapons. One has to be trained to properly use them. And even the MILF does not even qualify as a trained group, hence, their penchant to commit violent acts.

It is not new that civilians have been armed to fight wars, under the authority of existing military commands. In the US War of Independence militias were formed and funded by the Army to locally fight the British in what is now known as skirmishes, or chance encounters and ambush, compared to the face-to-face fighting that was practiced by the military during that time. The problem with civilians bearing arms of any sort is the lack of discipline that can only be provided by military training. Militias were the first to fold when confronted with a well-trained military. And civilians with guns always threaten with the potential for abuse. This is true in peacetime. What more in war?

During the Japanese occupation of World War II, the Hukbalahap, or Hukbong Bayan Laban sa Hapon was formed to fight the Japanese. But after the war, Communist ideology crept into the leadership of the “Huks”, and they turned on the government. The Ilaga is not without its share of violent atrocities as well. They were involved in bloody massacres and atrocities against Muslims. Aside from being an untrained armed group, they were also heavy into mysticism and folklore, turning them into a group of cultic influence. Just as many reasons are brought forward in the argument against arming civilians as it is in the arguments warranting the issuance of arms to them.

The key here would be the AFP and PNP. They regulate, they implement laws they should apprehend and prosecute illegal possession of firearms culprits and enforces laws against criminality in general. If they do their jobs well enough to protect the civilians in the area of battle, then there would be no need or reason to arm civilians.

According to the Pro-Gun Society, several first world countries have already come out with findings on allowing armed civilians. In these countries criminality rose double percentage than when civilians were allowed arms. But fighting fire with fire probably works, to a degree, in preventing its spread. But it should be left in the hands of trained personnel, and not untrained, emotional non-combatants. We would do well to learn from history.