Double standard

If this isn’t a case of double standards, I don’t know what is! Pro-Gun has protested the arming of MMDA traffic enforcers, in light of the recent shooting of UNARMED MMDA traffic enforcer Larry Fiala, by a motorist he was apprehending for violating the number-coding scheme in Metro Manila. The motorist first punches him, then flees. He naturally gives chase, and when he catches up to him, a visibly irked Edward Gonzalez shoots him four times, hitting Fiala thrice, then flees. According to Pro-Gun, MMDA traffic enforcers do not need guns because all they are supposed to do is enforce traffic rules, and they do not need guns to do that. Isn’t that what Fiala was doing? Enforcing traffic rules? And what did he get from it, from a “responsible gun owner”? Three slugs in his body!

 So let me get this straight. It is the right of Pro-Gun to aggressively pursue the right of every citizen to purchase and bear arms, even outside their residences for protection. But traffic enforcers do not need guns because all they do is enforce traffic anyway? So, when the MMDA traffic enforcer sheds his uniform and becomes an ordinary civilian, he now has the right to buy a gun and protect himself. But not as a traffic enforcer! Is it because gun-owning civilians only want themselves to be armed and roaming the streets, and not traffic enforcers, nor anybody else?

 Let me guess. Following the usual mindset of some, gun advocates out there, not all mind you, who I really believe should not be allowed to own any gun, it was okay for Gonzalez to shoot Fiala, because the act of blocking his car in a public road already constitutes a threat on his life and property. Therefore, “Bang, bang, bang and bang! Hey, I just exercised my right to self-protection!” Never mind that Fiala is an official MMDA traffic enforcer. Never mind that Gonzalez was being chased for striking an officer and violating the number-coding scheme, unarmed! Never mind all that because we’re talking guns here, and who has the right to own, carry and use them! Obviously, in the mindset of Pro-Gun, they are the only ones who have the right to carry firearms, and nobody else. I would bet, that if Fiala was accompanied by an armed PNP officer, Gonzalez would not have drawn his gun and fired out of sheer cowardice.

 I believe Pro-Gun has exposed their true goal in society. Apparently, anybody with a licensed firearm automatically belongs to this gun-advocate group, with a fraternity-like attitude towards their own, and those against them. It doesn’t matter who eventually buys a gun, for as long as it is duly licensed. That alone makes them peaceful, responsible gun owners. There are no other steps taken to find out if a person is eligible to own a gun, except pulling out his wallet and handing over dirty paper. Never mind if the person is a serial-rapist or killer who hasn’t been caught. Once done, you are now a peaceful, responsible gun owner, and everyone else is a potential target!

I am against arming MMDA traffic enforcers, not because they are only traffic enforcers, but because they do not have the proper training and attitude to handle firearms, yet. If the MMDA is mulling arming some of their own, they must undergo a rigorous training and attitude alignment before handing out the weapons. If not, then all MMDA teams should have at least one or two armed PNP officers with them at all times. Just to give them a fighting chance if ever another peaceful, responsible, legal gun owner decides his life is being threatened by the number-coding scheme. Isn’t that fair enough? Or maybe playing fair is not in the game plan.