society
My colleague Mungo Soggot’s glib call for a total ban on guns (“What’s the hold-up on banning guns?” January 29 to February 4 and preceding editorial “Ban guns, build jails, fire Sydney”) is as useful as a call to ban malaria.
The fact is that guns are not so much a problem in themselves as a symptom of a deeper malaise. Violent acts are committed by violent people. Even if it were possible to remove all guns, a violent society would not suddenly become peaceful; only the tools of violence would change.
Finland has the highest number of guns per capita in the world and has the lowest murder rate. That in a country with a recognised alcoholism problem. Switzerland features a similarly high concentration of firearms in a peaceful society. In the United States, a country awash with guns and with a violence culture on a par with South Africa, as many murders are committed by stabbing and bludgeoning as by shooting.
If we want to seriously address the murder and mayhem in our country, we need to discover ways to make ours a less violent culture. To that end, a total ban on guns would achieve about as much as a ban on baseball bats or steak knives.
Soggot suggests the African National Congress should make a gun ban a rallying point in the election, proposing that “the majority – and certainly the more passionate – of South Africa’s gun-owning population are unlikely to be supporters of the ruling party”. Does he really think the 220 000 new gun licence applicants each year are all from within the conservative white laager? Fear of violent crime knows no political boundaries, and the poorer section of society, whence the ANC draws most of its support, is on the receiving end of most criminal violence.
Minister of Justice Dullah Omar’s “extraordinary admission of defeat” in suggesting a gun ban would be pointless “because no one would obey it” is in fact a pragmatic acceptance of reality. Guns are a fact of life – we can’t wish them away.
And in case anti-gunners haven’t noticed, there is a gun ban in place – possession of any unlicensed firearm is legally prohibited and accompanied by heavy penalties for transgression. This ban has not deterred South Africa’s criminals, and the fact that gangsters the world over have all the guns they need tends to suggest this ban is not easily enforceable, even under the most favourable conditions.
And in enforcing a total ban, the first to lose their firearms would be traceable gun owners, that is to say those with licensed firearms. By regarding guns as the problem rather than violent people, the anti-gun lobby obscures the fact that gun owners who have bothered to license their weapons have already displayed a commitment to obeying the law.
Never mind all the legitimate sporting uses for firearms; responsible, law- abiding citizens have the right, subject to certain controls, to possess firearms for the purpose of defending life and property, in the last resort, against violent criminal attack. That is, the right to possess firearms for violent purposes. Every legal jurisdiction in the world recognises self-defence as a justification for killing or maiming a violent attacker. But it stands to reason that the vast majority of guns legally held for personal defence will never be fired in anger.
The problem with guns lies with those firearms in the hands of violent, lawless people. The guns that are already banned. There is only one thing to do and that is to try to aggressively enforce the ban, which means getting our police and criminal justice system working. It means actually applying the controls that are already in place. (As Soggot points out, convicted murderers should not be able to lawfully possess firearms.)
Proper control of who gets to lawfully bear arms should also mean ensuring that gun owners are fully aware of their responsibilities. Cars, although not intended to be used to cause injury, can be lethal when used recklessly. So because they are potentially lethal we require that people be licensed before they drive, and that they display proficiency in both the act of driving and the laws governing it. Yet obtaining a licence to possess a gun, which is designed to be lethal, requires no more than than a sound justification.
The mandate of the police is to maintain law and order in society. The police are not duty bound to ensure the personal security of individuals, even if they could. So personal security is a personal matter, and the decision to arm oneself is a personal one. People have the right to choose whether to arm themselves against a very real threat. Many might choose not to, but they have no right to dictate to others that they cannot.
Soggot eventually concludes in his article that a total ban on guns is a “Utopian ideal”. He is probably closer to the truth in his next sentence when he says enforcing a total gun ban would be a “massive exercise in social engineering”. To disarm the virtuous in the face of the lawless, who wield arms wantonly in defiance of any ban, is a recipe for anarchy, and surely marks the first step in the march of the jackboot.