RE: THE PROPOSED FIREARMS CONTROL BILL GOVERNMENT GAZETTE 21193

United Christian Action has studied the Bill, as made available by the Ministry of Safety and Security, and we are convinced that should this Bill be enacted into law it would result in even more crime and violence.

Far from reducing crime the proposed new Bill will lead to increased crime by disarming the potential victims of crime. Even more seriously the Bill grants sweeping powers to the Police for search and seizures – without a warrant! Should the Bill be enacted into law, South Africans could lose their rights to property, privacy, presumption of innocence and protection.

The members and affiliates of United Christian Action are deeply concerned about the terrible crime wave in our country – with tens of thousands raped and murdered every year. This intolerable situation will be greatly aggravated by the proposed new Firearm Control Bill.

As one commentator has described it: the Bill is "not the long awaited breakthrough in government thinking on crime reduction the country was demanding, nor even a step in the right direction. On the contrary it is a retrograde, counter productive measure."

The assertion by government that this new Bill is needed in order to curtail the threat of violent crime seems ridiculous. Armed robbery, murder and rape are already illegal, but the state has let many thieves, murderers and rapists go free. Even the terrorists convicted of the St. James massacre have been set free! What is needed is not more restrictive legislation to complicate the lives of responsible citizens, but enforcement of existing laws.

UCA is concerned that: far from "getting tough" on crime, the government has legalised many crimes such as pornography, gambling, prostitution and abortion. The proliferation of vices such as gambling, violent videos, drug abuse and pornography has been shown to fuel dramatic increases in violent crime.

To maintain that it is "justified" to violate South Africa’s Constitutional Bill of Rights is to follow the tired old "the end justifies the means" arguments of all gun control advocates – from Adolf Hitler, to Joseph Stalin, to Mao TseTung, to Fidel Castro, Col. Mengistu, Idi Amin and Pol Pot.

The rights to privacy, presumption of innocence, property and protection are essential, non negotiable rights that should never be violated by the state for any reason whatsoever.

Those advocating stricter gun control are trying to sell us the false premise that fewer guns means a safer society. Yet every example of gun control reveals an increase in violent crime. Washington DC which has had a total prohibition on handguns for more than 30 years has one of the highest murder rates in the world (1 000% worse than neighbouring Arlington, Virginia – where guns are freely available – just across the river from DC.) In fact, those 34 states in the USA that have legalised concealed carry permits for firearms have recorded dramatic decreases in violent crime.

Advocates of stricter gun control have repeatedly referred to the Australian example. In 1996 following the dreadful shooting rampage by a pornography addict who killed 35 people and wounded 19 others, a massive media campaign led to such severe legislation that even Olympic shooters now have to leave the country in order to practise! Reportedly 640 381 firearms were surrendered to/or confiscated by the police. Even shotguns, .22 rifles and collectors items were crushed by steam shovels in an incredibly wasteful exercise which was promoted as a solution to violent crime and a way to ensure a safer society.

However, in the year since the gun confiscation programme was completed – armed robberies in Australia have increased 44 percent! In the state of Victoria (where over 200 000 firearms had been turned in) homicides-with-firearms increased 300 percent! Although incidents of violent crime, including homicides-with-firearms and armed robberies in Australia had been steadily decreasing for 25 years before the gun ban, now that most victims have been disarmed, there has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly.

Australian politicians who had so enthusiastically promoted this gun control legislation have been at a loss to explain how such a monumental nationwide effort to confiscate and destroy guns – at over $500 million expense – could have resulted in no improvement in safety. Worse than that – their gun control laws had resulted in the most dramatic deterioration.

In Northern Ireland firearm ownership is severely restricted under some of the most serious gun control laws in the world. However, despite martial law, house searches, roadblocks and other high profile intrusions by the British military, gun control measures in Northern Ireland have failed to prevent the paramilitary and terrorist groups from obtaining all the weapons they need. The seemingly never ending atrocities and murders committed in Northern Ireland, including the horrific practice of "kneecapping," demonstrate the futility of gun control legislation. In the neighbouring Republic of Ireland, handguns are totally prohibited and long rifles almost so. Yet the IRA has still managed to obtain and transport all the weapons it needs in and through the Republic.

The first minor controls on firearms were imposed in 1920, although smooth bore guns and shotguns were exempted from all control. Shotguns could be purchased without restrictions from hardware stores or sports shops. Restrictions against all firearm owners in Britain were enacted in 1968 following the public outcry over the shocking murder of three policemen by three hardened career criminals. Despite the British Home Secretary having repeatedly stated in Parliament that gun control laws were unnecessary and counter productive, he introduced gun control legislation to divert public demands for the reintroduction of the death penalty – which had recently been abolished.

The effect of the 1968 gun control laws in the UK was that registered rifle and handgun owners were reduced by 32½% over the 26 years from 1968 (when 256 061 were registered) to 1994 (when 172 644 were licenced). (Shotgun owners actually increased, however from 701 562 in 1969 to 971 102 in 1988. However, after 1988 the number of shotgun owners in the UK decreased to 740 441.)

Along with the increasingly restrictive gun control laws in Britain, and the decreasing number of registered firearms in law abiding citizens’ hands, has come an explosion of violent crime. Since 1968 armed robberies have increased by 1 275% (almost 13 times) from 464 in 1969 to 5 918 in 1994. Scotland Yard estimates that the number of illegal firearms in Britain numbers in the many millions. Clearly most British gun owners are not willing to part with their firearms. Yet sharp instruments kill 3 to 4 times more victims than firearms do each year. Iron bars have also proven to be more lethal than shotguns when used in robberies.

In Germany, gun control was first introduced by the Nazis in 1935. Celebrating this innovative legislation, as the first in the Western World, Adolf Hitler declared that gun control would make the streets of Germany safer, it would enable the police to better do their work and other nations in the world would soon follow the National Socialist example by also limiting gun ownership to government officials! Today there are approximately 17 to 20 million firearms in private hands in Germany. Of these only about 3 million are registered. Over 80% of the firearms in Germany are illegally held and a series of police raids have failed to find them.

Professor John Lott of the University of Chicago Law School recently completed an exhaustive study on the relationship of firearm ownership to crime. His thorough analysis of the data for all 3 054 counties in the United States during the 18 years from 1977 to 1994 has been published under the title: "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws."

Lott’s scholarly study exposes the falsehood and folly of many Gun Free South Africa guesstimates, claims and assertions. For example the GFSA claim that most people are killed by a friend, family member or someone they know. The often-quoted statistic is that 58% of murder victims are killed by an acquaintance. What most people don’t realise is that this "acquaintance murder" category includes gang members killing other gang members, drug buyers killing drug pushers, taxi drivers being killed by customers they picked up for the first time, prostitutes and their clients and so on.

The vast majority of murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens. Ninety percent of adult murderers have had previous criminal records as adults. It is this fact that led the New York police commissioner to institute the successful "Zero Tolerance" campaign that has dramatically decreased the incidence of crime in New York City. They observed that serious violent crime was committed by people who had committed a wide variety of minor crimes first. To counteract this early contempt for the law, New York police now deal severely with all breaches of the law – to instill an early respect for the law and for the rights of others.

Lott documents in his comprehensive study that states with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Those 34 states, which now allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns (if they do not have a criminal record or a history of serious mental illness), have seen a consistent annual decrease in murders, rapes and robberies. As more people obtain concealed carry permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. This he attributes to the fact that criminals are deterred by higher penalties. The most significant deterrent for a criminal is the possibility of being shot by a victim. Concealed handgun laws have brought about a reduction of violent crime because victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves and because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves.

Lott also documents that each additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3 to 4 times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.

Similarly, children’s lives are protected when law-abiding adults are allowed to carry concealed handguns. The horrific shooting at a school in Jonesboro, Arkansas occurred in one of the "gun free" zones. The laws against firearms being carried anywhere on school property have created a situation where teachers are helpless to defend children from such an attack.

When states have passed "shall issue" concealed handgun carry laws, incidents of multiple victim public shootings have declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings have plummeted by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent.

Tragically, each year an average of 200 children die from firearm related accidents in the USA. However, many more children die each year in bicycle accidents, drownings and fires. Even though there are over 200 million firearms privately owned by about 80 million people, children are 14,5 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a firearm accident.

Some people do use firearms in horrible ways, but far more people use firearms to prevent horrible things from happening to them. These facts are incontrovertible: allowing law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms saves lives. There are many anecdotal stories illustrating both good and bad uses of firearms. But we need to look objectively at the whole picture – in the light of all the facts and statistics.

Many countries, such as Switzerland, New Zealand, Finland and Israel have high firearm ownership rates and low crime rates. Other countries have low firearm ownership rates and either low or high crime rates, but the facts confirm that blaming firearms for crime is overly simplistic and just not justified by the facts.

However, if interfering with people’s rights to obtain and use weapons for self and family defence has failed to bring down the levels of crime, there is one area where gun control has actually succeeded: In disarming victims of genocides!

Ottoman Turkey disarmed the Christian Armenians using Article 166, Penal Code of 1911, and then in 1915 systematically slaughtered 1½ million of them. Many Christians were locked in churches which were burned down, others were crucified.

Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union, used Article 182, Penal Code of 1929, to disarmed the population before murdering 36 million (mostly Christian) peasants.

Adolf Hitler used the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, 12 April 1928 and Weapons Law, 18 March 1938, to limit firearm ownership to government officials. Hitler declared that other nations would emulate this pioneer legislation and follow the National Socialist example. Once the German population was disarmed, the Nazis killed over 13 million people.

Mao Tse Tung used Art. 186-7 of the Penal Code, 1935 and Art. 9, Security Law, 22 Oct 1957 to disarm the people of Red China. Between 1949 and 1976 over 60 million Chinese Christians and peasants were murdered by the Red Army and state security officials.

Idi Amin used the Firearms Act of 1970 to disarm Ugandans before murdering over 600 000 victims (mostly Christians).

The killing fields of Rwanda also provided another graphic warning against the dangers of centralised government control and the consequences of gun control. The MRND government in Rwanda used the Firearms Act of 1962 and 1973 to disarm the population. On 6 April 1994 the government of Rwanda mobilised the army, police and political militia – the interahamwe – to massacre all the Tutsis (the tribal minority – most of whom were Christians.) Over 500 000 were systematically slaughtered in the Rwandan holocaust.

As the population had been previously disarmed they were helpless to defend themselves against the state, which had a monopoly of weapons. The confiscation of weapons made the horrific massacres in the homes, hospitals and churches of Rwanda possible – by disarming the targeted victims.

The fact is that the greatest threat to life is not from firearm accidents . . . nor even from criminals! The greatest killers in the 20th century have been secular governments, who have disarmed their own citizens. Approximately 160 million people have been killed in over 40 socialist states, just in the 20th century alone.

Gun control deprives potential victims of their best means of protection. Disarmed people can easily be exploited and oppressed. If a government doesn’t trust its citizens with weapons then the citizens cannot trust the government with power. A government that fears its people is itself to be feared. No government should ever have a monopoly of force or weaponry.

Why would a democratic republic need to limit the rights of its citizens to have the means to protect themselves and their families?

The proposed Bill would also mandate "firearm free zones" making schools, churches, shopping centres, etc. defenceless – soft targets for violent criminals.

The recent spate of violent attacks on public schools in America have again highlighted the dangerous folly of gun control: 22 000 federal, state and local gun control laws in the USA have proven monumentally incapable of preventing criminals from obtaining and using firearms – including in "gun free" schools! Obviously criminals don’t respect laws.

Commenting on recent school massacres in the USA, Dr. David Schiller, an authority on terrorism and author of books on firearms, military history and terrorism, wrote that enacting even more gun control laws would be counter productive. Rather, he advised that the authorities learn from how Israel dealt with terrorist attacks on schools. In the early 1970’s, PLO terrorists launched a series of attacks on schools, kindergartens and school buses. At Maalot, in May 1974, over 100 school children and their teachers were taken hostage – 25 were murdered, 66 wounded.

As a result of such shocking atrocities, teachers and kindergarten nurses started to be armed. Parents and grandparents took turns as volunteers to guard the schools on shifts. No school group went on hikes or trips without being escorted by armed teachers or parents. High school boys were trained in firearms and in security procedures. After a number of failed terrorist attempts, attacks on schools in Israel ceased. Evidently terrorists prefer unarmed victims – soft targets.

So why should South Africa follow in the footsteps of failure enacting laws that will make our schools gun free zones – defenceless – soft targets for homicidal maniacs?

The St. James Massacre should present a compelling argument against declaring churches a firearm free zone. It was precisely because the APLA terrorists regarded the church to be a soft target that they attacked it on 25 July 1993. In eight seconds the terrorists had killed 11 people and wounded or crippled 55 as they fired directly into the packed congregation and hurled hand grenades into the middle of the crowded church. Only the prompt action of Charl van Wyk ended the bloodshed. Drawing his .38 revolver, this church member fired back at the terrorists, wounding one. The heavily armed terrorists immediately fled. The police publicly praised Charl’s prompt action, declaring that many more would have died had he not returned fire so quickly and accurately.

Some people do use firearms to commit horrible crimes, but far more people use firearms to prevent horrible crimes from being committed. Firearms are used five to six times more often for defensive purposes than for criminal purposes.

An American study, "Crime Control" by Gary Kleck (published in Social Problems 1988), reported that a million times a year, US citizens use firearms to defend themselves against criminals and prevent a crime (2 740 times a day). In 98% of these cases the mere brandishing of the firearm proved sufficient to deter the attacker. Only in 2% of the cases did the citizen find it necessary to kill or wound the criminal. Gary Kleck began as a gun control advocate, yet after his study became convinced that it was counter-productive. He now opposes government interference in the rights of citizens to obtain and use firearms for self-defence.

A U.S. Justice Department study (of more than 32 000 rapes or attempted rapes) found that the best protection against rape is for a woman to be armed. When a potential victim of rape was armed with a firearm or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes succeeded (Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization, 1979).

A South African study in 1994 by John Mann of SAGA researched 206 cases of Armed Private Defence (not including police or military personnel) reported in the Gauteng area. In summary, he calculated:

 677 attackers to 246 defenders/victims (ratio of 2,75 to 1).

 81% of attackers had weapons, 71% had firearms.

 36% of attackers were killed or arrested by the defenders.

 64% of attackers fled.

 Only 8 armed defenders/victims died (confrontational survival rate of 31 to 1).

 No bystanders/innocent parties were injured by actions taken by defenders.

In his conclusion, Mann noted:

— Potential victims can expect multiple attackers.

— When an intended victim has used a firearm in defence, 4 out of 10 attackers were killed or arrested, 6 out of 10 attackers have run away.

— When an armed victim resists, the chances of surviving the attack are increased by 31 times.

In the light of these facts, it is inexplicable how GFSA leaders can claim "The cases of people attacked, and robbed of their guns – and often shot with their own guns – far outnumber the occasions when somebody successfully defends themselves with a gun"!!!

English legal tradition and Roman Dutch law, upon which our legal system in South Africa is based, have always recognised the right of free citizens to possess and carry weapons for self-defence. King Alfred the Great (871 – 899) laid the foundation for English law. The Ten Commandments of  Exodus 20 formed the Preamble for these laws. While abuses, such as disturbing a public meeting by drawing a weapon, were prohibited – the basic right to bear arms was entrenched. The Laws of Cnut (1020 – 1023) declared self-defence to not only be a right, but a duty. Those who failed to assist a person under attack were to be fined. Similarly anyone who "illegally disarms a man" was to be fined.

The Magna Carta of 1215 – considered to be foundational to the later American Bill of Rights – guaranteed the right of all free men to bear arms. The English Declaration of Rights of 1689 recognised "the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence." Other free states entrenched this right to obtain, own, carry and use weapons for self-defence, including most notably the United States of America in its Bill of Rights. So important and basic was this considered by the American founding fathers that they placed it in the Second Amendment – straight after Religious Freedom! The first President of the United States, George Washington, declared:

United Christian Action rejects the proposed Firearms Control Bill for the following reasons:

1. The proposed Bill would entangle licensed firearm owners in a vast array of intrusive regulations and require much time consuming paper work. Even more seriously it would require an inordinate amount of time from the Police Service to process the vastly increased volume of paperwork and to monitor the licensed firearm owners. Considering that legal gun owners are not the problem why divert so much police manpower away from fighting crime to harassing law abiding citizens?

2. The Bill ignores the basic human right of self-defence and makes it a privilege for a select minority. It places the burden on the applicant for a firearm licence to "satisfy the Registrar that he or she needs the firearm for self defence." One would think in a country torn apart by violent crime – with one of the worst murder and rape rates in the world – that any law abiding citizen would have the right and a compelling cause to need firearms for self-defence.

3. The Bill places arbitrary powers on the Registrar to accept, or refuse, or revoke licenses or entire categories of weapons – at his discretion. This is far too open to discrimination and abuse.

4. The Bill grants sweeping powers for search and seizure and arrest – without a warrant!

5. The Bill provides for excessive penalties or fines – without even coming to trial – and imprisonment of up to 25 years in prison just for possession of a firearm that is no longer in accordance with this Bill! Yet murderers such as the terrorists who were convicted of the St. James massacre have been set free! It is hypocritical for the government to claim that they need this Bill to fight crime. Murder and rape is already illegal, but the State has let many convicted murderers and rapists go free. What is needed is not more legislation but enforcement of existing laws.

6. There are estimated to be between 4 to 9 million illegal firearms in South Africa. This Bill offers no convincing solution to the problem of illegal weapons.

7. The vast majority of these illegal firearms have been, and continue to be, smuggled into South Africa from neighbouring countries, especially Mozambique.

8. The Ministry of Safety and Security has reported, in Parliament, that incidents of crimes committed by registered firearm owners are "statistically insignificant." As licensed firearm owners are not the problem – why target them?

9. Firearms are not involved in the majority of murders in South Africa. Knives and clubs and other blunt and sharp objects are used to murder more South Africans than firearms are. Gun control will not end the violence, it will only disarm the potential victims.

10. Each year, motor vehicles kill many more people in South Africa than firearms do. Why don’t we just outlaw all motor vehicles? Because motorised transport provides tremendous freedom and convenience. The solution to the horrific carnage on the roads is not to ban motor vehicles, but to improve safety features in vehicles, educate drivers, promote the use of seat belts and severely punish drunken or reckless driving. As with motor vehicles, it would not be right to take away everyone’s freedom because of the criminal activities or carelessness of some.

The proposed new Firearms Control Bill represents a threat to the lives and liberty of all South Africans. If the Bill is enacted into law many thousands of defenceless South Africans will lose their lives to violent crime. Millions more would lose their rights to property, privacy, presumption of innocence and protection.

Accordingly the members of United Christian Action reject the proposed Firearms Control Bill in its entirety as irresponsible and counter productive.

To limit a person’s access to lethal weapons is to limit his ability for self and family defence. Weapons control interferes with our basic right and responsibility for self-defense. Ultimately gun control can deprive you of your right to life. The right of citizens to use lethal force to defend themselves is a great deterrent to thieves and attackers.

Those who choose not to have firearms still benefit from those who do. If only one in twenty people are armed, it still acts as a restraint on potential attackers who are not certain who is armed, and who is not. The deterrence value of armed citizens against crime cannot be over estimated.

For these and many other reasons, United Christian Action would urge the Minister of Safety and Security to concentrate on persuading the criminals to hand in their illegal weapons and leave the law abiding registered gun owners alone.

In addition we would encourage the government to concentrate on controlling crime (and not registered firearms), punishing criminals (and not penalizing law abiding citizens), on strengthening the police (rather than restricting the abilities of citizens to defend themselves), and enforcing mandatory capital punishment for all pre-meditated murder (rather than criminalizing law abiding citizens for merely having means of self protection).

We would request that we be provided adequate opportunity to make oral and written submissions to the responsible committee concerning the proposed Firearms Control Bill.

Rev. Dr. Peter Hammond

Director