Lobbyists call for better policing instead of stricter gun laws

The decision by Parliament’s portfolio committee on police to hold back the contentious Firearms Control Amendment Bill has been welcomed, with lobbyists calling the removal of the “self-defence” clause as a reason to apply for a gun licence as absurd.

The committee’s chairperson, Tina Joemat-Pettersson, has proposed that the Firearms Control Amendment Bill not be prioritised but held back for further consideration.

Instead, the committee agreed to prioritise the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Bill, also known as the DNA Bill, the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid) Amendment Bill as well as the South African Police Service (Saps) Amendment Bill.

According to Paul Oxley of Gun Owners of South Africa, the Bill was a horrible attempt by Police Minister Bheki Cele to cover up the fact that his police force is unable to curb crime and is instead blaming law-abiding citizens.

“The Bill flies directly in the face of Saps’ own, paid-for, research by the Wits School of Governance in 2015… [Cele] then hid the Wits report from public view for six years, until multiple [Promotion of Access to Information Act] PAIA requests unearthed it in June this year and concocted a ‘desktop study’ to justify the Bill,” he charged.

The Wits report concluded that violent crime was not necessarily dependent on firearms, and that guns were used in only about a third of murder cases. It stated sharp objects were used more often in violent crimes.

The survey also found that in periods of strategic and strong policing, under the Firearms Control Act (FCA) conditions, crime drops and the involvement of firearms in crimes such as murder, attempted murder and robberies at residential premises, also dropped.

The research concluded that when strong policing was withdrawn, even under the stringent conditions of the FCA, firearm-related crime increases again and the use of firearms in these crimes tends to increase towards its former high levels.

“The necessity of strong policing for reducing firearm related crime, and firearm usage in these crimes, even under the FCA, has been a consistent pattern in our findings. Credit must go to strong policing, rather than to the FCA, for controlling crime and for reducing the use of firearms in crimes of murder, attempted murder and house robberies,” the study stated.

The research notes that there are certain violent crimes that are impervious to the FCA, such as carjackings, truck hijackings, robberies at business premises, cash-in-transit robberies, and bank robberies. All these crimes are dependent on firearms.

It found that even under the stringent FCA regulations, these crimes decrease only under strong policing conditions and increase when policing is withdrawn. However, the level of firearm use does not reduce.

“The FCA applies to less than 5% of all crimes reported to Saps when commercial crimes are included. Although these crimes are at a level of violence and trauma that is completely unacceptable, the vast majority of crimes are not firearm related and therefore the FCA is not applicable to them,” the Wits report notes.

Attorney and gun law expert Heinrich Gonzales said although South Africa has a dysfunctional police system and is ranked as the world’s third-most dangerous country, government still wanted to take away its citizens’ right to self-defence.

“We elect government, so they must look to the people when taking decisions affecting us. They serve us, not the other way around,” he said.

Gonzales said there was an urgent need to take South Africa back from the thugs, but said this could only be done by citizens arming themselves and getting involved in neighbourhood watches.

“In this way, we will take back our streets for our children. Removing section 13 from the FCA violates my constitutional right to life (section 11 of constitution), specifically seen against the backdrop of the crumbling police system,” he said.

siphom@citizen.co.za