Policy, Law, Economics and Politics - Deepening Democracy through Access to Information
This privately-owned website is operated and maintained by Creamer Media
16 March 2010
 

The Institute for Security Studies is a regional human security policy think tank with an exclusive focus on Africa. As a leading African human security research institution, the institute is guided by a broad approach to security reflective of the changing nature and origin of threats to human development.

 
 
   
 
 
Article by: Institute for Security Studies

On Sunday 25 October 2009 at a political rally in Limpopo province, South African President Jacob Zuma publicly raised concerns about the number of firearms in the hands of private citizens. In a move that is sure to anger the pro-gun lobby, Zuma suggested that a review of legislation governing firearm ownership was necessary in light of the country's crime challenges and the number of legally owned firearms stolen from citizens. President Zuma's comments were made in the context of the recent conclusion of a nationwide civilian firearms license renewal process, and legal action against the state by certain firearm owners and firearm interest groups in relation to the consequences of this renewal process.
In recent research exploring the dynamics of house robberies and robbers, Dr. Rudolph Zinn of Unisa found that 97% of respondents used firearms in the commission of their crime. More than half of these perpetrators reported personally stealing licenced firearms.


Although over the past nine years South Africans have seen a general decline in overall levels of crime, the categories of business robberies, house robberies, and car hijacking have all increased considerably. Due to their violent and interpersonal nature, government views this "trio" of crimes as disproportionately responsible for citizen perceptions and fear of crime, and has thus prioritized them. It is not surprising that according to the SAPS, firearms were used in the commission of 87% of business robberies, 77% of house robberies and 57% of street robberies in the 2008/09 financial year.


Firearms also play a significant role in murder in South Africa. Research into murder trends conducted by the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation in 2008 found 54% of 1149 murders were committed using firearms. This trend mirrors data in the National Injury Mortality Surveillance System which show that 53% of murders between 2000-2004 were committed using firearms.


It has previously been found that between 1994 and 2003, a staggering 208 090 firearms were lost by, or stolen from licensed gun owners. However, the number of firearms stolen or lost year-on-year has decreased steadily since 1999. This is likely the result of improvements in legislation and has seen government clamp down on firearm regulation and ownership.


In 2004 the Firearms Control Act came into effect leading to a massive process of reapplication for firearm licenses and the relinquishing of thousands of firearms into SAPS custody. Part of this process included a firearm amnesty period in 2005 during which 100 006 firearms were collected, 53 435 of which were illegally possessed by the owners. The Firearms Control Act has been criticized by the pro-gun lobby for impeding the rights of citizens to defend themselves.


The implementers of the Firearms Control Act are the SAPS, mandated both with seizing and destroying illegal firearms, as well as managing the firearm licensing process. It is difficult to gauge the current effectiveness of the SAPS in addressing illegal firearms. On the one hand the national police body appear to be winning the battle against illegal firearms. Statistics released by the SAPS in September suggest that more firearms were recovered (13 675) in the 2008/09 financial year than were lost (12 883). This 106% recovery rate is up from 85% in 2007/08.


However, earlier in 2008, the then Ministry of Safety and Security revealed in parliament that 8 286 previously recovered firearms were lost by the SAPS in the past three years. Only 900 of these were recovered. Additionally, between April and March 2008 the SAPS had 329 state firearms stolen and lost another 183. Theft and loss of high caliber weapons such as the R-series rifles are of particular concern as these are increasingly used in unison with AK47s in brazen cash heists and business robberies. Ironically state weapons in the hands of criminals are increasingly responsible for the deaths of SAPS members to whom they are meant to be issued.

For the pro-gun lobby a gun-free South African is inconceivable - unattainable without the death of tens of thousands of innocents deprived of their right to defend themselves. For the anti-gun lobby a reduction in the number of firearms in South Africa is central to creating a safe society where there is no need for anyone to carry a firearm. President Zuma's recent utterances suggest a leaning towards the latter. An analysis of crime trends suggests he should be supported and encouraged in this brave move.

At least for the foreseeable future the limited possession of licensed firearms will have to be tolerated, while efforts at finding and ridding our society of guns in the illegal pool should must continue. At the same time, licensed gun owners should be held accountable for negligent loss of firearms or for not protecting their firearms in the manner prescribed by law.


Written by: Andrew Faull, Researcher, Crime and Justice Programme, ISS Pretoria

 

Edited by: Institute for Security Studies
 
9 Comments
 
Readers Comments
 
 
One of the prime rules of firearms is to always make sure that you have correctly identified your target. If President Zuma were a licensed firearm owner he would know better than to mis-identify licensed firearm owners as a problem. The facts of the matter are that licensed firearm owners are not a statistically relevant problem (now the incidence of crime using licensed firearms is so low it is not tracked by the SAPS or researchers). What the Pres might want to try his hand at explaining is how the SAPS has 'lost' more than 3000 firearms in the last calender year. How is it that licensed civilian firearm owners are 20 times LESS likely to have their firearms stolen ('lost') than members of the SAPS/SANDF/other State bodies?
Paul
06 Nov 2009 -
 
 
 
There is nothing 'brave' about Zuma attacking legal firearms, while the real problem is the amount of weapons lost and "stolen" from the Police and Military. It is easy to go after the legal law abiding citizens who have gone out of there way to meet the state's requirements. Much easier than actually stopping the sale or theft of state weapons, not to mention the ANC's own weapon caches. Every time you see a shooting that involves an R5 rifle, remember those probably came from the Police and Military, NOT private firearm owners. Furthermore, there is no such thing as an 'illegal firearm'. There are only illegal users, and legal firearm owners who have their guns stolen are victims of crime too. Where are the statistics on how many lives are saved by firearms used in a defensive way? Why are there no stats done on that side of the argument, is it because everyone has agenda to disarm legal owners perhaps? "Fact: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.112 Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using a firearm defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so." Visit http://www.gunfacts.info/ for the complete list of verifiable sources. Let Zuma rather target the illegal firearm users and sources in our country, and leave those people alone that wish to take care of their families. The Firearms Control Act has already made it amazingly difficult to own a firearm in this country. Restricting legal gun owners even more would leave to a lot more deaths. Zuma doesn't care, he has his bodyguards. We have a right to defend ourselves, and that is completely meaningless if we don't have the means.
Anonymous
06 Nov 2009 -
 
 
 
Sir, you say that legal gun owners must be held accountable for stolen & missing firearms. Is it not obvious that many time these legal guns are taken from the owners by force. How can they be held up as contributing to crime when they are in fact VICTIMS of crime! The losses from the POLICE & SANDF are mentioned, yet, in the end the article concludes (still) that civilians must be disarmed. Gun owners have been and are been used as the whipping dog of Governments since before 1994. They are presumed guilty before having commited a crime. Why are we as a group denied the freedom to own property, freedom of association and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty Cars kill more people every year, yet, draconian measures such as the current FCA are not imposed on car owners. Cars are used in the commision of just about every crime. Why are cars not subjected to such stringent safekeeping measures as imposed on us by the FCA? Surely fewer cars mean less CIT's & hijackings? Its obvious the issue is not about guns or even crime. It is about power. Power to rule without responsibility and unchecked. Thank you Craig762
Craig762
06 Nov 2009 -
 
 
 
As usual, those in ivory towers pontificate endlessly about things they do not understand while those down in the real world have to deal with things as they actually are. There is no more hope of having a gun free South Africa than there is for complete world peace, and those who utter such nonsense know it very well. What they really mean is that they want to disarm honest people (you know...the people who actually bother to try and follow the law) and leave them completely at the mercy of thugs and the government...and the dividing line between the two grows more blurred each passing year. Makes me wonder just whose 'security' the ISS is studying. (?)
Mike
06 Nov 2009 -
 
 
 
If your a criminal and you know that your prey will not have a gun, do you not think that it would just more confidant that he would succeed as there is nothing to stand in his way. If guns are outlawed, crime will rise for we will all become sheep. This law will not keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, it will only allow them to be the only to have them....Thus more power to them, less to us. Get your facts straight blokes before you support anything as absurd as this. Study the country's that have done this and see where it got them. Peace!
Hoggernaut
06 Nov 2009 -
 
 
 
There is simply no causal link between private firearm owners or ownership and an increase in crime, it is highly irresponsible of the government as well as media to continously perpetuate what is unproven myth, please indicate even one example of a firearms ban impacting a violent crime rate? This fallacy is costing each tax payer money, collectively BILLIONS and it is time it is stopped each time a politician spouts an untruth in order to gain leverage KNOWING that what he or she claims is untrue that politician is perpetuating not only the lie but committing corruption! I am a tax payer and I am completely tired of my money being wasted in the pursuit of innocent victims! the firearm owners haven't caused any of these issues - badly trained and badly managed police have, politicians promising the earth have, failure in service delivery has, media perpetuating untruths have!
ABHM
06 Nov 2009 -
 
 
 
If the writer is able to think past his unreasoned prejudices, he may understand this quote i.r.o law-abiding people having the right to own guns for defensive purposes and the effect of knowledge of that right on the criminal mind: "Juden haben waffen!Juden haben waffen! [The Jews have arms...]" — Astonished outcry of retreating German soldier. Israel Gutman,"Resistance: the Warsaw Ghetto uprising". New York: Houghton Mifflin.1994.207, A publication of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Stewart
06 Nov 2009 -
 
 
 
Did I imagine that the Western Cape High Court ruled that the conduct towards gun owners of the Minister of Police, his Department and the SAPS was unlawful and unconstitutional
Brett Nortje
06 Nov 2009 -
 
 
 
@ Brett, More than that, Brett... the State CONCEDED all the points of the application, but asked that Traverso DJP not state in open court that they had acted both illegally and unconstitutionally, Traverso insisted on making it plain in her verbal judgement that the actions had been both unlawful and unconstitutional. There really is NO wiggle room on this at all. The State conceded. They cannot ever challenge or deny the judgement. It is now carved in the stone of our legal jurisprudence for ever!
Paul
11 Nov 2009 -
 
 
  Photos
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Map
 
 
Maps.
 
 
 
 
Advertisements:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Related social media
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Topics on this page
 
 
 
Country
 
Industry Term
 
Person
 
Province Or State