The Gun Debate

Martin Hood and Adele Kirsten had a brief debate on SABC television on this emotive issue. Mr Hood is a lawyer and adviser to the SA Gun-owners Association and Adele Kirsten is the author of a book "A nation without Guns" and previously led Gunfree SA.

As a result of both the time allocated to this debate (8am on a Saturday) some 3 minutes or so and the manner in which it was structure (no structure to speak of) it is difficullt to say what the key points of the debates are. Mr Hood is clearly emotional about the subject and dismissed the points made by Adele in print and during the show as lies and untruths. Well, that is the show, one which I hope will be broadcast again, better!

Everytime I have listened to or participated in the gun debate I have notice a few issues that come up all the time and have notice how some of these issue bedevil rather than aid the debate. Firstly, the pro-gun side of the debate tend to refer to guns as fire-arms and not guns, I am yet to figure this one our. It reminds me of some war movie I watched in which some lowly soldier was reminded to refer to his rifle as a weapon and never a gun.

Secondly, the debate never separates the crime issues from the violence issues about guns. Thirdly, gun ownership is always purposive and never frivolous - it is about self defence and other important purposes.

My interest lies in the second issue. It is true, I believe, that we have high levels of crime in our country; whether ours has the highest crime levels is another debate. Crime has to be dealt with but it is the approach to crime-fighting where South Africans differ. If the SA media is to be believed, the majority of South Africans seem to be of the view that the governments should take care of crime. I subscribe to communities taking back their streets and neighbourhoods. This is no suggestion for vigilante action, in fact this is a call for appreciation of non-violence. which brings me to the point I wish to share: guns and violence.

Both sides of this debate I hope will agree that guns/fire-arms are by their very nature and design violent. Ours is a society with a history and dare I say a preference for violence as a means of not only conflict resolution but for regulation and control. For years we sent our young men to go to war with other young men and for that purpose have armed our young men. Even in the believe that we are entitled to self-defence, we argue for the right to be violent towards another in the preservation of self. Whether this is right or wrong is not the point of this note, it is the fact of it all that matters, I believe. We need the regulatory environment that appreciates the propensity of our society for violence and how quickly that propensity become reality with the aid of guns. I am fascinated to no end by the chant of supporters of gun ownership: "it is not guns that are violent, it is people". So in response to that "truth" do we go out and put as many guns in as many hands as possible? Or, do we stay true to our thoughts and believes and only put guns in the hands we can trust? How can this be achieved by legislation without it being seen as draconian by those who just love fire-arms and move from the premise that all other people love guns as much? The price of freely accessible guns continues to be paid by societies around the world; being a young democracy means we can do a little better for our nation I believe, without unduly trampling the rights to self-defence and recreation. We should also try to encourage our people to be less violent and maybe be more gentle. There is another chant that comes to mind "violence begets violence".

Apart from the sporting people, should we not try a gun free society and see for sure whether we will be over-run by marauding gangs of criminals? Let us leave guns in the hands of the professionals and the law enforcers for a while. Maybe that way we could save a few families from the tragedy of a violent father, mother, friend, boyfriend or neighbour. And maybe we could take this accross to the way we drive and behave on our roads. Guns are not violent maybe, but they certainly are a means to violence. They are violent when used according to instructions and as intended, in my book they are violent. A reduction of guns in our society should reduce violence and may also positively affect the negative crime situation, I think.