|
21st July 1995
Legal Possession of Firearms for Home and Self
Defence
I wish to bring to your attention most urgently a subject
that has been with us for some time and to which there is obviously no clear
cut
answer.
In the new South Africa we have inherited a situation that is
common to many other countries, an epidemic of criminal acts involving
violence
against innocent persons. It is well known that the limited means available to
our official law enforce‑ment agency,
the South African Police Services,
cannot and will not enable them for a long period of time to give the citizen of
South Africa
sufficient protection for himself and his family or for a person to
be able to move with reasonable safety.
This is in no way intended to
imply a criticism under the cir‑cumstances and enormous odds against
them.
It has been shown by unmanipulated and true statistics that crime
committed with a firearm by the licensed owner is almost negligably
small.
Further, that the licensed owner of a firearm has been shown in many cases to
have been a back-up for our Police Services,
and I consider that a person who
has been lic‑ensed under the terms of the Arms and Ammunition Act has been
shown to be safe,
conscientious and responsible. In the very few cases where a
person has been shown to be irresponsible, all that is necessary is
the simple
action of Section II of the Arms and Ammunition Act which stipulates that any
person may be declared unfit etc.
Our gun laws are sufficiently strict to
contain this situation and I firmly request that the constitution will entrench
the right
of a responsible citizen to own and carry a gun according to the
existing laws of the country which prevent him from flaunting the
weapon and
creating a feeling of abhorrence and fright. A citizen certainly not only has
the right by birth to defend his own and
his family's lives, but is commanded to
do so by the laws of God. Should this mean that, under certain circumstances, a
firearm
may be necessary to prevent serious injury or death, then this right
must be upheld.
I will agree that every owner of such a firearm should
have sufficient training in its proper and safe use and know the laws
applicable.
He should be certificated in this by a competent instructor to a
level recognised by the South African Police Services. This action
can only
lead to a positive service and to a greater sense of reinforcement to law and
order without, of course, the formation of
vigilante committees who may wish to
take the law into their own hands. Again, Section 11 of the Arms and Ammunition
Act would contain
such an abhorrent and illegal situation.
I am not a
supporter of semi-automatic or automatic rifles for the ordinary citizen, but if
one looks at unmanipulated statis‑tics
in most other countries where
control against hand guns exists, it has been clearly shown that increasing the
pressure against private
hand gun ownership does only harm to the
com‑munity, and in cases where appeals have been made to the public in
possession
of licensed guns to hand them in, few if any have done so. However,
the unlicensed owner, who cannot normally be traced, carries
the responsibility
for the crime wave cur‑ently with us. In general, tighter gun control has
meant universally a higher crime
rate.
In this age, it is possible for
the criminally minded to very easily obtain an illegal unlicensed weapon even
though our Police Force
is succeeding in some measure in curbing this. I urge
that every citizen through the official channels of Government should be
encouraged
to assist our Police in any way he can. Already, a strong bond has
been created between the ordinary citizen of South Africa and
South African
Police Services and a feeling of trust is now apparent.
I finish this
letter with the appeal that the honest citizen may continue to defend himself
and his own with the aid of suitable training
and the right to carry a gun with
which to defend his own especially with the increasing frequency of violent
occurrences.
J. A. LYDDON L R S C, Sci Nat (Chemistry), Member of S A
G A.
|
