2005 Volume 2
Editorial
Is Self-defence Murder?
Charl Van Wyk
It is interesting how the words homicides, murder and violence all appear in news articles, medical reports and radio and television debates as one and the same.
The Medical Research Council’s National Injury Mortality Surveillance System 2005 report, as an example, says that ”The most common apparent manner of non-natural death was violence (48% of injury deaths) followed by transport (30%).” It appears that homicides using firearms, blunt objects and sharp objects are all included in the term ’violence’.
Dr Richard Wesson, author of Conditioned Victim, defines violence as: The unjustified, unwarranted, immoral use of force. Webster’s dictionary defines violence as: Physical force or activity used to cause harm, damage and abuse.
Would the death of a murderous thug, as a result of you protecting your child, possibly be categorised as ’violence’? This is the problem with statistics in South Africa, we are not informed just why those killed with firearms were killed. Is it possible that they are largely a group of thugs attempting rape and murder i.e. the taking of a judicially innocent life? The use of firearms by government officials e.g. the police, is also included in these reports, but to what extent does it make up the total homicides?
We have to admit that there are both positive and negative effects to firearm ownership in any society. It is easier to harm someone with a firearm compared to other items, but firearms also make it easier to protect yourself and so stop crimes from taking place.
The press tells us that around 20,000 people are killed annually in South Africa by the use of firearms. What we don’t hear much about is how many times firearms are used to defend life and property.
Some comments concerning defensive gun use (DGU) from ”A Critical Analysis of Firearm Control in Post-Apartheid South Africa” by Sheila Coxford UCT 2002 helps in this regard:
”According to the Human Sciences Research Council survey, 2 percent of respondents indicated that they had used a firearm to defend themselves or a family member. As a proportion of the total South African population, this would suggest that there are approximately 81160 incidents of DGU (possibly per year as period not specified.) It is not known how many of the respondents actually owned a licensed firearm and were thus in a position to use a firearm in defence of themselves or their family.
”By contrast, a reader survey conducted in South Africa by Magnum Magazine reported that private citizens used their licensed weapons in more than 2.5 million incidents over a two-year period. As in the American surveys, it was reported that in most cases attackers retreated at the sight of the potential victim’s gun without any shots being fired by the potential victim. Given that Magnum Magazine caters largely for the armed population it is likely that a very high percentage of respondents owned licensed firearms. This could explain why the reported defensive gun usage was much higher in this survey than the HSRC one.”
Draconian firearm laws may on occasion help the police solve firearm related crime as they have access to ownership records, but they drain limited resources from being used for other effective policing efforts such as catching criminals and patrolling our streets. Very few criminals register their firearms, so other than returning a firearm to its rightful owner, there is no reason for governments to have firearm registration laws. Registration could be done by private associations and probably far more effectively at that.
There is also the distinct possibility that governments have a sinister plan other than our well being as the reason to control firearms and their owners. Why do they want a monopoly of force? Why is it that law abiding, armed citizens are so vehemently disliked by so many politicians? Why have monopoly on arms if it is never to be used?
A government that doesn’t trust its citizens with weapons cannot be trusted with power.
Charl van Wyk