Sheila Coxford has produced a refreshing and interesting study of firearm control in post-apartheid South Africa

A Critical Analysis of Firearm Control in
Post-Apartheid South Africa
Sheila Coxford, UCT

Sheila Coxford has produced a refreshing and interesting study of firearm control in post-apartheid South Africa. This study examines some of the most important aspects of the so-called debate and puts into perspective the importance of examining all evidence in light of producing acceptable and reasonable legislation.

There is much important evidence for the South African politicians and legislators who have produced firearms control laws by stealth and without consultation with anyone but those who agree with their aims and intents. Coxford shows that much of that evidence does not support stringent gun control as a means to crime control. It would be a great pity if reason was not the prevailing factor in firearm legislation and instead beliefs or some other agenda was the motivating force.

While Coxford’s study advocates a model based on a linear or incremental control rather than all or nothing, no evidence was presented that would show a benefit to society for any control. Control without reason or evidence of a relationship can never produce legislation that has any hope of producing the results promised or desired. This simple relationship should be obvious but has somehow been successfully clouded by the advocates of gun control with emotional and anecdotal evidence that has little place in any study or reason for control legislation. All advocates of control start with a belief that some form of control is necessary. Then go to great lengths to attempt to show a benefit using convoluted pseudo relationships, false comparisons and mangled statistics citing previous studies with the same flaws as valid evidence in support of what they believe but have in fact failed to prove or demonstrate. No evidence of a positive relationship has been presented or is known to exist between firearm ownership by law-abiding citizens and crime.

There are several reasons why the gun control debate can be considered all or nothing.

Advocates of gun control never ever offer any valid reasons for gun control and quite obviously no laws should be based on beliefs.

All arguments begin with the false premise that some from of control is required and then proceed to argue how much or how little control is needed. None establish a valid reason for control in the first place. Yet this reason or reasons are vital to the argument for any control, in fact all argument about control is meaningless without some valid reason for existence. It simply is not reasonable to implement expensive measures and controls for no public benefit. It is equally of no benefit to control anything when it has no relationship to the desired outcome.

It is a well-established criminological fact that there is no causative relationship between firearms and crime. While gun control researchers have tried on several occasions to provide this proof no study has withstood peer review. Included is the study of Martin Killas, which was used to great advantage by the British government and gun control advocates to ban handguns in England.

The general consensus of reputable criminologists is that gun control will have little to no effect on crime or the inverse may well be experienced. Crime will increase as witnessed by empirical evidence from the majority of gun control implementations. John Lott Jr. examination of the USA over an eighteen-year period specifically looks at gun control legislation and the results of this legislation with a view to finding evidence of some result. A positive result for the USA was not found.

Other researchers have tried in vain to establish a benefit to society for gun control legislation and have met similar fates. Joyce Lee Malcolm’s critical analysis of England over a 300-year period found no positive benefit to society. Once safe England with a very low crime rate now rivals the USA in most crimes with the exception of murder and rape after the handgun ban.

What is clear is that any argument for restrictions or greater restrictions on firearm ownership that includes the presumption that crime will decrease or the supply of firearms to criminals will decrease is based on a false premise. Unless the elusive evidence of a causative relationship between firearms and crime is presented first. Any argument that makes the presumption that some control is needed simply has no merit unless valid verifiable reasons for control are given. It is not sufficient to claim that firearms are a public danger or that they are lethal and thus require some form of control. The reason for control and the connection to the reason must be shown so the validity of the proposals in obtaining the objective can be justified. Because of the nature of firearms it would be quite reasonable to restrict sales and use to minors, those with a criminal record and the insane.

This dissertation notes the importance of this requirement but in many places ignores the requirement of a causative relationship by making the assumption that crime may be influenced by an as yet unproven positive relationship.