To: letters@witness.co.za
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 22:23:43 RSA-2
Subject: editorial

Dear Editor

Your editorial of today addresses some of the inequities of the draft firearms legislation and the way it was presented. What is not evident is that firearms owners have not been consulted by government or the drafting body ISS (The Institute for Security Studies). It is my belief that SAGA (South African Gun Owners Association) on numerous occasions has approached the government and requested representation in this process. All such requests have been denied. This is not the action of a benevolent government but that of one so afraid and undemocratic that it must work in secrecy behind closed doors. 'Why have firearms owners been excluded?' is a question the Witness should be providing the answer to via investigative reporting.

A number of factual mistakes were made:

It is not self evident that a society that has fewer guns is a safer place. This is a false belief of organisations such as GFSA. There is no evidence to support it and I challenge the Witness to produce such evidence. I shall quote but one country. New Zealand had a firearm ownership rate very similar to the USA but did not suffer the same rate of violent crime. If guns are the cause of crime as the Witness would have us believe, why was the violent crime rate considerably lower in New Zealand? What is evident is that Americans are more violent people. Firearms did not make them that way. The Witness is challenged to give one example where more firearms control has reduced crime. This should not be difficult, as many firearms control laws have been introduced in many countries. If the Witness is correct, all should show a sustained reduction of crime. Just pick one, any one.

The disparaging remarks made by the Witness on firearms owners and frontier mentality simply illustrates ideological thinking. Frontiers for the most part are safe places until the city criminals get there. They are not as the popular pulp fiction would have us believe. As a group, in South Africa, firearms owners are responsible for less than 0,05% of violent crime. The analogy used by the Witness to foster a lawless view of firearm owners is without substance, uncalled for and can not be justified by the Witness.

The Witness has erred in the time period as well. Portions of the draft were sent to those bodies that were affected. The complete draft as such has not been released. A period of one week was given for replies to that portion received. The Dealers section can be found at http://users.iafrica.com/j/ja/jarzul/bill.htm Anybody can download a copy and try to explain how any of the 150 or so measures contemplated by the "dealers" draft will reduce crime. The period of time given to review this document and comment was one week. A week to study and comment on a 63-page document is a work effort our ministers should have to meet.

No matter how one tries to explain the actions of the government in this matter or the proposals presented by the draft legislation. The same frightening conclusion must be drawn. The government for whatever reason wishes to disarm the law-abiding citizen because the draft legislation seen has not one single measure that will actually reduce crime. That has any precedent for reducing crime other than the imagination of anti-firearms organisations.

ISS are supposedly an independent organisation but one only has to review the team, the past research and the advisors to see that this organisation could not be considered independent or impartial when it comes to firearms legislation. Not a single member could be considered a representative of firearms owners.

If this is the result of the governments promise to address crime then the criminals must be laughing and thanking the government. Our fastest growing industry will be given a major boost by such legislation that fails so dismally to address crime but in fact promotes it. The people have much to fear, from crime, from the government.

To: letters@witness.co.za
Subject: Straight talk
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 12:33:09

Dear Sir

Straight talk shows that there are few things more bitter, bent and twisted than the righteous.

Michael Worsnip is right, there are some that one should beware of. History has some bitter lessons in teaching us not to trust those that approach with bible in hand and sweet words of advice. Using euphemisms, ridicule, logical sleight of hand, unwarranted extension, special appeals to fear and demonisation in place of logical reason he attempts to belittle the arguments of legal firearms owners. This was due to the paucity of facts and logic that should have been used and led to his emotional plea for condemnation of gun owners.

With an attack on one supporter also strangely a man of the cloth. The NRA is claimed to be evangelical in its opposition to US gun control legislation. Michael Worsnip has obviously not read a single publication of this organisation, for had he done so he would know better. Fact: The NRA was voted by the US Congress this year as the organisation presenting the highest level of truth and fact to Congress. The anti-firearms organisations such as Gunfree (USA) do not even feature on this list.

Why it is not possible for Gunfree to tell the truth, to achieve the same degree of honesty and integrity as the NRA?

Guns like any other tool have there uses and people, Christians or not, are not fooled into believing that they are evil. Sensible people own guns for many reasons from sport and recreation to art and beauty. They bear no malice against Michael Worsnip and the band of zealots that would deny them this pleasure. For the most part the venom, lies and deceit emanating from so-called Christians, in their zeal to remove by any means, all guns legally held by citizens, astounds them.

Firearms, which are held for self-defense, are a reaction to criminal activity. Remove the criminal activity and self-defense arms will become redundant. Unfortunately the removal of criminals is a very difficult and costly task. It is far easier to blame the soft target, legal firearms owners for the ills that befall our land. For the governments inability to control crime. We hear facts and figures from dubious research that show firearms owners are a contributory factor to crime. What that actually means is that these great researches have determined that banks are responsible for bank robberies. That someone who does not lock his parked vehicle is responsible for the theft of that vehicle and is also responsible for the robbery or hijacking that the same vehicle was involved in.

This would for motor vehicle owners be an untenable assumption, however just think of all the crime that could be prevented if such laws were introduced for motor vehicles. Since motor vehicles are involved in ten times more crime and death why is Michael Worsnip and those that would save us from the horror of the evil guns not attempting to have all motor vehicles removed to drastically reduce crime? It is because they are unconcerned by crime or death and what happens to the man in the street, the guns they think evil must go and absolutely nothing else matters.

What is the test for the demands of the vociferous idealistic few that have been conditioned into thinking that criminals will vaporise if stricter firearms control measures are applied. We need to answer the question, have criminals vaporised or changed their ways for the good after the application of such laws. There are many test cases because many countries have believed such would be the case. The anti-firearms lobby has sought high and low in every corner of the world to find a success.

Once they thought Washington DC was it, alas the contortions they applied to the figures was discovered. To their horror with time passing the once touted success became the crime capital of the world. Did anyone of those who lobbied for and were responsible for the introduction of Washingtons restrictions on firearms morn for the deaths of people they are responsible for. Did they say oops, sorry we have made a mistake and examine their purpose. No! For that is not the nature of the anti-firearms movement. They mourned for the loss of the great success.

Australia now adds to the list of failures that the firearms control lobby has succeeded in making a haven for crime. It is our duty as citizens to silence once and for all this organisation of zealots who are incapable of learning from past failures. A vote for gun control is a proven vote for increased crime. Our government needs a clear message that the citizens are not willing to take part in another failed experiment of the gun control lobby.

To: letters@witness.co.za
Subject: Junk research
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 20:40:02

Dear Sir

What the research conducted by the SA Institute of International Affairs has shown is the bloodstained hands of victim disarmament groups. That more than ever are these groups willing to sacrifice the lives of innocents on the altar of gun control. Simply to appease their hatred of guns and legal law abiding gun owners.

Firstly for Dr. M. Shaw and the Natal Witness to make the claims they do, they would have to refute the work of Professor John Lott and David Mustard. Professor John Lotts study is part of a growing list of research that shows the duplicity of gun haters. Building junk research upon junk research and lie upon lie in the hope that they will not be discovered.

Professor John Lotts unrefuted study and answers to his critics can be found in his book "More guns, less crime." Thus far I have not seen this study or the conclusions refuted by either Dr. M. Shaw or the Natal Witness or by anyone else for that matter. Whilst there have been many attempts including the removal of 86% of the data and the data from Florida by Nagin and Black. Who after this supreme effort of conjuring with the figures concluded; "We find no statistically significant evidence that right to carry firearms laws have an impact on any of the crime rates."

Further the gun control laws passed in Brazil at the urging of victim disarmament groups such as ISS to reduce crime have as predicted increased crime. A fact Dr. Shaw conveniently ignores. It would seem the concept of making the criminal workplace safer, results in increase crime is beyond such closed minds.

Brazils high court unanimously overturned the restrictions on firearms sales recently. Chief Justice Carlos Velloso said "the decree had no impact on crime in a country where recent statistics say a killing takes place every 13 minutes. "Criminals don't buy their weapons in gun stores," he said.

It is not until government ends its idiocy in looking for the ideological quick fix promised by gun control that progress will be made in fighting crime. Just think what the more than R1.2 Billion currently budgeted for recording detail of licenced firearms owners could buy in terms of good policing. The police may even have petrol for their vehicles and be able to reach crime scenes in reasonable time.

What can be assured with 100% certainty is that if the Firearms Control Bill is introduced crime will increase. Gun laws are not the answer to crime, good governance, reasonable unrestrictive firearms laws and good policing are. We have none of these.

Copyright © 2001 Crimefree South Africa, all rights reserved.