WFSA Current News - June, 2003 

June 20, 2003

A voice from Mexico
            The Online Edition of the United Nations Chronicle has published an article concerning the United Nations progress on the issue of small arms. Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico is the author, and the line taken by the piece is to advocate the control, and “in some cases, prohibit the manufacture and trade of small arms and light weapons, as well as their acquisition and possession by Governments or individuals...”
            The article dwells heavily on the aspects of marking, where indelible and unique marks are placed on all firearms, with a view to facilitate tracing to their point of origin. Other international concerns are raised also – the role of gun brokers, the perceived need to limit movement of guns to ‘non-state actors’, and, of special interest to lawful firearm owners, “the establishment of strict limitation or prohibition for the acquisition and possession of these weapons by civilians”.
            Available at http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2003/issue2/0203p59.html , the article once again reinforces the idea that lawful gun owners in many countries are not likely to receive a lot of consideration before their governments move against their longstanding right to own guns in peace. “Abuses and accidents are abundant,” the reader is told, “and the lack of limits also fuels illicit trafficking by criminal organizations, endangering the security of States.”
            Undoubtedly there are countries where the security of the state could well need to be the primary concern. Equally certainly, however, there are countries where this is not the case. It is a cause for some disquiet that the article should state the blanket view: “Civilians cannot have any kind of weapon without putting others in serious danger.” World statistics do not bear this out. In general, improved firearm safety education has led to a steady decline in firearm accidents wherever it is emphasized, and even gun-dense countries have lower accident rates than in previous decades. Many countries with high firearm densities have enviably low crime rates and it is well established in the independent literature that crime rates exist quite separately from lawful gun ownership.
            Mexico has had high murder rates on a world-comparative basis and it is possible that this article serves as an example of the way local conditions affect people of influence. There is a continuing need for independently gathered international data that will facilitate even-handed exploration of crime rates. It is ineffective public policy simply to look at guns themselves as a cause of crime.

June 11, 2003

Uninformed Thai call for more gun regulation
            The Bangkok Post has today published an editorial by Kanjana Spindler entitled “Firearms bill needs more teeth”. It is based on a current bill in Thailand designed to commence an amnesty for surrender of arms held illegally.
            Asian regions have produced many recent calls for increases in gun legislation for all the usual reasons, and this editorial is no different. It cites a substantial history of unstemmed flows of illicit arms across vague borders of countries where unrest has been more the norm than the exception. It cites also the failure of the “ill-disciplined” armed forces to be accountable for untold numbers of arms that had once been officially issued. It further mentions the very common practice of theft from official munitions stores.
            Much commentary from editorial staff of newspapers on the gun question stems from the need to fill column space rather than from any realistic appraisal of circumstances. This example has all the solutions. It sees the need to call for a “National Gun Control Centre”, even thoughtfully offering the acronym for it – NGCC – and goes on to point out its first job would be to register all guns. It then casually suggests the first job would be to withdraw all current firearm licences, and then ban “virtually all civilian ownership of guns”. The editorial voice, as casual in tone as it is magisterial in its content, then goes on to wipe out all hunting as well.             After this, with the armed forces – who by the writer’s own admission have not well accounted for their own arms in the past – being the only ones armed, it is suggested that all previously legal but now confiscated guns should be destroyed in a public exhibition.
            The fallacy embraced and propounded by this kind of material needs to be seen for what it is. The strength of the “American gun lobby” suffers a casual swipe, as though this passes for argument. It is an increasingly popular approach to begin with. The scenario develops, with gun registration venerated as some kind of solution. The Canadian experience clearly shows it to be unworkable in even a benign setting, but this is overlooked. Next, the lawful aspect of gun ownership is simply dismissed out of hand for its obvious flimsiness. Further, there is a cavalier belief in the moral rightness of the authorities always owning guns and civilians never owning them. The implication that fewer guns will mean less crime is central. Amnesties are also seen as being useful.
            Most naïve of all, there is an overweening belief that some vague, theoretical system, as devised by someone knowing nothing of the subject, will actually work to exclude illegal activity, just so long as the correct clichés are spouted.           
            http://www.bangkokpost.com/110603_News/11Jun2003_news31.html is the place to find the piece.

June 8, 2003

 Scottish youngsters trained in safe gun use
            Jeremy Watson and Adam Morris writing for Scotland on Sunday have published a balanced article on clay-target training shoots for young people at Dumfriesshire. Organized by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), the events range from one to three days, and have subsidized entry fees. The full day course is run on behalf of the BASC by farmer Alan Wykes. He is quoted as saying: " I realise there are some people out there who don’t like the idea of young people handling guns but in my view this is all about teaching them safety and responsibility. It is a good educational tool they can apply in all walks of life."
            In most rural communities, the task of educating the young in safe gun handling has fallen to parents and other mature relatives. With the increase in the rigour of gun laws, the storage and handling of guns as part of daily routine may be limited in many places. This can have a negative outcome by making it more difficult for instruction to take place as a normal part of family life. Consequently, educational days such as this assume greater importance.
            A spokesman for the BASC is quoted as saying that such days, of which there are a number each year, are always very popular, and the interest in shooting goes on as strongly as ever. The BASC says its membership is now increasing at the rate of twenty per cent per year.
            Predictably, education is not seen as desirable by the anti-gun groups. Gill Marshall-Andrews of the Gun Control Network is quoted as calling it “utterly ridiculous” that young people can be allowed to handle guns before the age of 18, and Ross Minett, speaking for Advocates for Animals, said: "We should not be encouraging the use of lethal weapons in children, whether in a controlled environment or not."
            The article can be found at http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/scotland.cfm?id=635352003 .

June 5, 2003

Attempt at gun census in Uganda
            An intriguing article has been published by allafrica.com, showing simultaneously the hopeful and naïve aspects of attempts at controlling criminal activity by passing laws about guns.
            The article, by Catherine Ntabadde in Kampala, has as its first sentence: “The Government is to carry out a census of all legal guns to stop the proliferation and misuse of small arms in the country.”          
            Francis Wanyina, speaking from the Ugandan Ministry of Internal Affairs, said that guns cause havoc, this is especially the case with illegal guns, and the government is therefore to count the guns that are held legally. This remarkable non-sequitur is explained to at least some extent by the fact that the event was apparently organized by the International Action Network on Small Arms.
            The report went on to say that before the guns could be counted, a mapping exercise had been carried out to ascertain where they are – “establishing the location of guns and people in possession of the guns”. Once again, either the entire process is confused, or else the reporting of it is confused. Clearly, this sequence of events implies gun registration, but the process of “mapping” remains obscure in its definition.
            The idea seems to be that after defining the position of the legal guns, the number of illegal ones will be somehow stemmed. This has been shown to be not the case over and over again in many countries.
            The article (which may be read in full at http://allafrica.com/stories/200306050545.html ) concludes with the news that the owners of the legal guns which are located will be asked to surrender them voluntarily. It would seem these events as described are among the many making a prima facie case supporting the objections put forward by lawful gun owners who say that they can see the prime purpose of gun registration as being a precursor to confiscation.

June 4, 2003

Canada’s gun registry fails further
            Hopes among anti-gun activists have been high for universal gun registration to succeed in Canada. As has been seen in previous postings on this site, the amount of money poured into the proposed Canadian register has been vast and the criticisms continue to increase.
            Today, Associated Press brought forward the information that computer malfunctions had probably deleted names from the “already troubled firearms registry”, and nominated four days on which it was believed on-line applications to register had been lost. An employee was said to have described the numbers of lost applications as “negligible”. This employee was not named.
            Observers will note that two elements of gun registration are never discussed in those countries where these systems apply. The first is the cost-effectiveness of maintaining such schemes. The second is the integrity of the databases.
            Considerable scope exists for independent research in both areas.

June 4, 2003

Federal and provincial governments disagree in Canada
            In the considerable controversy surrounding increased gun legislation worldwide in the last decade or two, there has been almost no civil disobedience. That has begun to change in Canada .
            Events reached a new level today with the news that no fewer than five Canadian provinces will not be prosecuting people who fail to register their firearms by the due date of July 1^st, 2003. Saskatchewan , Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia have now joined forces in saying they do not believe that registering guns has any impact on lowering crime rates.
            Federal Solicitor General Wayne Easter said that his government still expects the wayward provinces to enforce the law. There seems little likelihood of that. Individual provinces’ attorneys general were prepared to go on the record saying they have no reason to believe the public interest is served by the persecution of law-abiding gun owners who use longarms for hunting and sport shooting. Nova Scotia’s Justice Minister Jamie Muir went so far in an act of open defiance as to direct provincial authorities to refer infringements to federal prosecutors. “It's their law,” he said. “Let them enforce it.”
            The lawful gun-owner, who usually takes his responsibilities very seriously, has in fact very seldom searched for means to flout the law in any public way. For a legal official of such high standing to make a point this way is both highly unusual and also indicative of the serious troubles that surround the Canadian system.
            Government estimates, which are certain to incorporate the law-abiding and not the criminal, are that more than 800,000 people are still to enter the registration system. The various attorneys general are plainly not alone in their belief that the registration exercise is futile.