Recent public remarks by Claire Taylor of Gun-Free SA pertaining civilian firearm ownership and self-defence require a brief and impactful response.
According to Ms. Taylor “(e)vidence…shows that you are four to five times more likely to be fired at, if you pull your gun out during a crime situation”. This revelation comes as a surprise. Neither myself, nor my colleagues, nor any researchers or security industry professionals I have spoken with have ever heard of such a statistic.
Presenting a firearm during a violent confrontation is something that occurs as a last resort under duress. The law is clear that using lethal force is only justifiable when a person reasonably perceives their life, or that of an innocent third party, to be in imminent danger from an unlawful attack.
All licensed firearm owners know and understand this by virtue of having successfully completed the proficiency training required to own a firearm.
Hence when a civilian or law enforcement officer draws their firearm, it is highly likely that they are already under attack or imminently about to be attacked. If their aggressors are armed with firearms, it stands to reason that an exchange of gunfire may occur – not because of the victim presenting a firearm into the situation, but because of the ongoing life-threatening attack on their person.
A disingenuous person may interpret such incidents to conclude that the actions of an armed civilian defender, by virtue of their resistance to lethal criminal violence, is what leads to them being shot at during a criminal encounter.
Unfortunately we don’t know if this is the narrative line which Ms. Taylor and her colleagues are extrapolating from, because she doesn’t provide any sources in support of her claim. Thus it is impossible to interrogate the validity of their hypothetical evidence.
For many years Gun-Free South Africa claimed that you were “four times more likely to have your gun used against you” than be able to use it against your attacker. It was, of course, entirely untrue. The claim originates from twisting the words and conclusions of Anthony Altbeker’s research out of proportion in order to create a fictional statistic.
In spite of being repeatedly publicly confronted about this issue, GFSA continued to prolifically use the assertion in every interview and media release they could shoehorn it into. As a result the false statistic received considerable circulation. Only when Africa Check, much to their credit, debunked the “four-times-more-likely” myth in 2019 did GFSA abandon it as a method to deceive the public.
As for Ms. Taylor’s second claim that “(t)he evidence…shows that a gun is not effective for self-defence. This is because criminals choose the time and place for the attack to ensure that their victim is outnumbered and vulnerable” – there is much to discuss here.
Again Ms. Taylor refers to evidence but provides no information or detail pertaining said evidence. Where can one find this research and who performed it? What methodology and sample sizes were used? What is the standard deviation of the sample population?
It is exceptionally easy to make bold claims without providing any references. And it may indeed succeed in fooling some people some of the time, but it is hardly an ethical or sound debating tactic.
Practical experience, rational observation, and structured reasoning entirely disproves Ms. Taylor’s second assertion. If firearms are ineffective for self-defence, then one would not find pages upon pages of results for successful defensive gun uses in South Africa when performing a simple Google search. There is also extensive research supporting the claim that firearms are very effective self-defence tools.
In the United States the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ordered a study in firearm violence in 2013, which was conducted by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. The CDC study reported that “(d)efensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence”. Further, the CDC research found that “(a)lmost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million.”
Granted, South Africa is not the United States. For one our population size is roughly 18% of theirs, and there are a mere 9,8 civilian-owned firearms per 100 population within our borders while the USA sits at over 120 guns per 100 people. Our homicide rate (45,8 murders per 100 000 population) is also 650% that of the United States (7 murders per 100 000 population).
However, the principles of personal defence and the manner in which violent confrontational crime manifests is not so different that the conclusions of the CDC study can be discarded on the basis of regional differences.
As for criminals choosing the time and place for the attack to ensure that their victim is outnumbered and vulnerable: Ms. Taylor has successfully described the well-known and firmly established criminal modus operandi. Violent criminals are predators who do not as a rule provide their victims with extensive forewarning of an impending assault. It is precisely for this reason that we encourage people to be alert, prepared, and armed at all times it is practical.
It is not correct to assume that because criminals hold the advantage of initiating unlawful attacks that the situation is a fait accompli, and any resistance is futile and doomed to failure. There is more than sufficient evidence (including that mentioned above) which indicates that, in spite of the tactical advantages exploited by criminals, prepared and willing defenders are more than a match for them – even when outnumbered.
It stands to reason that any reasonable person who finds themselves in a situation where their life is under threat will take some form of action to get out of that predicament. In some cases that will involve a rapid and hasty escape from danger by running away. In other cases it means giving in to the demands of those threatening their life – but with the understanding that their compliance doesn’t guarantee safety. Yet in still other cases it involves fighting back with everything the defender can muster in order to prevail over their assailants.
No two situations are the same, and it is dishonest to pretend they are in order to propose that rational and forceful resistance against criminal violence is foolhardy or undesirable.
The individual citizen is always the first responder to their personal emergency. It is vital that people realise the importance of being active participants in their own rescue. Equipping themselves with the necessary skills, knowledge, mindset, and tools to pursue such personal resilience is a process which should be encouraged – and not sabotaged via dishonest fearmongering by those who wish to impose a civilian disarmament agenda upon us.
Written by Gideon Joubert on behalf of the South African Gunowners Association (SAGA).
Gideon is the owner and editor of Paratus, as well as a SAGA trustee.
