The Logic Failure of Gun Control

One topic that seems to be popping up regularly when we talk with the voting public is the topic of gun control. To be honest, with all the usual noise about abortion, the death penalty, gay marriage and other bedrock issues, I hadn't paid much attention to gun control.

My initial reaction to this issue was influenced by the media, and I suspect that many would feel similarly. There has been new emphasis on increased gun control with every spate of high school attacks in America and certainly that publicity starts to filter through your mindset.

Imagine saying the opposite. Imagine saying that gun control should be reduced and that every man and his dog be equipped with rifles. The image that crosses my mind, and maybe yours, is one of anarchy, of fierce factions empowered to blow each other away whenever their mood goes bad. Back comes policemen killing their girlfriends and all the other folklore attached to the trigger-happy.

Certainly there is a risk that you put guns in the hands of those who don't have the discipline to keep their bullets between the mattresses. The flip side is far worse.

The basic premise of gun control is that you can completely eliminate guns. It assumes that at some point in the near future, you can have total control over the population in your country and that no gun can pass hands without the police seeing it, finding it and eliminating it. It also assumes that the police themselves are perfectly trustworthy and as the only bearer of weapons, if at all, you are completely safe in their hands. If you're a South Africa citizen you'll know this is fantasy.

Here is the reality. Guns get into South Africa across borders, in undisclosed containers on ships, manufactured in backrooms in leafy suburbs and smoky townships. Locals and foreigners organise syndicates that pull off very lucrative robberies using these weapons. They are illegal, traded with little regard for the laws in place, and the good guys in the police and defense force do not have the resources to control them.

Here's the worst part. The government makes a law banning or limiting private firearm ownership, and the citizens most likely to obey the law are the ones least likely to abuse the firearms. The ones most likely to misuse weapons are the ones that are least likely to have their weapons confiscated. And when a murderer walks into a suburban home, ready to steal at any cost, who is the guilty person? Is it the father with a job, his wife of 23 years and his only teenage girl or is it the serial murderer who has killed four already in heists and armed robbery? Who dies now? De-armed by the state, the father is powerless in that moment, the private security companies will never be there in time and the persons who die that day are not the guilty, but the innocent.

What if the father had a gun? What if the criminal knew he might have a gun? If the criminal is shot dead by the father, how is that worse or even the same as the father shooting the criminal dead instead of losing his innocent teenage girl?

The incredible irony is that personal firearm ownership in South Africa will result in fewer deaths and a safer and more peaceful country. For every policeman that shoots his girlfriend over an argument and for every yearly school shooting in America, I'll remind you of the daily deaths in South Africa that no longer make the newspapers. A world without guns is utopia, a dream most of us would love, but reality indicates that the implementation of gun control in South Africa results in exactly the opposite of what we hoped for.

The ACDP supports private firearm ownership, not because we are right wing extremists, but because we want fewer deaths, safer neighbourhoods and families who can rest easy at night. Gun control achieves the opposite.

"Don't split the opposition"

I was pushing brochures in Howick over the weekend, ahead of the Ward 2 by-election on December 10. To be frank, I'm not fond of putting more "junk mail" in people's postboxes, but you cannot ignore this approach if you really want to get your party's voice heard. We have people saying "where have you been?", and we have to take the risk of using annoying marketing techniques if we're to answer that question.

Either way, I was ignoring the barking dogs at one box and heard a voice: "Why are you splitting the opposition?" It turned out to be an MP from the DA who was canvassing the same area. We had a "heated" discussion for 15 minutes about everything from the death penalty to the DA's so-called "free vote" on anything moral (a mask for their liberal immorality). What irked him the most was that we were splitting the vote in that ward, increasing the chance of a communist ANC councillor being voted in.

The DA love this slogan. Even worse, it seems to work. So I answer it here...

Firstly, which opposition? Why are the DA splitting the ACDP opposition? When it comes down to values, standards, a message that appeals across races, and demographic representation, the ACDP are a better party. The DA are simply not the kind of government I would want to live under as a Christian. The DA MP was suggesting we stand down in the by-election, but I would rather his party stood down.

Secondly, the ACDP are also splitting the ruling party. This was very true in Howick, where we were intensely canvassing the Zulu area with door-to-door visitation. We were in fact working an area the DA are not strong at, reducing the hold of the ruling party. We've also seen huge growth in Limpopo and Eastern Cape, which are strong ANC areas.

Thirdly, how long should the ACDP be standing down? Do we simply keep procrastinating and then stand with a guilty conscience before God when we consider whether we have fought for the unborn, for family values, for safety in our country. The message that the ACDP are not aggressive enough has been heard, and an increase in our marketing aggression includes rivalling opposition like the DA.

I do understand the risk of splitting the opposition, and I would choose a DA councillor over an ANC councillor on most days. The simple question is this: how much splitting are we doing? If the ACDP is content to steal a few votes here and there, then the threat of a split is valid. However, if we push the values we know are strong and purposefully take up the call, we can unseat the DA, replacing them and the ANC. That would split the opposition, but do it effectively. In other words, lukewarm is the worst possible position here. The ACDP needs to go big or go home. In Howick, we went big - the results will be interesting and I'll keep you posted.

"My vote won't make a difference"

Entirely true and entirely false. The truth of this statement is purely down to statistics, and the failure of this statement is likewise also down to statistics.

Joe Smith makes the statement and decides not to vote. His vote is one in 15 million and quite obviously doesn't make a difference. His neighbour does the same - no sweat. The other neighbours also don't vote, and neither does the entire next street. In fact, the whole neighborhood doesn't vote, and neither does the rest of the city, or the province for that matter.

I hear you say: don't be ridiculous! Well, at the last elections, 40% of South Africa didn't vote, which I would guess is the population of two provinces combined. The ANC won about 66% of the vote, but would only have had 38% if the non-voters had voted against the ANC. What this indicates is that when you don't vote, you're actually voting FOR the ANC.

Ludicrous as it sounds, here is how this works. There are 10 votes available - 5 will vote ANC, 2 DA, 2 ACDP and 1 IFP. ANC would get 50% of the vote. One ACDP voter decides not to vote, so the ANC gets 5 of 9 now, which is 56% of the vote. By not voting because "his vote wouldn't make a difference", he has actually boosted the ANC from 50% to 56%, decisively acting in their favour.

Okay, so Joe Smith is one person. There happen to be several million Joe Smith's, and at this point we ask: how do we get that forty percent that Joe Smith makes up to now vote for a good party like the ACDP? I can think of no better answer than: one at a time, starting with Joe Smith ... and you?

DA: No Place for Black(s)?

I personally don't want to be caught up in silly digs at others, but I must say I was a little humoured when seeing the new DA logo. I applaud the party for wanting to freshen up their image and I thought they had a reasonably good new website - at least it looks fresh and in-your-face.

Here's the deal: the new logo makes a deliberate point of including several colours and even looks like it resembles the SA flag in the streams. So I was looking at it and suddenly realised there was no black! This is an incredibly irony, since the DA's primary problem has been to shake off its image as the white party. I don't mean to disparage the non-whites who have joined the DA, but it's no secret that the DA are not demographically reflective of the South African population.

Personally I think the previous logo was miles better, more distinctive in its colouring and design, and easy to recognise. The current logo is incredibly generic. It seems there was a deliberate attempt to mimic the Obama logo, which is reasonable, but the Obama logo also stood out far more. If the Obama logo's red, white and blue was a match on the US flag, why is the DA logo not a match on the SA flag?

Talking about parties and demographics, can you name a party in South Africa that has a better race mix than the ACDP? While parties like the ANC, IFP, DA, MF and VF seem closely matched to some kind of ethnicity, the ACDP draws its principles from the Bible, a foundation recognised by all race groups. While my allegiance to a party like the IFP is more likely to rest on my esteem of the Zulu culture, my support for the ACDP is based on Christian principle, hence the ACDP's non-racial appeal, and why it is so well positioned to become South Africa's party of choice for all race groups ... well except for racists.

Laying Hansie To Rest

I'm one of those "big picture" types - when I watch a movie, I try to pull out the bigger threads, rather than getting worked up by small details. When I go to the cinema to watch a movie like "Hansie", my nature is to ask the big questions. Why did they make the movie? Was there going to be enough material in Hansie's life to write a script that worked? Should we be revisiting Hansie's life anyway?

While I felt there was an intention to weave good messages through the plot, my overall impression was that the film served more as an obituary for a character who was undoubtedly loved. I was hoping that the movie would also capture some of that passion we've all had for South African sport, and from a sporting point of view, I thought they captured the pain of that 99 semi-final loss reasonably well. The movie was technically reasonably well done, although I feel that the story was not crafted well enough to draw in an audience beyond those who did know Hansie's story already.

Back to the bigger picture. I feel there are two points relevant from the movie. The question was asked: should Hansie's name be removed from the Greys College honours boards? My thought was: leave it there to serve as a reminder that we can all fall. Many of us have done worse than take money from bookies, and yet our positions have not been exposed to the national media. All of us have fallen in some way at least, and while I am not suggesting we turn a blind eye to the failures of our leaders, I do suggest that each of us take a view of our own lives and ask whether our own books would balance if we were held up to the same public light.

The second thread of interest regards the challenge of being at the top. So much is made of being in the spotlight, being the captain, being the hero, being the president of a country. In truth, when you get to that level, you're exposed to a whole set of pressures, challenges and disappointments you hadn't anticipated. What keeps you grounded? What prevents you from falling prey to the temptations of riches, women and power? And just as importantly, what unswaying standard can you measure yourself against so you stay oriented?

It's interesting to note that Hansie was a Christian, and we have to ask: how could a Christian do such things? The answer is simple: God's Word has no value until you apply it. While a Christian still walks under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, God does not remove our freedom of choice and we can still choose to sin if we wish.

It is for this reason that the ACDP holds up the Bible as the answer for this country. As in Hansie's case, simply being a Christian does not necessarily imply that you will provide good governance or good direction for a country. It is only in the application of God's principles that we will see this country come right. For those of you who support Christians working in other parties like the DA or ANC, ask yourself whether their Christian influence will actually translate into the application of Christian principles rather than simple verbal adherence.

Is an ANC Split Good News?

Undoubtedly it's fascinating to watch the South African political soap opera right now. Certainly the shake up has been the fresh ingredient that we've needed for some years, even if it serves to give the public a fresh view on where we are as a country and where we need to be.

In my opinion, the ANC's troubles are simple: their 1994 promises were extravagant and misleading, suggesting a kind of growth that was never going to be possible, let alone using the flawed socialist tactics employed. The ANC now walks under that repercussion, and not only them but every other scapegoat available, whether foreigners or sporting emblems. That a party that seemed so strong in one moment could be so fiercely divided is a remarkable turn of events.

Without much thinking, it would seem that both South Africa and the ACDP would welcome a split. The reasons are numerous. First of all, it would break some of the ANC's momentum in building one-party government. Despite their "consultation" propaganda, the experience of ACDP councillors, MP's and MPL's is that the ANC steamrolls legislation through the various councils and blissfully ignores the comments and contributions of the other parties. Without their two-thirds majority, the ANC would have to engage in an unprecedented amount of dialogue, consultation and compromise with the other parties, leading to more balanced legislation that does indeed reflect the country's views more accurately (which it certainly doesn't now). Voters who had normally marked an ANC box without thought may now have to pay more attention to what their party stands for.

A split would have huge ramifications for the ANC's once stable financial base. My suspicion is that many of the "old school" BEE benefactors would stick with the "old school", namely Mbeki and his cohorts. This wouldn't solve the ACDP's constant quest for investment, but it might limit the ANC's ability to churn out large events with t-shirts for everyone.

That is only half the story. How will the ANC handle this kind of conflict? Will we see unprecedented hostility in parliament, such as that being seen in Zimbabwe? How far away could we be from seeing Malema's words put to work? In fact, if you think the ANC has a problem with slow delivery now, imagine if they have to turn their attention to actually compete for an election. As an example, the US elections steal huge amounts of time, investment and effort from actually getting the job done. In some senses the ACDP would rather that the ANC falls asleep at election time.

Of interest in the ANC's disquiet is a possible return to a sense of tribalism, something that they seemed to have steered clear of for so long. Perhaps the ACDP's multiracial support and leadership will stand out more clearly if the ANC walks down this road?

I must admit that a possible split does not cast fear into me. Our democracy is some 14 years old, and the fact the ANC has been willing to induct change is good news (think Mugabe). While attention-seekers like Malema can make disturbing comments, perhaps our structures are strong enough for now to withstand that kind of flexing. At this point I do hope the split goes ahead, but as ever, let's keep our eyes open and watch the signs.

Blue Movies: Your Voice Can Make a Difference

If you've got any sense of morality, your nose will be turned at the sight of stores like Adult World and Hustler, where adult material is flogged to the public. I was almost equally dissatisfied at the display of blue movies in the local video shop I frequent. They were originally displayed along the top shelf, but later stacked up on a shelf in the corner where they would be less obvious to the casual customer.

I developed a good friendship with the video shop owner, and one day got around to casually mentioning my displeasure at the availability of these DVD's. I had assumed shops like these kept them because they represented valuable income. I was wrong. It turns out some customers would walk in demanding hot movie action and the female staff did not have the physical presence or courage to resist that kind of intimidation.

A month later I was back at the shop and the owner proudly pointed out to me that the movies were gone - my mild objection had paid dividends. It's not the first time I've had success after complaining about unsuitable material, as my Mr Price experience points out, and it won't be the last. I guess some people get action by storming in and demanding an instant response, but I had just as much success by being respectful and coming across as a level-headed individual with family interests at heart, rather than a right-wing fundamentalist (which I probably am anyway).

Obviously there's been a lot of research done on the repercussions of watching adult material through videos and computer games, and I don't have much in the way of stats to offer from these findings. I can say though that it doesn't take much common sense to realise that watching blue movies does lend itself to taking another step. Visual material is a yard away from physical interaction, leading to affairs in marriage or pre-marital trouble for bachelors (attached with unexpected children). We talk glibly about family values in the Christian world and in the ACDP, but we do so because the Biblical pattern for relationships is full-stop better than what's out there at the moment. If you disagree, let's talk.