Public perception about firearms:
A survey of three communities
New legislation on firearms will soon be passed. But solving the problem also requires preventive strategies that reduce firearm dependency. Three community surveys were conducted with this aim in mind. Results show a link between high crime levels and the prevalence of guns. There was overwhelming support for better firearm controls, probably because over 85% of respondents agreed that firearms cause more violence than they prevent. Nevertheless, between a quarter and a half were willing to own a firearm.
In September 1999 a survey of 2620 respondents was conducted in the Tsolo-Qumbu (rural, Eastern Cape), Lekoa-Vaal (urban, southern Johannesburg) and Kwa Mashu (urban, west Durban) communities. The survey aimed to gather information to inform the design of a community based strategy to reduce firearm dependency.
Crime and gangs
Residents were asked whether crime and violence had increased in their areas compared to previous years (Table 1). Perceptions across communities varied although urban respondents were much more likely to believe crime had increased than rural respondents. Generally, crime was thought to have increased more significantly than violence.
Table 1 How crime and violence levels have changed compared to previous years (%)
|
Change in the level of crime
|
|
|
Tsolo-Qumbu
|
Lekoa-Vaal
|
Kwa Mashu
|
De- creased
|
0
|
20.0
|
3.6
|
Stayed the same
|
56.7
|
9.4
|
8.4
|
In- creased
|
43.3
|
70.7
|
88.0
|
Total
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|
Change in the level of violence
|
|
Tsolo-Qumbu
|
Lekoa-Vaal
|
Kwa Mashu
|
De- creased
|
0
|
31.0
|
49.5
|
Stayed the same
|
58.5
|
14.8
|
10.7
|
In- creased
|
41.5
|
54.2
|
39.8
|
Total
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Respondents in Kwa Mashu indicated the most significant increase in crime (88%), followed by Lekoa-Vaal (71%) and Tsolo-Qumbu (43%). The majority of Tsolo-Qumbu residents thought crime levels had stayed the same (57%), which is telling since the area has been plagued by violence for more than five years. A significant proportion (20%) of the Lekoa-Vaal sample indicated that crime was on the decrease.
Gangs were significantly more prevalent in Kwa Mashu than in the other two communities: 85% in Kwa Mashu said gangs were present in their area, compared to only 44% in Lekoa-Vaal and 34% in Tsolo-Qumbu. Most respondents believed that the gangs in their area were strong.
People were most likely to believe that better law enforcement would stop the gangs (Table 2). However this type of solution was more popular in those areas where gangs are strong: 44% of respondents who said gangs were strong suggested arresting gang members and a further 26% called for better policing. Among those who felt gangs were weak, longer term preventive measures such as community initiatives (16%) and economic development (15%) were identified as solutions.
Table 2 Steps suggested to stop gangs, according to whether they are strong or weak (%)
|
Strong
|
Weak
|
Total
|
Arrest the gangs
|
44.4
|
33.8
|
42.1
|
Improve policing
|
26.0
|
20.7
|
24.9
|
Disarm the gangs
|
10.2
|
8.6
|
9.8
|
Community initiatives
|
9.5
|
15.8
|
10.8
|
Economic development
|
6.8
|
15.0
|
8.6
|
Harsh punishment
|
1.5
|
3.8
|
1.9
|
Other
|
1.7
|
2.3
|
1.9
|
Total
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Whether gangs are weak or not, disarming their members was seen as important. The link between gangs and firearms was also demonstrated when respondents were asked to identify a single factor that contributed to the strength of the gangs in their area. 35% in Lekoa-Vaal, 19% in Tsolo-Qumbu and 18% in Kwa Mashu linked the strength of gangs to their access to weapons (Table 3).
Table 3 What has contributed to the strength of the gangs? (%)
|
Tsolo-Qumbu
|
Lekoa-Valal
|
KwaMashu
|
Gang & police work together
|
3.8
|
10.7
|
35.3
|
Weak policing
|
33.3
|
16.5
|
32.8
|
Gangs access to weapons
|
19.0
|
35.4
|
17.7
|
Weak community structures
|
7.6
|
12.6 |
6.2
|
Organised & trained gangs
|
31.4
|
12.1
|
6.8
|
Other reasons
|
4.8
|
12.6
|
1.1
|
Total
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Firearm related issues
Firearm penetration refers to the extent to which the gun culture is entrenched in a community and the extent to which the community depends on firearms. As an indicator of firearm penetration, respondents were asked how often they heard gunshots in their area. Tsolo-Qumbu residents were least likely to hear gunshots in their community, followed by Lekoa-Vaal and Kwa Mashu (Table 4). In Kwa Mashu, the majority heard gun shots ‘often’, compared with less than half in Lekoa-Vaal and only 12% in Tsolo-Qumbu.
Table 4 How often do you hear gunshots in your community? (%)
|
Tsolo-Qumbu
|
Lekoa-Vaal
|
KwaMashu
|
Never
|
16.6
|
5.3
|
1.9
|
Seldom
|
18.9
|
17.2
|
8.7
|
Sometimes
|
52.8
|
30.1
|
18.0
|
Often
|
11.8
|
47.4
|
71.4
|
Total
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
Overall, the majority of people thought the number of firearms had increased compared to previous years (Table 5). Again this was more likely in Kwa Mashu than in the other areas surveyed.
Table 5 How has the number of guns changed compared to previous years? (%)
|
Tsolo-Qumbu
|
Lekoa-Vaal
|
KwaMashu
|
Decrease
|
21.1
|
15.2
|
3.4
|
No change
|
13.6
|
6.8
|
9.0
|
Increase
|
65.3
|
78.0
|
87.6
|
Total
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
The data on firearm penetration correlated with community perceptions about increasing crime levels: Kwa Mashu residents were most likely to say that crime increased in their area compared to previous years. Respondents in this community were also more likely than in the other two communities to say they heard gunshots ‘often’ and that the number of firearms had increased compared to previous years (Figure 1).
Figure 1 Perceptions about levels of crime and firearms in area
Despite the profile painted by its residents, weapons are not necessarily more readily available in Kwa Mashu than in the other areas. Respondents were asked whether they had easy access to a firearm if they needed one. Less than a third said they did: 32% in Lekoa-Vaal, 27% in Tsolo-Qumbu and 25% in Kwa Mashu could readily obtain a firearm.
Although the vast majority of agreed that ‘guns cause more violence than they prevent’, a significant proportion of people in each community were prepared to own a firearm. Overall, 85% in Tsolo-Qumbu, 87% in Lekoa-Vaal and 85% in Kwa Mashu agreed that guns cause more violence than they prevent. Despite this, 52% of residents in Lekoa-Vaal, 44% in Tsolo-Qumbu and 27% in Kwa Mashu said they were willing to personally own a firearm.
There is a tension between the majority opinion that weapons cause violence on the one hand, and the desire to nevertheless own a gun, on the other. It is however telling that Kwa Mashu residents — who reported an increase in crime and firearms, and are most likely to hear gunshots — were much less keen on owning a gun than were people in the other two communities.
Given this, it is unsurprising that the Kwa Mashu sample was most in favour of improved controls over firearms: 95% supported controls in Kwa Mashu, 91% in Lekoa-Vaal and 77% in Tsolo-Qumbu. In general, the support for improved firearms controls was overwhelming.
Crime prevention
Respondents were asked to identify what they themselves or a household member had done to make their homes more secure. The measures differed across the three communities (Table 6).
Table 6 Actions taken to make home more secure (%)
|
|
Kwa Mashu
|
Tsolo-Qumbu
|
Lekoa-Vaal
|
Reported crime
|
Reported to local councillors
Reported to community/
street committee
Reported to police
|
11
15
38
|
6
1
9
|
1
7
19
|
Fortify home
|
Installed a burglar alarm system
Hired a security company
Installed burglar-bars
|
7
1
21
|
0
0
1
|
16
2
48
|
Early warning
|
Rented a room to someone
|
2
12
|
0
34
|
1
32
|
Community action
|
Joined a self-defense unit
|
5
10
12
|
1
2
1
|
2
10
3
|
Firearm
|
Acquired a gun
|
3
|
9
|
14
|
Other
|
Other measures to prevent crime
|
2
|
5
|
7
|
Overall, the people in Tsolo-Qumbu were much less inclined to take precautions against crime. The most likely intervention was to use a dog for protection. Residents of Tsolo-Qumbu probably cannot afford physical security devices. Their disinclination to report crime to any authority or to join other community efforts probably reflects the extent to which the community feels helpless to stop the violence in this area.
In Kwa Mashu, reporting criminal activities to the authorities, installing burglar guards and participating in community action against crime were likely options. The Lekoa-Vaal community favoured fortifying their homes by installing burglar bars and alarm systems and having a dog. Respondents here were less likely to report crime and join community initiatives than were Kwa Mashu residents.
Of the three areas, people in Lekoa-Vaal were most likely to have obtained a gun to protect their homes. Kwa Mashu residents were least inclined to use a firearm for this purpose. Interestingly the use of a gun for home security in each of the three communities correlates with the accessibility of firearms in each area. Although guns might become more popular for security if they are easier to obtain, firearms were not an important crime prevention option in the communities surveyed.
Clare Hansmann
Institute for Security Studies
|
|