CONCLUSION

The willingness to own a firearm (as evidenced by half the Lekoa-Vaal respondents, just over two-fifths of the Tsolo-Qumbo and Lekoa-Vaal respondents, and approximately a quarter of the Kwa Mashu respondents) and the ability to gain access to a firearm (just over a quarter of the respondents) were all relatively similar across the three communities.

The first aim of the research was to measure significant indicators of firearm penetration. This information would provide a baseline against which the nature of firearm proliferation could be understood.

The firearm penetration indicators would help to identify which areas were most impacted on by firearms. Kwa Mashu township, across all settlement types, was the community which was most significantly impacted upon by firearms. It displayed the highest violent crime to property crime ratio, and the most significant increase in levels of victimisation, crime and gang-related activity. This by no means diminishes the devastating role that firearms play in the other two case-study areas, as all the communities in the case studies were selected because of their violent histories, recorded gang and vigilante activities, high levels of personal insecurity and their location on existing and historical illicit firearm smuggling routes.

Across all three case-study communities, firearm penetration is increasing. This is linked to growing accessibility of firearms and occurs in reaction to rising crime and violence, which indicates that firearms are demanded because of insecurity and fear for safety.

In contrast to the fact that KwaMashu township was measured as the locality with the highest firearm penetration, associated firearm ownership was highest in Tsolo-Qumbo and the formal areas of Lekoa-Vaal.

Similarly, the respondents from these two areas had obtained firearms as a crime prevention measure, and the respondents from Tsolo-Qumbo and Lekoa-Vaal showed the greatest willingness to own a firearm.

The reason for this paradox is possibly a reaction by the Kwa Mashu respondents against firearms, as a result of seeing a situation develop in their community where firearm proliferation is escalating in an uncontrollable manner. The insecurity caused by the alleged corruption and inefficiency of the local police compounds this problem. The respondents from Kwa Mashu are well aware that in the short term they only have themselves as a community to rely on to address the problem.

The respondents from Lekoa-Vaal, especially those from formal township areas, indicate a high level of confidence in the police, while the respondents from Tsolo-Qumbo gain comfort from the knowledge that the traditional authority concerns itself with issues relating to the safety and security of the community. The Kwa Mashu community, alienated from existing safety and security structures, and having seen the devastating impact of firearms - as held by gangsters, vigilantes and criminals - have developed a culture of intolerance towards firearms. For this reason they show a comparatively low willingness to own firearms.

The respondents from all three case-study areas expressed the desire to live in a community in which there was no necessity to own a gun and where there were improved controls over existing stocks of firearms. But it appeared that as long as feelings of insecurity prevailed, firearm ownership would remain a characteristic of these areas. Once more all the respondents were in agreement that should the security within the community increase, they would encourage other people to stop owning guns.

Given that the prevailing situation appeared unlikely to change without considerable developments in enhancing the security within these case-study areas, the report investigated some of the recommendations made to improve controls over firearms. While exploring these recommended actions, it should be borne in mind that these are the opinions of the community respondents who understand their context, the limitations of the resources readily available to them and the capacity of the structures serving the community. We therefore believe that these are the minimum basic steps that could improve the situation in the case-study areas. At the same time, it must be remembered that the community only have limited control over their circumstances, especially since many of the recommendations would need to be implemented by government; such as policy recommendations, legislation implementation and resources being made readily available to the police. In this conclusion, therefore, we are going to limit ourselves to those actions that are within the control of the community.

A third of both the existing structures utilised for conflict resolution within the community, and the structures identified for improving firearm control in the short term, consist of community organisations with elected representatives and volunteers from within the case-study residential areas. This implies that any actions to improve community security and firearm controls could, if given a community mandate, be spearheaded by structures already in place.

A bold 30.2% of the respondents made the recommendation that improved firearm controls should rely on community involvement and social crime prevention.

It is empowering to the community to identify themselves as the potential agents of action in curbing firearm proliferation.

It cannot be overlooked, however, that the other side of the coin is that the majority of the community identified legislative changes - tightening controls over access to firearms and better policing - as those actions which would best address the problem, implying that the majority of the respondents do not see themselves as agents of change.

The focus group discussions provided an in-depth understanding of the context, nature and extent of firearm proliferation within the case-study areas. They also highlighted some creative strategies that could be employed by the community to curb firearm proliferation:

monitoring the police and ensuring that they work within the community and to the benefit of the community;



looking for alternative forms of self-defence;



questioning the role of the media, advertisements and entertainment in promoting firearm ownership as an acceptable social norm.

Any community-based strategies would need to be all inclusive and would have to have practical components to improve safety and security within the community. Such initiatives would have educative components that would attempt to change existing perceptions of firearms. Information was collected on existing forms of communication and on which structures community members belong to. This would help the structures in the case-study areas to design their own community-based strategies.

However, cost could be an issue with some of the types of communication. Strategies to assist with the resolution of firearms at a community level need to involve some aspect of reprogramming the behaviour and moral reference point of the individuals who make up the community.

Although all community-based campaigns would have to be inclusive, it also needs to be recognised that community resources are limited and for this reason it is necessary to target the campaign towards certain groups of people. If a respondent is willing to own a firearm, and has friends or family who do own firearms, and has a high ease of access to a firearm, this could also indicate that the respondent is a potential future firearm owner, or an existing firearm owner. These categories of existing and potential firearm owners would both be high-priority categories to target in a public awareness or education campaign on firearm safety practices and responsible firearm possession.

The leverage points for community action are those aspects of the community that could be harnessed towards addressing the problem of firearms. In order to identify the leverage points, it is necessary to pinpoint those who would be sympathetic towards taking action and/or who have taken action in the past, both on the issue of firearms and in other community collective actions. In order to identify those people who would be best activated as 'leverage points' in the community, it would be advisable to look at the number of different organisations to which the respondents belong and their willingness to take action to discourage firearm ownership. It was found that those respondents that belonged to organisations were more willing to take action to improve firearm controls.

In addition to this, community levels of belonging to an organisation were higher in some areas, indicating that community-based actions would be likely to emerge first from those areas, such as Tsolo-Qumbo (where only 10.7% of the respondents did not belong to a structure), the Kwa Mashu urban formal area (where only 12.2% of the respondents did not belong to a structure) and Kwa Mashu informal areas (where only 10.8% of the respondents did not belong to a structure).