The First Law of Systems Thinking

The Socio-Economic Impact Assessment System (SEIAS) report, accompanying the proposed Firearms Control Amendment Bill lists Social Cohesion as the number one priority. But it does little to explain why it states that "exploitation of the inadequacies of the FCA by certain groupings as well as criminals creates serious divisions in the community."

First law of Systems Thinking

Often we are puzzled by the causes of our problems; when we merely need to look at our own solutions to other problems in the past.

Peter Senge - The Fifth Discipline

I am acutely aware that we live in an unequal society. The cover photo, by Johnny Miller on the front page of Time magazine, with the heading "World's most unequal society". But do firearms laws add to or alleviate this inequality? Or are there more to it … just like when you look closely at the Miller image?

Everybody in South Africa do not have equal access to firearms. Some firearms that are lost and stolen from affluent societies, end up in poorer communities, placing them at even more of a disadvantage. Further limitations on firearm ownership could cut this flow, but what then?

Let's put our Systems Thinking hats on and look at an example from both sides.

Success to the successful

Current firearm laws, and inefficiencies in the administration thereof, favour people who have time and money on hand, in more than one way.

Compulsory training is a good, but costly idea. Unfortunately, the lengthy process that separates the training from the actual receiving of the firearm by a year or longer negates most of the advantages. Apart from the training cost and application fees, there are also significant hidden costs involved. These can amount to a considerable portion of an entry-level firearm.

Storage fees at a gun shop, while waiting for the application to be considered, for one. There could also be the cost of getting a professional to assist with the application. Where should someone who works with his hands get access to crime statistics, guidance and a computer to generate a lengthy motivation?

Even firearm prices are affected by these inefficiencies. Firearms last for decades and can serve more than one owner, but because the licensing system is so flawed, most owners seldom change their self-defence firearms. In fact, there is not even a straightforward system by which you can apply for a new license and only give up the old one when the new one is approved. So there is less affordable, secondhand firearms flowing towards prospective gunowners in lower-income communities.

Because of this long shelf-life of firearms - just look at the photos of retrieved firearms - removing illegal guns from society will take decades, if at all. Giving lower-income citizens fair access to the means to protect themselves will be faster and more direct.

Fixes that fail

But what would the effect of removing firearms be on somebody on the inside of the gated fence?

There is no doubt that a firearm is an equaliser. A 50kg lady can successfully defend herself against a 100kg man. Or four 100kg men. Even if they are armed. Sure, her chances of survival against four opponents in an armed fight are left to chance, but if all of them are unarmed, her chances of survival are left to their humanity. Or lack thereof.

Now, let's take firearms out of the equation and consider the system dynamics. The 50kg woman in the example above now has to look at alternative means to defend herself. And spend her time on defensive training, rather than value-adding activities. Attach herself to a physically stronger person. Or form a group. Not necessarily an ideal situation. Dependence, not social cohesion.

Without guns, criminals will probably also have to form larger groups, but they can choose the time of the attack.

The unarmed woman, on the other hand, has to surround herself with a defensive group all the time. Or move closer to where help can respond quickly. Build barriers. Around herself and the group. Separate "us" from "them". Or create more gated communities. Less social cohesion.

Look for the overarching goal

"Success to the successful" and "Fixes that fail" are typical systems archetypes; patterns that repeat themselves often enough in complex system to have been identified and studied.

The typical solution for "Success to the successful" is to look for an overarching goal: Everybody wants to be equally prosperous, not equally poor. That is a good overarching goal. Free up the flow of pre-used firearms between the different sectors of society. Use shooting sports to advance social cohesion.

The typical guideline for "Fixes that fail" is to maintain focus on the long term. Disregard the short-term fix. Systems Theorists will concede that there might be value in short term solutions, but only to buy time. If you ask me, revoking self-defense licenses will cause the opposite: Short term chaos, while other sources and their long shelf-life will maintain the level of illegal firearms for decades to come.

Conclusion

Systems Thinking is not a slave to any political agenda. I look at the system through gunmetal coloured glasses and see compensating loops that will replace firearms with other forms of violence if they are removed. Somebody else may see reinforcing loops that have the criminals escalate their violence when I escalate my defence.

But it does give us a framework of how to look at the issues. In this series of posts, I will look at how we can apply Systems Thinking principles to our current gun issues.