Kenyans should be allowed to own firearms

By Kabaru Ndegwa

There has been a raging debate as to whether more private citizens should be allowed to keep small arms to ensure their safety in the face of escalating crime. The Inspector General of Police is on record proposing a relaxation of the Firearms Act to make it easier for deserving citizens to legally acquire small firearms.

This debate is not new and has raged not only here but in other parts of the world, most notably in the United States of America where the right to own a firearm is constitutionally protected.

Apart from the United States, which is a military super power today, the only other countries with universal gun ownership tend to be either lawless nations where the state has no control over gun ownership (Afghanistan, Somalia, Southern Sudan and the eastern parts of the DRC) or countries with very small populations surrounded by potential enemies having superior populations and armies (Israel   and Switzerland).

It may however be argued that with weapons of mass destruction like nuclear weapons which Israel possesses, the need for universal military service and gun ownership is no longer valid. Kenya falls in neither of the above two categories and in fact has one of the most restrictive laws on firearm licensing in the world.

Should private citizens be allowed to bear arms? The most common argument against citizens bearing arms is that when a nation is borne, a compact is formed between the population and their government to the effect that the citizens surrender their powers of self-defence to the state (including the right to own and bear arms) and in return the state undertakes to assure their protection through the police and the army. The state monopoly of arms is therefore justified in that the citizens do not need to bear arms since the government will protect them.

The second argument against the right to bear arms by the private citizen is that the more privately held firearms there are, the more there will be instances of misuse of firearms. The United States of America is the most notorious country of random shooting and other cases of misuse of firearms. How valid are these arguments against the right to bear arms?

In the ideal situation where the state is able and does guarantee the safety of its citizens, then there is obviously no need for private citizens to arm themselves.

But what happens when violent crime escalates and the state can no longer adequately protect its citizens. Should they not then be allowed to own arms?  Looking at the grim crime statistics in Kenya, there are those who believe that we have reached the stage where citizens should be allowed to own firearms for their own protection.

There is the argument that more guns in private hands will translate into more cases of misuse and escalation of gun related violence. However, the biggest argument in favour of allowing more citizens to bear arms is that of a balance of terror. It would, therefore, follow that to redress this imbalance of terror, more private citizens, thoroughly vetted as to temperament and criminal history, and trained in all areas of use of firearms should be licensed to bear arms.