What good are arms if they’re owned as mere status objects?

In the last one week, the country has been treated to incidents of private citizens misusing their firearms, prompting questions as whether and under what circumstances civilians ought to be licensed to carry arms.

For in the case of a trained arm handler, there is nothing like “accidental firing”; it is simply negligence or lack of proper training.

What are the circumstances under which a private citizen can carry a gun? In Kenya the concept is historically driven by two main reasons.

One, the settlers requested to possess firearms on the pretext that natives might rob them.

Two, the settlers, alongside Asians, were armed to form part of the Kenya Police Reserves that complemented the regular police.

At that time these factors were in order to mitigate the security threat of the time from the perspective of the colonial administration.

With independence, more Kenyans, especially the elite, followed that tradition, applying to carry firearms.

Now, the process of applying to own a firearm, which remains relatively unchanged to date, is quite elaborate.

Among others, one must have a clean crime free record, be a person of integrity, and one known by the local security committee, the provincial administration, the OCPD, the area intelligence officer etc.

In the pastoralist regions, government issued firearms to locals under the umbrella of the Kenya Police Reserve since police presence is almost impossible in such areas.

STATUS SYMBOL

While the above criteria is quite justifiable, a new trend emerged within the elite; the possession of firearms became a status symbol.

Today, many wealthy people, senior bankers, business magnates are armed. The latest group to join this bandwagon is politicians.

A considerable number politicians are armed, which is no secret, really, most never cease to brag in social places that they are armed.

Tragically, a majority of those who own firearms do not deserve that privilege.

One, arming is supposed to be in mitigation against personal threat; carrying a firearm for status beats this logic.

Two, the training for the use of a firearm must be thorough. Most owners do not. Besides, how many times have we heard an armed citizen confront criminals? It is very rare indeed.

In fact, we often read and hear about criminals disarming gun owners.

Cases of gun owners misusing them are also not uncommon; it could be a private confrontation, a bar fight, or even a fight about a woman.

SWEPT UNDER THE CARPET

Civilian arm possession should be gauged on the basis of the level of personal threat envisaged, and the ability of the applicant to handle the fire arm with respect to the rule of law.

The current criteria and procedures are quite elaborate but it appears certain requirements are being swept under the carpet in order to allow undeserving persons to carry arms.

We need to control the issue of permits; not every politician, elite or politically influential persons needs to be armed.

Above all, the issuance must be threat-driven. We may need a small scientific research to see how much security value the private fire arms owner bring to the overall national security, besides their personal egos.

Twalib Mbarak is a retired military officer and a certified security management professional; [email protected]. Otieno Otieno’s column resumes next week