When my father died, a question arose about who of us five siblings would inherent my father’s rifles which he, in turn, had inherited from his father. As the only son in the family who also carries my grandfather and father’s name, I was the obvious choice. Luckily my sister is a big game hunter (don’t ask), so to my great relief she was happy to take over the rifles. I do not want any guns near my house. They are dangerous. They are greasy and dirty. They kill people (and they kill animals too, apparently).
So, for once I fully support a statement President Jacob Zuma has made relating to the high crime rate. After months of tough talk on the need for police to shoot to defend themselves (making dangerous, uninformed and misguided statements as he went along), Zuma told supporters at an ANC Siyabonga (“thank you”) rally at Lenyenye stadium near Tzaneen on Sunday, that the country’s gun laws needed review.
“We are worried that in this country that has so many levels of violent crime, (there are) too many guns in the hands of citizens,” he said. “We need to take a look at the law, at whether we should all have guns.”
I could not agree more. My proposal would be to go the route of the United Kingdom and Japan where private gun ownership is all but banned. Anyone found in possession of a gun and who had not been issued with a special permit to hold the gun, which permit would only be issued in the most extraordinary circumstances, would be guilty of a criminal offense and liable for a mandatory five year prison sentence.
I know that the pro-gun lobby does not like this kind of talk. Guns do not kill people they say. People kill people. Well, yes, people with guns kill other people with or without guns, actually. If we ban all guns and make it almost impossible for anyone to get their hands on a gun, I for one would feel a bit safer. Maybe it’s just me, but not being Chuck Norris or Vernon Koekemoer I would rather take my chances with a guy wielding a bread knife than with a guy wielding a semi-automatic machine gun.
Members of the pro-gun lobby also say – having read too much stuff on the Internet from the pro-gun nutters living in the United States – that limiting or entirely prohibiting the possession of guns would interfere with our constitutional rights. Well, I have re-read the Bill of Rights (the South African Bill of Rights, that is) and I cannot find the right to own a gun anywhere in that document.
The Bill of Rights does include a right to life and a right to freedom and security of the person so I guess at a push one could argue that a ban on the possession of guns would constitute a limitation on one of these rights. I am not so sure such an argument would find favour with our courts. One will have to show that owning a gun makes you safer and protects you against violent crime, something that would be difficult to do.
As so many people are actually killed by the very guns owned by them or their loved ones and as the statistics on gun ownership and its link to violent crime are highly contested (and often manipulated), a court would not easily buy the counter-intuitive argument of the gun lobby that a society awash in semi-automatic guns is safer than one where guns are banned.
The state would be able to argue (rather persuasively, I think) that by implementing an almost total ban on guns the state is doing no more than fulfilling its obligation to take steps to protect our right to life and security of the person. An almost complete ban on the possession of guns would therefore not limit these rights at all but would, instead, constitute an attempt to enhance and protect these rights.
But even if some gun-happy judge somewhere agrees with the pro-gun lobby that a ban on the possession of guns limits an individual’s right to life and bodily integrity because the ban would be imperfect and would prevent gun owners from defending themselves against criminals wielding not bread knives but semi-automatic rifles, I cannot see how a plausible argument could be made that this limitation would not be justifiable in terms of the limitation clause.
The state would be able to argue that the ban on guns was exactly aimed at protecting ordinary South Africans from violent crime – a manifestly important purpose – and that eradicating guns from society was manifestly aligned with the vision of an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. It would also be able to produce statistics of violent crime in countries awash with guns (the US and Brazil come to mind) compared with countries where gun ownerships is severely limited (Sweden, Japan and Singapore come to mind) to show that a plausible argument could be made that the ban on guns can be effective in bringing down violent crime.
The state would be able to show that in South Africa (awash in legal and illegal guns) there is murder rate per capita of 0.496008 per 1,000 people, while in other countries where guns are outlawed (for example Japan where that rate is 0.00499933 per 1,000 people and in the United Kingdom it is 0.0140633 per 1,000 people) the murder rate is much, much lower.
In any case, even if one cannot prove that a ban on guns would bring down the crime rate, I would still support a ban on guns. The widespread ownership of guns seems to me in conflict with the ethos of the Constitution. It dehumanizes and brutalizes us all when crazies run around with guns and we see guns everywhere around us. It cheapens life and valorises violence. It is a social ill in and of its own, regardless of whether the possession of guns has any influence on the rate at which South Africans kill their children and their wives, their fellow citizens and the foreigners they have taken a dislike to.
“I know that the pro-gun lobby does not like this kind of talk”.
I agree with you that “(t)hey are dangerous. They are greasy and dirty. They kill people (and animals too, apparently)”.
Guns too are bad.
Ban guns, after the Free State ANC Youth League sorts Jansen out that is. http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article167746.ece
Thanks for tackling this very important topic Prof. I watched e-News tv channel on Monday morning (26/10/2009) and Pres Zuma’s statement above was one of the major ones. The novel idea behind the statement is taken cognisance of (i.e. making us safer and fighting violent crime) but the execution thereof is flawed. A gentleman who is the chair or president of the Gun-owners Association of SA, I think, argued, that the move will not achieve the desired results. He touched on something that is worrisome for all of us who depend on the police force for their security (unlike Bheki Cele, we cannot use the state money to build a R3 million secure house). He argued that most of the guns on the streets which are used to kill people do not belong to licenced gun-owners; they are illegal guns the origins of which are generally traced to various police stations around the country. Police officials corruptly “issue” these guns in exchange for money which guns end up being used for criminal purposes. Come to think of it, why would I used my licenced gun to shoot a person when I know very well that such a gun will be traced to me?
In my view, the state will give the ‘criminals’, as Pres Zuma will say, more confidence when they come up to our cars at the red traffic lights to highjack them, knowing that the fool inside the car does not have any gun to point at me when I produce my illicit gun ‘issued’ at the nearest police station. Police should try to exercise more care instead of the State trying to take away our protection against “dangerous criminals”.
However, I will wait for the State to state its case and the supporting stats on gun owners (that does not include a list of (trigger-happy?) police officials, etc. who ‘take’ their State issued guns to their homes.
For me the biggest problem is the fact that we have to rely on the police for our security. Just go to the courts – I go their every day – and you will see why the criminals have such an easy job. Just too often criminal investigations are simply not up to standard, and prosecutions are not up to standard. The high crime rate will only subside once there is certainty of punishment for the criminal. At the moment the criminals know that the chances of being convicted are very slim.
About the question if guns should be banned: I don’t know. I have personally come across more than just one case where the criminals saw that the victim was carrying a gun, and murdered him just to get the gun. I also know of more than one incident where the victim survived because he had a gun and was able to defend himself.
I don’t think banning guns will bring down the crime rate significantly. I also don’t think “shoot to kill” will bring down the crime rate. Perhaps the authorities should start be giving us a properly trained and well equipped police force and prosecutors. The JSC and Magistrate’s Commission should see to it that those on the bench are up to standard. If all that is done, the crime rate will decline fast, and then we can have a serious look at banning all privately own fire arms.
Sne I agree with you 100%
The problem in South Africa is not legal gun ownership but the illegal gun ownership.
Prof,
Referring to the US as an example of legal gun ownership is not quite correct either. They’re gun laws are a joke to say the least. Remember this is a country with “the right to bear arms” in their constitution.
On a recent visit to Texas I went to a shooting range and the person next to me legally owned an AK-47. Now any country that allows a civilian to own an assault rifle clearly has a misunderstanding on what it is to own a gun for self protection. South Africa is a much much stricter requirement on gun ownership where a license is issued per firearm, whereas in America it is much like a driver’s license, you can own any gun and any number of guns once issued with a license.
But here is the interesting thing, even though South Africa has stricter gun ownership laws we have more crime.
Places in America where there is a high number of gun related crime, there is also poverty.
Clearly gun ownership is not the cause of crime. Poverty is.
http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/a7893803b0064e79ae4a8d9e21c9f80e/26-10-2009-05-27/CT_cops_kill_4_would-be_robbers
Everything worked out perfectly … didn’t it?
@ Chris
“The high crime rate will only subside once there is certainty of punishment for the criminal. At the moment the criminals know that the chances of being convicted are very slim”.
Well said – that goes to the heart of the transformation we need and, in my view, that is where the debates should be focused.
But I am fully behind a gun free society.
Otherwise http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/world/article165073.ece
Does anyone remember the St James massacre? Illegal weapons killed some people. One man with a legal weapon used it to prevent the deaths of many more.
This is but one anecdote, and does not prove the case for the gun lobby, but it does tell a story. By the way, I do not own a gun, and do not plan to (although I did learn to use a handgun as a teenager).
Currently, criminals face a degree of uncertainty about whether their victims will be armed. If we ban handguns, then there will be no uncertainty.
Japan is also certainly not a good model for us as there is no comparison in terms of social stability and prosperity. In the UK, knife crime has gone up substantially under the nanny-state rules that hvae been imposed.
Mike Atkins says:
October 27, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Absolutely …
In our country’s current climate the maxim that we use for condoms can be applied to private firearms …
BETTER TO HAVE IT AND NOT NEED IT, THAN TO NEED IT AND NOT HAVE IT!”
Pierre,
I refer to the judgement of Prinsloo J in the SA Hunters case of 26 June to the effect that the SAPS could offer no evidence that legal firearms are a problem or are used in violent crime and that the SAPS were unable to show that infringement of firearm owners’ rights is justifiable in terms of Sec. 36 of the Constitution. Given that and given the fact that there appears to a significant leakage of firearms from with the SAPS and the SADF into criminal hands, is your stance really justifiable?
@ CD
Attacking private firearm ownership and smoking are easier to deal and challenge than say alcohol abuse and its effects as well as the firearm leakage you’ve mentioned.
Encroaching on law-abiding citizens freedoms seems to be the new trend within governments … The drafters of the US Constitution were very aware of the potential tyranny of the state and put in safeguards for that … strangely we don’t.
Harold, I must be clear that I am not pro-firearms either. But I do believe that blaming the current crime crisis on private firearms owners or believing that banning private firearms is going to reduce crime in any meaningful way is simply opportunistic knee-jerk blame shifting by a government that is unable to effectively address the incompetence and corruption of its own appointees. While at an intuitive I understand Pierre’s dislike of firearms (I myself am fairly neutral in this regard) I am disappointed that he seems not have tried to look beyond what is a fashionable tirade. I would be the first to agree to ban firerarms if it were factually the case that there would be a significant drop off in violent crimes but there is simply not the slightest shred of hard evidence to support this notion: rather the contrary, that the few who have been able thus far to sucessfully protect themselves will be left completely defenceless and at the mercy of the wolves.
PS: sadly, in this country facts and reality have become more and more irrelevant in the political environment.
“Do have a gun to declare?” the customs officer asks the tourist on arrival at Oliver Tambo.
“No Sir”
“Here, take mine…..”
I also don’t have a gun, and have always been anti-guns, but recently I am turning to the idea that mass arming of citizens would be the best way to reduce crime levels. What are the housebreaking statistics in Texas? If everyone has a gun the murdering of poeple to take their guns will also come down. And knowing that hijacking or house invading will involve a gunfight will make crims think twice.
We will get the odd extra familiemoord, but this needs to be weighed against 50k (or whatever) murders per year.
On two occasions, once in town and once in a township I was attacked by a knife wielder; I was also present on another occasion, a community event, when it was my partner who was threatened for saying no to a cigarette request. On all three occasions I was able to successfully defend with mace. Its quite obvious to me that had any of these attackers carried a gun, I had no defense.
On the second occasion when I dragged the repeatedly stabbed man into a liguor store while spraying mace at his attackers, and yelling at staff to call the police (they didn’t have the number, can you believe that?) well, when the police came they refused to press charges against the two attackers as the victim was groaning ‘no charges, no charges’ while bleeding all over the floor. A strange country indeed where a victim, who hasn’t died determines whether the criminal is charged.
In my past life, living in a country with little violence, I favoured a gun free society. In South Africa I feel the gun laws are oppressive. Remember, a man, for example, carries or stores a gun not just to protect himself, but his family and perhaps innocents who need help. Its a fact, we are not in a law abiding country, and violence accompanies much of the crime.
No one dimensional thinking will solve our problems, crime is a multi-facted problem. Inequality, poverty, racism, corruption, inefficient public service, poor justice system and other factors at play here. Gun, cars, cellphones, properties, Id’s, passports are often used in commiting most of the crime around us. Until we all pull in the same direction with respect to the above, we are going no where. In the absence of facts, everyone’s opionion counts.
Mexico’s Drug War Bloodbath: Guns from the U.S. Are Destabilizing the Country
By Silja J.A. Talvi, AlterNet. Posted March 18, 2009.
http://tinyurl.com/d2o5nn
Mexican drug cartels have easy access to thousands of American gun dealers just on the other side of the border.
A minute is all the time that it takes for an employee in one of almost 7,000 gun shops dotting the U.S./Mexico border to accept a wad of cash from an eager customer, fill out a triplicate sales slip, and slide a nice, new Taurus .45 caliber pistol across the counter. Or two, or three, or twenty, as the case may be. Add those handguns to the countless tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of pistols, sniper and assault rifles, semi-automatic machine guns, shield-piercing bullets, grenades, plastic explosives, as well as anti-tank weapons outfitted with self-propelling rockets — plus countless thousands of drug warriors, of one sort or another, who are ready, willing, and able to use them. If it looks like you’ve got a battle on your hands, you do — the Mexican drug war has hit boiling point.
http://hiphopnews.yuku.com/topic/1108
Tougher measures needed by U.S. to curb gun trafficking
By Azad Ali
Published: Wednesday, October 7, 2009 2:26 PM EDT
A former Antigua and Barbuda diplomat has warned that unless the United States put measures in place to curb the trafficking of weapons and drugs through the region, the situation will worsen.
http://www.caribbeanlifenews.com/articles/2009/10/07/news/national/doc4accc227b0c39644373029.txt
Pierre, I’m looking for a bit of legal advice here from you or the members of this blog. My little brothers girlfriend was driven into from behind at a stop street.
She and the other driver (who seemed not slightly inebriated) – was promptly arrested for drunk driving – and she spent the night in the police cells with 5 men.
What’s the legality of this? My memory of the criminal procedure act on this score is very little. But under what circumstances can the police keep you in their cells?
It would seem that police were looking for my brother to pay a bribe to get his girlfriend out of the cells. And in the light of this story in Beeld today – one could see why one might consider doing this.
http://www.beeld.com/Content/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/1928/ebf5bf8781e24032a264d2c022fe75a0/27-10-2009-01-27/%E2%80%98Polisie_het_my_verkrag%E2%80%99
I think that the views that I hold are consistent with much of what George Gildenhuys and Sne have said: I suspect that many violent incidents that involve guns can be linked to illegal firearms. I would say also that even if the ownership of legal firearms is a factor that contributes to the incidence of violent crimes, a more powerful causal factor is probably poverty and its concomitant problems: street gangs, robberies and so on.
I am also going to add my voice to a point that Mike raised a little earlier: one should be mindful of whether social contexts are analogous. The imposition of severe restrictions on gun ownership in Japan may have had a desirable impact on the incidence of gun-related offences. But even if that is true, if it is fair to say that Japan and South Africa are in some relevant respects very different contexts, then it is not at all clear that the imposition of similarly harsh restrictions would have the same sort of effect here that it does there.
On a personal note, I share the Professor’s sentiments insofar as I too cannot really abide guns. I will not, however, begrudge people wanting to own them. But I think that gun owners should be obliged to undergo reasonably frequent evaluations as the imposition of such a duty could, at least potentially, reduce the risk of insufficiently stable and well-adjusted people owning guns. Of course the implementation of such a requisite carries with it a few difficulties. But without considering whatever concomitant difficulties, and in principle, I think such a requisite could help a bit.
CD and others. Of course banning guns in itself will not miraculously stop the wave of violent crime in South Africa: there are many reasons for crime of which the prevalence of guns is just one. But it seems to me one should do what one can to address the problem and the banning of guns is one step that one could take. The gentleman who claimed on TV that “legal guns” is not the problem and the judge who agreed seems not to have heard of the thousands of cases where men have shot and often killed their wives or children or other men out of jealousy and rage.
@ Prof.
Perhaps we will need stats for this but I am convinced that most gun related domestic violence is perpetraited by those who have guns given to them by the state, i.e. Police Force and Defence Force members, etc.
PS: I trust you enough Prof to notice ‘most’ in my post. It is becoming a trend for people to see what they want to see when reading…
(Khosi, I am not talking about you and the “former Pres Mbeki’s full interview next week” story)
Chris, thanks for your thoughtful comments. And I agree that the criminal justice system is in a sorry state. A friend of mine who earns a living in the courts as a prosecutor told me that at that particular court (I’ll not say which one), one prosecutor can be expected to try three or four cases in just one day. How is one supposed to run a case well if one has to split focus so much? To be sure, some of those cases are probably not especially complex. But preparing for any court appearance in which one has to establish or refute something takes a bit of a run through. And having to prepare for three or four is, in my view, too much.
I do not know much about the efficacy of police investigations. But as cynical as my thoughts may be, I have to say that I am not terribly optimistic.
It is a very sad reality that volatile people have been known to kill their families with firearms. But to my mind, one pertinent question is: if such people did not own firearms, would they just find some other means to harm their families? I tend to think so. That is, I will concede that it is not the brightest idea that such unstable people own guns. In much the same way that one does not relish a fundamentalist owning a grenade, one does not welcome the notion of a violent, emotional wreck owning a pistol.
But let us be clear about one thing: while it is true that volatile people have been known to turn their guns on their close relations, relieving them of their guns simply does not address the underlying issue of their emotional instability. And it seems to me that it is that instability, and no so much the fact that they have access to guns, that presents the truest threat.
Pierre De Vos wrote:
“But it seems to me one should do what one can to address the problem and the banning of guns is one step that one could take.”
Pierre, the point is that there no evidence that banning guns will reduce the crime position. Until there is hard evidence to that effect, this is nothing more than a statement of opinion.
Pierre also wrote: “The gentleman who claimed on TV that “legal guns” is not the problem and the judge who agreed seems not to have heard of the thousands of cases where men have shot and often killed their wives or children or other men out of jealousy and rage.”
Again, based on all the evidence available to date it seems there is nothing to show that absent firerarms such person would not have been victims anyway or for that matter whether the firearms used were predominantly from state sources or private sources. Also, there is nothing in the way of statistics or evidence to balance these factors against the number of persons who have successfully defended themselves through privately owned firearms (of which, anecdotally there appear to be many many thousands).
In the ultimate analysis neither you nor Mr Zuma have anything to support your position other than a bland statement of personal opinion. To this end you would (a) deprive persons of private property (possibly unconstitutionally) (b) incur billions of Rands of costs in expropriating the said property and finally (c) potentially render countless of hundreds of thousands of people defenceless in the face of violent criminals.
At the very least an extensive and in depth study of the issue should be made by neutral persons to ascertain the true facts and likely outcomes of the proposed course of action (in our own South African context) before concrete steps are taken.
This is precisely one of the core problems of government in this country: actions are taken without proper study or understanding of issues and the effects of the proposed course of conduct, usually with deeply adverse consequences following.
S 25 of the Constitution guarantees the right to own property. Guns are property.
S33 of the Constitution guarantees the right to administrative justice. Does making someone (well, actually, a million somebodies) wait 5 years for renewal of a gun licence sound to you lawful, reasonable or procedurally fair?
Does an unlawful de facto gun ban instituted by a middle-level manager at the Central Firearm Register because of Sheena Duncan’s goading sound consistent with PAJA to you?
S14 of the Constitution guarantees the right to privacy. Does unlawful home invasions to do safe-inspections when the Constitutional Court has addressed the issue of regulatory inspections that extend into private homes in Mistry and in Mahanjane sound consistent with S14?
S 137 of the Firearms Control Act makes provision for compensation for surrendered firearms. Charles Nqakula and Jackie Selebi told Parliament they just flat out refuse to pay. The Western Cape High Court told the Minister August 31 that the Department and the SAPS’ conduct towards gun owners since 2004 was “unlawful and unconstitutional”. The fine that the state gets to pay for the stupid-activism of you Gun Free trolls is R30 Billion.
An Act that has never had the implementation thereof subjected to a forensic audit?
Do some homework on this issue before adding to the spam out there, please! Anyone can see our ill-advised President wants to Amend the Firearms Control Act retroactively to bypass/thwart the Western Cape High Court judgement so completing the destruction of the rule of law and our constitutional rights that you Gun Free trolls have been ducking/refusing debate over since 1999!
Brett Nortje, thanks for your post. It kind of confirms my feeling that some people really should not be allowed close to guns (well, almost all people, really, but obviously you would be included…)
To be honest, I worry a little where there are calls for greater powers for the police to shoot to kill (as though defending their own lives, and the lives of others is not enough), and then the possibility that citizens might be deprived of the right to bear arms. Factor in the increasingly strident pronouncements on any and every social issue by the various allies or sub-groupings of the ANC, including the recent call that Prof Jansen is a “criminal” and should be killed.
Think hard about Rwanda, and ask what factors are not present here…
further to my previous comment here is the Criminal Procedure act for anybody interested in its provisions.
If anybody here cares however to elaborate on your rights when arrested by the SA police, please do.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CA8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kzntransport.gov.za%2Freading_room%2Facts%2Fnational%2FCriminal%2520Procedure%2520Act%2520%26%2520Regulations.pdf&ei=eATnSrfOB96MjAfOvqGuCA&usg=AFQjCNExbXCCzHtrCiTrlKOilxKjgRyDYQ&sig2=9vZbDN-BZbEo18jK00S2Rg
Yes, Pierre, you’re absolutely right, of course.
Gun owners really ought to look pleasant about being subjected to conduct by the SAPS and Department for Safety and Security which the Western Cape High Court ruled was “unlawful and unconstitutional”.
Taxpayers really ought to look pleasant about coughing up R30 Bn to pay for the misguided activism of a few paranoid nutters with no respect for the Constitution and/or the rule of law.
Taking exception at 10 years of such victimisation is an obvious sign of intellectual and psychological impairment.
And we’ll all agree to disagree, and say nothing about the facts I raised.
Your side has been living in denial about the unconstitutionality of the FCA for 10 years now, after all.
What is really needed is to get the guns out of the hands of those with criminal intent? Those countries which have a mandatory sentence of five years for possession of an unlicensed weapon have the right of it. It should be automatic: you have an unlicensed or stolen weapon, you do 5 yrs, no parole, full sentence.
I tend to think this would do more regarding gun control and crime than banning them outright, the latter likely producing many more small arms flowing illegally into South Africa.
However, I believe the UN statement that small arms kill so many people world wide, more than any other weapon, that they are actually a weapon of mass destruction.
Chris & Maggs, I am with you 100%. The biggest problem we have is indeed the implementation of, in this case, punitive laws. As Sne also articulate it, banning of legal or illegal ownership of guns is not a soultion.
Pierre,
I am the gentleman who was interviewed on eTV yesterday. You seem to be sneeringly suggesting that I have no factual basis for the statements I made. You may be aware that the Chairperson of GFSA challenged me on air last night to provide proof that for the first time ever, and largely thanks to the UK gun ban, the Metro Police in London is carrying out regular armed patrols. You may wish to confirm with her that I emailed her the proof this morning, as I said I would.
This is, indeed, your soapbox, but it serves you not at all to make a twit of yourself by crowing from it. If you would indulge in reasoned debate that is to be welcomed; please refrain from denigrating remarks and ad hominems. It seems you have much to learn specifically regarding this debate. GunownersSA.org would be delighted to assist in your education.
Kameraad Mhambi says:
October 27, 2009 at 14:47 pm
Kameraad, to detain a female in a cell with males is definitely unlawful. Do you have access to law reports? If so have a look at Brown and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others 2009 (1) SACR 218 (C) and Minister of Safety and Security v Van Niekerk 2008 1 SACR 56 (CC). Tell your little brother’s girlfriend to go see an attorney.
sirjay jonson says:
October 27, 2009 at 17:00 pm
We have a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years for possession of a semi automatic fire arm, such as a 9mm pistol. It does not seem to deter criminals.
Leigh says:
October 27, 2009 at 15:19 pm
I was a prosecutor (long time ago) and I prepared 7 cases for every day. Of course you have to take the case dockets home and to preparation every night. Some find it too much, but if you want to make it in the legal profession you work most evenings.
Pierre De Vos says:
October 27, 2009 at 14:52 pm
Incidentally I had a case in court today where the crimes were committed using the perpetrator’s legal fire arm. I agree that most crimes are committed with the use of illegal fire arms, but in my experience it’s mostly guns stolen from private owners who did not safeguard their arms sufficiently.
Mike Atkins says:
October 27, 2009 at 15:57 pm
In my opinion that is all political talk. The problem with “shoot to kill” is not the Criminal Procedure Act, it is politicians who do not understand the law. To change the CPA will not achieve anything, they will have to change the Constitution to make a policy of “shoot to kill” legal.
Brett Nortje says:
October 27, 2009 at 15:34 pm
You remind me so much of an advocate I once met. But that is a long story, and totally of the subject.
mayimele says:
October 27, 2009 at 17:29 pm
The conversation around our paltry conviction rate has to be started.
It’s well known that in the absence of a high probability of being caught and successfully prosecuted, the disincentive almost non-existent.
The will to change that, it seems, is also non-existent.
Chris: how many of those found with unlicensed weapons actually are convicted?
Seeing that I tweak your memory, might I remind you of Case? Weird set of values that respects people’s right to possess pornography in the privacy of their homes but tries to prevent them from possessing firearms – for their own personal use in all likelihood never to be seen by anyone else – in the privacy of the same home.
Explain to us how you reconcile S 14 of the Constitution with a state that prescribes how people store their personal property in the privacy of their homes, constantly monitoring that they do?
You gun prohibitionists are intellectually lazy – clearly not giving one moment’s thought to the necessary implications or consequences of your proposals.
In my community the police are actually quite good at what they do, although the Super publically confirmed a question of mine that they are aware of corrupted officers re shabeens, running girls and drugs. They do regular raids under various pretexts, generally for drugs. Fire arms are often found. However, we rarely hear of convictions for these fire arms offenses and the local SAPS doesn’t release results, even to those of us who work with them.
Recently, a gun stolen from a local pastor who did not have it safe’d, and was stolen, was used to shoot point blank to the head of one of my workers’s grandsons, who he cares for, age 12. There is a concave section of his head missing now and he can no longer speak, just smiles. Ironically he was innocent of the accusation that he had stolen a bike, the wrong person having been identified.
There are so many murders in the townships we never hear of, some by knives, but far to many by stolen guns.
I’m going out on a limb here Prof: I don’t want to wait for hindsight. We are all aware of how militant the ANCYL is becoming. We are aware of the number of farm murders, the rapes and killings of older women and men in all our communities. Who isn’t aware or connected to someone this has happened to. The reason for the gun lobby and its demand in the US is precisely so that citizens are armed to prevent the possibility, not just of criminal attacks, but of a government they have elected which overtakes their rights; its not just for defense against criminals.
Americans believe in the right to arms so they can protect themselves from a Government turned rogue. Just a thought. I think that applies here as well. Because, it sure looks to me that our Government has turned.
Your right you are going out on a limb. I don’t think you can equate the ANCYL to the government.
There are pretty competent ministers like Ibrahim Patel in this government.
The problem is rather that out government does not have to beaurocacy or the institutional capacity to govern. Their is no real government on ground level. It’s a free for all where the unscrupulous and the powerful feed off the weak. That’s the problem.
Kameraad: and what do you make of JZ’s endorsement of Julius for leadership of the ANC. And if that is the case which unfolds, are you happy with that?
You know something: you have a bloody nightmare in South Africa. So hard to believe, so much potential, so much failure unfolding which impacts the entire continent, even the world.
such crap. eish, and I say that as an anglo.
If we follow our current trajectory (which started a long time ago) – by the time Malema becomes president (if he does) the state will have even less capacity.
Expect worse schools, worse hospitals, a largely predatory and incompetent police force. Expect an increase in inequality. More crime, more suspicion, more fear.
Expect the value of the currency to plummet as a populist government spends money it does not have. Expect populist leaders to seek scapegoats.
That’s about as much as I can predict. This is by no means a certainty. There are more competent ministers in this government than in Mbeki’s. The problem is that their departments are riddled with duds and scoundrels, and I dont know if a divided ANC will give these minister the political backing to make the sweeping changes thats needed – and that would inevitably require ‘transformation’ to be put on the backburner.
We had a civil war in South Africa from 1990 to 1993. 10,000 people died. If something like this were to erupt again it would be much worse because the state does not have the power to stop it.
Kameraad: my final post for the evening, as my woman is impatiently requesting time. Why do you think the state will have less capacity? Capacity for what, greed, theft? All empowering capacity to the people is unlikely in my view. As for worse services, that’s lilkely a given what with all the greed and generally accepted devalued principles. And I disagree, there are not more competent ministers than under Mbeki, as damaging as he was. Disastrous, they are, here and now.
What frustrates is that SA was (note past tense) the golden child, Tutu, Mandela, even FW, blood free transition, equality for all, best Constitution in the world… Bill of Rights..
Gawd, what a waste. And all for limited personal and selfish enrichment.
You are conflating the state with individuals. I’m talking about the capacity to govern. To build stuff, to keep the peace, to conduct welfare, to look after the health of the nation.
There are several very competent minister in the current government, definitely more so than in Mbeki’s government. Although there are a few shockers as well.
If you want we can make a detailed comparison.
My point is that these ministers are up against it whether good or bad. A government can’t just work like that from the top down. It needs an army of dedicated civil servants. We don’t have that.
Kameraad: appreciate your comments. I’m off duty now. cheers.
Where shall I begin..?
These statements alone for instance:
1. “I would rather take my chances with a guy wielding a bread knife than with a guy wielding a semi-automatic machine gun.”//
Of course an automatic weapon is a fearsome weapon. But there are NO legal owners who may possess such a thing – only criminals. Furthermore the author clearly has no idea just how lethal a knife can be in the hands of a determined attacker – and unless you have a gun he will be determined rest assured!
Many police forces have alredy demonstrated the efficacy of a knife vs a holstered gun – at any distance less than 21 ft (7 metres)the knife-attacker will probably win.
2. “Well, I have re-read the Bill of Rights (the South African Bill of Rights, that is) and I cannot find the right to own a gun anywhere in that document.”//
Certainly you cannot find a right to own a gun in the Constitution – as I am sure you cannot find the right to own a car, a hat, a pair of tackies, a baseball bat or a house. Your argument is entirely false and mendacious and seeks to mislead.
3. “One will have to show that owning a gun makes you safer and protects you against violent crime, something that would be difficult to do.”//
Is that so? – then let me quote you, if I had the space, scores, indeed hundreds of incidents that I have recorded (see them at http://www.gunfacts.co.za) where law-abiding people defended themselves successfully against armed attack. The most recent being the man in Randburg attacked in his home at 0630am just 2 days ago. He grabbed his gun from the safe and by shooting at but not hitting any of the three invaders preserved the lives of himself, his wife and two sons.
How much proof do you anti-gun people need?
4. “As so many people are actually killed by the very guns owned by them or their loved ones..”//
Utter nonsense and an outright lie – very few are killed by legal gun owners as the Min. Safety and Security admitted some years ago when questioned on this issue by the DA in parliament.
5. “It dehumanizes and brutalizes us all when crazies run around with guns and we see guns everywhere around us.”//
If you are seeing ‘crazies’ running around with guns then I have to tell you that you need urgently to consult a psychiatrist! Since the FCA of 2000 it has been illegal for a civilian owner to carry a gun visibly in public – all guns carried must be in an opaque bag, or in a holster under clothing – and gun-owners observe this law.
Your article is riddled with untruths, blatant lies and your own unreasoned and unreasonable prejudices and a man with your credentials should have the intellectial honesty to write truth instead of lies and half-truths.
Finally please inform us how the ANC will actually take guns away? – not from the registered and legal owners – that is an easy task since the government knows where we all live – no,I ask you how will the hidden and unknown guns be removed from those unkown people who we know collectively as criminals.
I would like to echo yur words, Kameraad- any Government is only as good as its foot soldiers on the ground- its civil service- and thats where we fall down and where so many of our problems lie.
I assume that with the hundreds of thousands of firearms, possibly millions, that have been removed from circulation by being handed into the state following the FCA’s requirements, the crime rate has reduced substantially over the last few years?
I assume that GFSA has figures to hand of how the crime rate has reduced over the last year or so in accordance with this??
OR, should I assume that the President has already answered this question by admitting that crime is an ongoing a problem and needs to be tackled.
I further propose that your theory is severely flawed and you need to revisit your text books and, or do some research before publishing such misleading propaganda.
Lets concentrate on the real problem, CRIME, licensed gun owners are law abiding citizens, or they wouldn’t own licensed guns.
sirjay jonson says:
October 27, 2009 at 18:45 pm
“Chris: how many of those found with unlicensed weapons actually are convicted?”
Most of them. There is the difficult situation, where a gun is found in a room or a car and its impossible to say who is the possessor. Remeber a couple of years ago it was big news when the “peoples poet”, Mbuli, was convicted of robbery? When he was arrested a hand grenade was found in the car he was driving. He was eventually acquitted by the SCA because it could not be proved he knew about the grenade. Where a person has an unlisenced fire arm on his person, its hard to evade a conviction. In such a case the only defence is basically that whoever says he had the gun on him is lying.
Just another rant !
Are you proposing the removal of firearms from the military and police? They are percentage wise, probably the greatest source of firearms for criminals. An added bonus is that these are not pesky single shot rifles- hell ,you can have full auto with these gems.
Hey, while you’re at it, why not propose a ban on cars, twenty people killed just this week end – if the SABC is to be believed.
Regards
Pierre is right.
The best way to keep a dangerous product out of the hands of individuals is to ban it.
That is why the banning of drug possession has been so successful, not only here, but elsewhere too.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 27, 2009 at 21:51 pm
Pierre is right.
The best way to keep a dangerous product out of the hands of individuals is to ban it.
———————————————————————————————————
Hey Dworky.
I don’t agree with you.
I think everybody should be allowed to keep little nukes, grenades, cluster bombs and the like at home as long as those are safely locked away from children.
While we”re at it we ought to be allowed to put landmines along our perimeters to prevent criminals entering.
It’s really silly to ban those personal safety items.
Chris says:
October 27, 2009 at 21:14 pm
“He was eventually acquitted by the SCA because it could not be proved he knew about the grenade”.
The SCA and Helen Suzman believed his story.
sirjay jonson
It seems like you’re smoking some hectic stuff.
Maggs Naidu says:
October 27, 2009 at 22:16 pm
How can you ban nukes, grenades, cluster bombs and the like at home? I read in this very blog with my own two eyes that it is contrary to sec 25 of the Constitution!
You don’t need to own a gun to commit a crime – you can easily rent one from a cop.
A gun in the hand is worth ten cops on the phone.
Prof, I had the same stance as you – almost. my friend pointed out to me that they have such laws in the UK and criminals continue to have illegal guns and that it opens the citizens up to more danger as the criminals know that ALL citizens are gunless.
Prof will note that a majority of the guns in SA are, in any event, not licenced. This means that Zuma is basically preaching to, and punishing, the converted. The measures you suggest would have a reduced effect in a country like ours. People feel that the NEED their weapons and with the way things are they’d rather lisk gaol than risk their lives.
I now remember my friend telling me this weekend that her family’s weapon is a spear. That’s a nostalgic weapon to have, I’m not too convinced of its efficacy.
Prof, I doubt your sister’s shot anyone or wants to. In such cases, should there not be a special permit that allows owners to keep their (hunting) rifles, especially where they’re family heirlooms etc.
You indicated that civilian owned firearms were associated with high crime rates!
This unfortunate perception is generated not by any factual substantiation but anecdotal reporting as there is no definitive methodology which indicates the status of the origin of the firearms used in criminal incidents!
I submit that an objective analysis needs to be conducted on the types of crimes as well as the origins of the firearms used in such crimes before a definitive correlation between civilian owned firearms and violent crimes can be made.
I would also believe that crimes such as armed robbery, home invasions and vehicle hijackings should be separated contextually from domestic and family violence as such criminal actions perpetuate from a divergent motivational element!
I would submit that there is currently no definitive and objective causal link between civilian owned firearms and such crimes.
I would also add that the use of a privately owned firearm in such a crime is not a qualification for this contextualization. If the firearm was stolen prior to it being utilized in the commission of a crime surely that is symptomatic of a crime problem and not the fault of firearm owners either individually or collectively as I am indeed certain no person submits voluntarily to becoming a victim of crime. Should the individual suspect, who has a legally licensed firearm, utilize such in the commission of an offence, it would also not be the fault of the civilian ownership in general! After all blaming legitimate firearms owners for stolen firearms is similar to blaming vehicle owners for motor vehicle theft or cellular phone owners for cellular phone theft!
It would indeed be unfair to characterize a segment of some 2,5 million responsible and loyal South African citizens as perpetrators or causes of crime.
It is also pertinent to bring to your attention the adherence of many civilian firearms owners to the various sporting codes practiced with firearms, these sporting codes espouse and ingrain ethics and values which are of great asset to the society in general such as honesty, integrity, fair play, responsibility. To characterize the adherents of these sports as being perpetuators of crime is also saddening, much as saying all golf players are perpetuators of crime because a crime was committed using a golf club.
I would submit that legal and responsible ownership of a firearm is indeed a viable, legal and effective method of preventing or stopping such home invasions which are more often then not committed by criminals who are armed. Without criticizing the SAPS or any other policing agency, they indeed have a huge work load and it is physically impossible for them to effectively prevent all such home invasions or for them to respond in the time available to stop violence being perpetrated by armed criminals. It is therefore obligatory for the responsible and loyal citizen to be able to effectively protect his or her family from such attack, the legal ownership of a firearm therefore supports your end goal. A right to life
If I may reiterate the legal and responsible owners of firearms in South Africa approximate some 2,5 million citizens all of whom whish to live their lives in peace and be supportive of our community and government and to classify them in anyway as supporting crime is incorrect
UK Gun crime doubles in a decade
Gun crime has almost doubled in the last decade despite high profile Government campaigns to tackle the problem.
By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
Published: 7:00AM GMT 27 Oct 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
Offences involving firearms have increased in all but four police areas in England and Wales since 1998, figures obtained by the Tories reveal.
One part of the country has seen the problem increase almost seven fold as the availability of guns, and criminals’ williness to use them rises.
The number of people injured or killed by a gun has also doubled under Labour.
It emerged last week that armed police are to carry out regular street patrols for the first time to help combat gun crime in London.
Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said: “These figures are all the more alarming given that it is only a week since the Metropolitan Police said it was increasing regular armed patrols in some areas of the capital.
“In areas dominated by gang culture, we’re now seeing guns used to settle scores between rivals as well as turf wars between rival drug dealers. We need to redouble our efforts to deal with the challenge.”
There were 9,865 firearm offences in 2007/08, a rise of 89 per cent on the 5,209 recorded in 1998/99.
Lancashire Police saw a 598 per cent increase from just 50 to 349 over the period while Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Essex all saw five fold increases.
In total, 21 forces saw offences at least double over the decade while just four, Cleveland, Humberside, Cambridgeshire and Sussex, saw the number fall.
While provisional figures for 2008/09 suggest overall firearm offences may be down on the previous year, they point to a doubling of the number of people injured or killed.
Some 1,760 gun related injuries or deaths were provisionally recorded for 2008/09, compared with 864 in 1998/99.
Last week, the Metropolitan Police announced officers armed with submachine guns are to patrol the streets for the first time.
A hand-picked team from CO19, the Met’s elite firearms unit, will walk the beat in gun crime hot spots in London where armed gangs have turned estates into “no-go zones”.
The officers will carry Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine guns, capable of firing 800 rounds a minute, and Glock semi-automatic pistols.
It is the first time that armed officers will be sent on routine foot patrol anywhere in the country outside Northern Ireland.
There is also a growing trend of young women being involved in gun crime.
Figures from the Met earlier this month showed the number caught hiding weapons for criminals and boyfriends increase from two in 2007 to 12 so far this year.
A Home Office spokeswoman said: “It is misleading to compare figures for 2007 / 08 with those from 2002 and before, due to changes in recording practices.
“There has been an 11 per cent fall in gun crime since 2005 and provisional figures for firearm offences recorded by the police show they account for 0.2 per cent of all recorded crime.
“We remain absolutely committed to tackling gun crime through targeted policing and tough policing.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html
Instead of trivialising the Constitution with one-liners why do you gun prohibitionists not just admit you have been fairly copped?
Pierre was dragged into this fight by
1) his embarrassingly uninsightful blog and
2) Storey jnr – who prattled on sickeningly about ‘personal integrity’ (but seems to have amazingly little personal insight) on 567CapeTalk and 702 and then argued that aforementioned blog somehow reverses two High Court judgements – on constitutional grounds – in three months!
You can imagine how much mirth the whole thing has caused. Reckon Zuma would be grateful for your non-support?
The issue is out there, if you lot have the guts to debate it:
Is the ANC planning to Amend S137-144 of the FCA retroactively to thwart the Judgement of the Western Cape High Court that the SAPS has to roll out compensation to gun owners who surrendered their firearms? (Remember, the Judgement that held that you gun prohibitionists conspired with and incited the SAPS to act “unlawfully and unconstitutionally” towards gun owners?)
Have you people put the last nails in the coffin of the rule of law and our Constitution with your ill-advised activism?
Japan Police Blame Hunger for Store Robberies, Yomiuri Reports
By Stuart Biggs
Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) — Holdups at convenience stores in Japan rose this year as robbers focus on stealing food rather than cash because of hunger, the Yomiuri newspaper reported today, citing the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department.
The number of convenience store robberies in Tokyo in the nine months to September more than doubled from a year earlier, the newspaper said. Nationwide, there were 487 robberies nationwide in the first half of the year, up 66 percent from 2008, the report said.
Store robberies are rising because of the recession and the number of people facing dire poverty, the newspaper reported, citing unidentified police officials. Out of 30 people arrested for 44 cases in Tokyo, 16 were unemployed, the report said.
A 42-year-old jobless man threatened a Tokyo store clerk with a knife before stealing rice balls and liquor worth 2,600 yen ($28) in September, the report said. About 60 percent of those arrested in Tokyo don’t have enough money to last a day, the Yomiuri cited a police official as saying.
of course you would have us totally trust the police after incidents such as these!
Also please bear in mind that the only viaible forms of defence against a knife is indeed a firearm, knives kill people just as easily with very little training and they never jam nor run out of ammunition!
Cops in uniform ‘gang-raped me’
2009-10-27 08:13
Johannesburg – A mother-of-three was allegedly “repeatedly” raped by two uniformed policemen in Kempton Park in the early hours of Sunday morning.
When he heard about it, Martie Olivier’s husband, Sarel, went to the Kempton Park police station and assaulted various police officers on duty before being brought under control.
He said they were unable to lay a charge of rape later that day because the police refused to take their statements.
Although rape victims are not normally identified, the couple gave permission for their names to be published.
Nightmare
The couple’s nightmare apparently began shortly after midnight. Olivier said he and his wife, 29, were at a braai at his parents’ house in Birch Acres on Saturday night, after which they went to a nearby pub for a drink.
Olivier said that on his way home, he drove into a driveway and out again as he made a U-turn. A marked police van suddenly stopped in front of the couple’s Toyota Run-X.
Two men in police uniform climbed out of the van and moved to the driver’s side of their car before yanking the door open, he said. They then allegedly threw him into the back of the van without explanation.
“One of the policemen approached me and asked what I was prepared to give them in exchange for my husband’s release,” said Martie.
She gave him the R400 she had on her.
However, the man asked: “Do you really love your husband? Is there nothing more you can do?” He then allegedly climbed into the driver’s seat of the Toyota and drove toward the Kempton Park police station. The police van followed, she said.
Olivier, who was in the police van, said: “About 200m from the police station I noticed the car pulling off the road, but I thought nothing of it. It’s the police after all.”
At the police station, the policeman driving the van opened the doors at the back and told him he had been caught driving under the influence, but that he was free to go.
The other policeman arrived shortly afterwards in the Toyota with Olivier’s wife in the passenger’s seat. When Olivier climbed into their car, she told him she had been raped.
Traumatised
“She appeared traumatised and I could see her underwear had been torn,” he said.
It was then that he attacked police officers with bare fists. Olivier’s hand was still bandaged on Monday.
“When I returned to the car, my wife was gone. I thought she had run away.”
She allegedly lost consciousness when one of the policemen slammed her head into the dashboard while her husband was inside the police station. There were two policemen in the car with her when her husband was inside the station.
She said she came to on a lounge floor in an unfamiliar house. Her next recollection was of a security guard who woke her in a flowerbed at Boston Business College.
“He asked me why the police had dropped me off there. I couldn’t give him an answer,” she said.
After hours of searching, Olivier said he saw his wife in a traumatised condition walking from the Boston Business College at “exactly 07:20”.
Injuries
He immediately took her to the police station, after which she was medically examined at a nearby trauma centre, where evidence of a rape was found on her body and dress. She also had visible injuries.
When Beeld saw her, she had an enormous bump on her forehead.
“I have scratch marks and bruises between my legs and on my body. In our car there was also blood from the first time I was raped.”
She was given anti-retroviral medication to protect her against HIV.
The couple laid charges of rape, assault and bribery on Monday.
She told Beeld: “I don’t remember everything exactly. I was so nervous when I had to lay the charge. I didn’t even want to go there. I don’t trust anyone now,” she said.
She is, however, determined to “stay strong”, adding: “Who knows who will be next on their list?”
Incoherent
Gauteng police spokesperson, Superintendent Eugene Opperman, said on Monday that Martie Olivier “was too incoherent” for police to be able to take down her statement after the alleged rape.
Opperman also said Olivier could remember “too little” and couldn’t provide enough information.
She was, however, medically examined and the couple’s vehicle was also searched. Charges of rape, assault and bribery were finally laid on Monday morning and the couple’s statements were taken.
“The case is now being investigated,” said Opperman.
Police spokesperson Senior Superintendent Vish Naidoo added that charges of this nature were regarded in a very serious light.
- Beeld
nkululeko says:
October 28, 2009 at 8:30 am
“People feel that the NEED their weapons and with the way things are they’d rather lisk gaol than risk their lives”.
If guns are the means to provide personal safety then every person in South Africa needs one, not only the one million or so who currently have it.
The state is doing a dismal job at protecting us despite their constitutional obligation to do so.
That is what needs to be unpacked.
We cannot allow South Africa to turn into Somalia because some of us want to feel macho.
I am not for a ‘gun-free society’. I am also not a hunter, neither do I have an inclination to kill people or even to frighten them off with guns. I also do not have a gun with which I intend to defend myself. I have a very old .22 cal rifle, collector’s item of which there are only a few in South Africa, that I’ve inherited from my deceased father. I hold this inheritance very dearly – and I will vehemently oppose any move by the state to take it away from me. The thing is, it is not the number of guns that are in circuit in SA that causes the problems, it is the number of illegitimate guns in the hands of criminals (which is why the police want to reintroduce the killing license through s 49 of the CPA), and the lack of control over legitimate applications for the possession and use of guns. I also believe that knives, especially Okapi’s, kill more people in South Africa today than do guns. E.g., see http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/feb2d30f7cbd458482f58ae0cc3651cc/28-10-2009-07-49/Mom_killed_kids_to_cover_up_rape
If we heve to have a gun-free society just because guns can kill innocent people, then we will have to start thinking of banning (not only controlling) the possession and use of knives, poison, ropes, motor vehicles, …, …, etc. Moreover, if the police cannot properly control the legitimate and illegitimate possession of guns today, how are they going to control and maintain a gun-free society? I think that is a far-fetched nightmare, to say the least. Even Julius Malema (the future leader according to praisesinger Jacob Zuma recently in Sheshego) boasts that he learned to use a gun at a very tender age.
Anonymouse says:
October 28, 2009 at 9:14 am
“Moreover, if the police cannot properly control the legitimate and illegitimate possession of guns today, how are they going to control and maintain a gun-free society?”.
That’s the question that needs to be asked again and again until we get this right.
The alternative to a gun free society is a free gun society.
p.s. Indeed there are many different things that are used to kill. It would be silly if we advocate for a ban on pillows because some person suffocated another to death with a pillow.
It’s very unlikely that anyone is opposed to collectors’ items or similar.
When I read stuff like this I really worry for the future. Are we to be lead by people with this mentality? Banning anything does not work. Never has and never will. In every country where guns are banned the only people truly affected by such idiocy are the law abiding citizen who isn’t responsible for the situation in the first place.
Now try this for size: The criminal use (or misuse) of firearms is a Law Enforcement issue, NOT a private ownership one. Give the police the education, the equipment and the support to effectively implement the law. For example the recent revelation in the media of the excessive spending of just two police ministerial officials to the tune of approximately 7 million Rand should be the issue.
The ownership of a firearm does not in and of itself cause or create a crime situation. In fact guns in the hands of the law abiding have never been an issue, as shown by the late minister of police Mr Mufamadi in parliament. Crime is a societal problem and a complex one.
What ever happened to the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”? Now, according to the professor, simply because I am a gun owner I am guilty by association. Because some criminal scum misuses his (potentially illegal) firearm I must suddenly forfiet mine. Great, clear, honourable thinking there!
Lastly, the last century is awash with the blood of innocent civilians. By some counts in the region of 150 million people, and in every state where the genocide occurred it was preceded by gun bans and confiscation. This is well documented.
Bottom line, as a law abiding citizen, I would like to say to the proffesor and his ilke… leave me alone, I have done no wrong.
I would appreciate if anyone could point me to details of the cases in which a SA court has declared the current gun klaws in South Africa unconstitutional. I could only find an interim interdict issued by Prinsloo J in the North Gauteng High Court which said nothing about the unconstitutionality of the Act.
There is an old saying, “If you want to know the future look to the past.” Hasn’t Pierre De Vos learned anything from history?
I wont go into the various genocides of the 20th century which were preceded with total prohibition of private firearms, but at another act of prohibition that was a total failure. I refer to the prohibition of alcohol in the USA.
Under substantial pressure from the temperance movement, the United States Senate proposed the Eighteenth Amendment on December 18, 1917. Having been approved by 36 states, the 18th Amendment was ratified on January 16, 1919 and affected on January 16, 1920. Some state legislatures had already enacted statewide prohibition prior to the ratification of the 18th Amendment.
Alcoholic drinks were not always illegal in all neighboring countries. Distilleries and breweries in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean flourished as their products were either consumed by visiting Americans or illegally imported to the U.S. Chicago became notorious as a haven for Prohibition dodgers during the time known as the Roaring Twenties. Many of Chicago’s most notorious gangsters, including Al Capone and his enemy Bugs Moran, made millions of dollars through illegal alcohol sales. By the end of the decade Capone controlled all 10,000 speakeasies in Chicago and ruled the bootlegging business from Canada to Florida. Numerous other crimes, including theft and murder, were directly linked to criminal activities in Chicago and elsewhere in violation of prohibition.
At the end of Prohibition, some supporters openly admitted its failure. A quote from a letter, written in 1932 by wealthy industrialist John D. Rockefeller, Jr., states:
When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.
Banning alcohol didn’t stop the manufacture, sale or consumption, instead it lead to an increase of alcoholism by around 30% and a criminal organisation that still blights the USA today, the Mafia.
People like Mr De Vos make stupid statements without carrying out in depth research or have any evidence whatsoever as to the probable effect that such a ban might have. Evidence from around the world has shown time and time again that more guns equals less crime.
Mr De Vos, before making such stupid statements do a bit of research first.
Pierre,
Congratulations on releasing the deluge of critical comments.
As to your request for info…
On June 26 in the Pretoria High Court Prinsloo J ruled, inter alia, the following:
* There is a strong prima facie case that the Firearms Control Act may be unreasonable and unconstitutional,
* The SAPS did not deny they are guilty of unlawful administrative action,
* The SAHGCA’s case is uncontroverted by the SAPS,
* Prospects that the SAHGCA will be successful in the main application are good,
* The SAPS made no attempt to show that infringement of firearm, owners’ rights is justifiable in terms of Sec. 36 of the Constitution,
* The SAPS could offer no evidence that legal firearms are a problem or are used in violent crime.
In August in the JASA/compensation case Traverso JP specifically ruled that the actions by the respondents (the Minister, the National Commissioner, and the Director of the CFR) was both illegal AND unconstitutional, and that they had conceeded ALL the points in the application.
Pretty damning stuff, or don’t you agree?
The civilian whose wife was allegedly raped by police, assaulted police with his bare hands. He is an example for a gun free South Africa. In case you wonder – I’m being ironic.
Prof de Vos – Indeed there is only the interim interdict in Pta – which is pending the outcome of the main action. Then there is the Traverso judgment – but that only concerns compensation. Somehow I feel that the SAPS has given up on the issue.
Let me tell you my story. I (legally?) possess a .22 cal rifle (collector’s item as pointyted out above) which I inherited 22 years ago. I immediately applied for a renewal of my license under the new gun laws more than three years ago (I was one of the first to apply). 18 months ago, the local police official working with firearm licenses informed me that they cannot process my application because, according to my fingerprint-research, I am a ‘wanted person’. I asked her what I was wanted for, because I am a regional magistrate, with an impeccable record that is totally beyond reproach. She said, she doesn’t know, because the CRC did not indicate on the form what I was wantred for, only that I was allegedly a ‘wanbetaler’ – but no case no or anything was indicated besides that. Ever since, I have been sending monthly queries to Supt Bothma in charge of this whole renewal of firearm licences issue, to which he has not even responded once (not even an acknowledgement of receipt). Further enquiries led me to establish that more or less the whole Province’s licence applications have not yet been dealt with. In the light hereof I do not think that we can expect that the SAPS will make a big show of opposing any application pertaining to the unconstitutionality of the new laws.
@ Anonymouse…
For your enjoyment, here is some more from the summation of the verbatim judgement by Prinsloo J:
* There are massive problems implementing the Act,
* The SAPS and its officials have primarily been responsible for the uncertainty and problems encountered,
* The SAPS does not have the capacity to process thousands of applications,
* The SAPS’ failure to deal with applications within a reasonable time is unconstitutional,
* It is glaringly obvious that the SAPS doesn’t have the means to deal with the burden placed on it.
Anonymouse thanks for confirming that the pro-gun people have been distorting the legal facts. There is no judgment declaring the gun laws unconstitutional. If such a case ever went to the Constitutional Court I will wager, oh let us say one year’s salary, on the outcome supporting my view that limiting the posession of guns is not unconstitutional. To me the pro-gun lobby is akin to the pro-death penalty lobby. It is not really based on facts but on emotions and on a need for revenge. Many (but, of course not all) supporters of unlimited guns for “legitimate” (white?) owners feel guns is the only thing standing between them and the “black hordes” in “dark Africa”.
My position is based on (1) legal arguments (2) ethical arguments (3) logic and facts: (1) the drastic restriction of gun ownership will never be declared invalid by the Constitutional Court, no matter what Prinsloo might have said in his four paragraph interim interdict (there is a reason why Prinsloo J will never be promoted to the Constitutional Court). (2) I feel gun ownership demeans us all. A commitment to a caring society beased on respect for human dignity cannot be built on the premise of unlimited gun ownership. Owning a gun seems to me unethical and reflects badly on the person owning it. Its akin to mistreating your pets; (3) Most violent crime in SA is commited by guns. If we make a concerted effort to remove guns it will be a first step to address this madness. Arming the population will merely militarise us further and make our society more dangerous.
Pierre, go read Constitutional Court Justice Kriegler’s ruling in Fose. Laws or conduct are not unconstitutional because the Constitutional Court says they are but because they are inconsistent with the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Republic.
No-one is going to hold it against you if you flip-flop on this issue – I was very disappointed when Storey cited you as his authority for his ‘argument’ that the FCA was not unconstitutional – I had assumed you would be on our side considering your CV.
If that was your emotional response to the FCA say so and give us your considered intellectual response.
I post this open letter to Mr Dube of GFSA as it speaks to a great many of your points
The recent airing of the debate between the Gun owners of South Africa´s (GOSA) Richard Boothroyd and Gun Free South Africa´s (GFSA) Joseph Dube on Judge for yourself ETV News channel 27 September 2009.
I recently watched this program, indeed with much interest as this is a topic that invokes significant emotive response between two polarized viewpoints!
I feel as strongly about rights, freedoms, duty and privileges as many other people do, yet took a step back to view the arguments as dispassionately as possible! I believe that this program raised various issues which are pertinent yet were not fully explored!
From what I could note it appears as if Mr Dube and GFSA conducts their argument on a few central themes.
o They want ALL firearms ownership banned because their viewpoint is that firearms ownership causes the proliferation of firearms which causes crime
o They believe that the presence of firearms in a country encourages criminal action and that by banning all firearms that would also result in a nullification of violent crime
o They want ever stricter firearms control legislation in order to create an environment which can lead to a cessation of firearms ownership
o They do not believe the current firearms control act is sufficiently regulatory to control firearms ownership.
o They do not recognize the role of a firearm in legitimate self defence and believe that the presence of a firearm escalates a situation!
o They do not recognize the various firearm sporting codes
o The time taken to recover a stolen firearm increases the shock value of that implement.
These themes are not without a few ironies.
Mr Dube, and indeed GFSA has consistently adopted the position that legal firearms owners “wreak havoc” and are either directly or indirectly responsible for all violent crime where a firearm is used! Obviously this is an emotive argument with absolutely no basis in fact, police statistics currently do not indicate any differentiation of the history of the firearm used and it could as easily be a stolen police firearm or a firearm recovered from an illegal weapons cache as it could be a stolen civilian owned firearm, in fact with GFSA´s quoted 19000 firearms that were stolen last year I would wish to interject that at least 8000 of those were stolen from the SAPS, that can hardly be laid upon the shoulders of the 3 million licensed people who own the 4,5 million registered and licensed firearms!
Mr Dube also raised isolated examples of domestic violence issues in which family murders had been committed with a licensed firearm, again I agree with the expressed tragedy of these incidents but hardly believe that by banning firearms as the GFSA clearly has as its goal these aspects would be resolved, firstly I would ask Mr Dube to indicate the origin of the “many other stories” he eluded to, secondly I would ask Mr Dube if he could list the implements and items present in any generic household which could cause death as easily as a firearm and then ask him why he has not listed items such as Bleach, rodent and insect poison, motor vehicles, knives, traditional weapons, fire implements, medication under the mandate of GFSA as these implements are equally capable of causing deadly harm. When these incident are viewed dispassionately I would say that the actual cause is a degradation of social family values fueled by liquor or narcotics and that
in isolated incidents firearms are merely a tool to complete the tragedy, taking the tool out of the equation would only force the perpetrator to utilize another tool! In my days as a member of the South African Police Service I must have attended hundreds of domestic violence cases and rarely was a firearm a significant role player. I would further that the media in general is not blameless as it tends to seize upon the emotive value of firearms use and increase the incident versus the proportion!
Mr Dube has stated that he and GFSA holds to blame every single legal firearm owner for all violent criminal actions in South Africa, no sir, of the 18000 murders committed yearly in South Africa the vast majority are not committed by firearms yet the 14000 deaths per annum caused in motor vehicle accidents are all attributed to vehicles or at least the drivers or situations Mr Dube do you follow through your logic to wish to dictate that all motor vehicles should be banned or are you happy that in this instance the motor vehicle be seen as a mere mindless tool of which the individual owner is in control, if so why not extend the same courtesy to your fellow South African firearms owners?
I would also believe that the 3 million registered firearms owners might take umbrage at your statement that they are indeed these malevolent criminal master minds as you would wish to portray them!
Mr Dube and GFSA would have us believe that if all firearms were banned tomorrow that the violent crime rate would also cease tomorrow
Mr Dube with respect, in London which has had the most draconian firearms legislation of any democracy and has had a longstanding banning of handgun ownership I would ask you what has the net result been in terms of the violent crimes, knife crimes, illegal firearm crimes? They have indeed risen and risen to extreme levels I would also wish to point out that due to the rise in these violent crimes there are now more armed police officers patrolling London´s streets than ever before!
I would also ask you this in would you please indicate to us what the rate of violent crime is in any prison in South Africa? Yet these facilities are all firearms free zones, correct? Would you be happy to spend a week walking around unprotected in one of our maximum security prisons to illustrate your viewpoint that firearms commit crime or would you then be happy to accept that people commit crimes and will do so with what ever they can find!
I would think that again this is an illustration of your organizations wish to vilify what is indeed a collection of metal and attempt to provide it an evil personality losing the fact that it is an inanimate object which requires a human in the loop to make it work!
Again sir I ask did you stand up to ban all hockey sticks after the road rage incident in Cape Town where one man was beaten to death by another armed with a hockey stick? Or were you prepared to acknowledge the human element on that occasion, again the irony is somewhat blatant! Again on this issue sir I would suggest that HIV AIDS causes far more deaths than firearms ever would yet I do not notice your energy being poured into prevention of that or again do you acknowledge the human element in that?
Mr Dube you indicated that we should rely totally on the various policing organizations for our personal protection. I would submit that even if the SAPS could engineer an average response time of five minutes per complaint, which is hugely unlikely given their current work rates indeed an hour or two is closer to the truth, but even if they could it would still be insufficient to prevent a murder or a rape! On this issue with our HIV rates in South Africa would you be happy to allow your wife to rely completely on pepper spray to defend her against three or four attackers? Mr Dube you consistently seem to advocate that removing firearms from a society would engineer a sublime Utopia where no violent criminal actions would exist, Mr Dube, Sudan, Nigeria, Myanmar, Indonesia, the United Kingdom, Rwanda, Kenya, Australia, New York City, Washington DC, Chicago all of these locations have in place either extremely onerous legislation strictly controlling or
banning private firearms ownership, would you wish to conduct a study and see what the rise has been in their violent crime since such legislation has been introduced? The pure fact is that firearms do not cause crime, people cause crime and will do so with what ever they can get their hands on! Also your viewpoint that we should defer all responsibility for our own protection to a security provider whether it be commercial or state run, sir that is completely impractical! To retain the services of a close protection professional would cost between one thousand and three thousand rand per day and that would indeed be the requirement, or should I ask may we bill GFSA or yourself for that cost? I ask is it in any way reasonable for me to defer the responsibility of the protection of myself and my family to a young constable or security guard? Why should I add to the burden of the state when I am more than capable of performing that function myself if
allowed to do so! Your organization has repeatedly said that police officers should not have their firearms with them after hours? I battle to understand the logic behind this, after all a police man or woman is suddenly incapable of safely carrying a firearm after hours? Or for that matter is in any less danger in his community, sir when I was a serving police member do you know how many times I was asked to assist members of my community after my working hours? Hundreds of times! Now you expect us all to blindly place our faith in the SAPS who are battling to meet their current work commitment and yet still ask their off duty members to be completely unable to assist the members of the community? On this issue how am I as a private firearm owner who has conducted numerous high level training programs, manages a multi million rand business division, has the responsibility of many employee´s, less capable or responsible than a member of the SAPS? That
same question could be asked, how is any mother, father, small business owner, employee, employer, tax payer, how are any of us different from a member of the SAPS, SANDF, Private Security Company are we less capable, are we less responsible?
To state categorically that a firearm does not have a lawful or legitimate place in the use of force continuum in self defense is indeed ad odds with the law or Mr Dube would you argue that the state should reserve the right to carry firearms yet its citizens should not have the right to self protection?
Now you would seek to deny me the right and yes sir it is a right, I have the right to protect my life and limb and that of my family? You would deny me that right or force me to stand up for that right when four criminals armed with knives, firearms of blunt objects invade my house, wish to rape my wife and murder my children?
May I ask sir if your organizations whish to see all firearms banned is fulfilled would you or GFSA stand liable for any death disablement or dread disease which befalls any citizen of South Africa previously armed? Yet you will sit their and categorically say that the protection of my family and loved ones is only a privilege! I would also add sir that you should expose yourself to training in the aspects of the use of force during private defense before you wish to speak categorically on the subject!
You also purport that a firearm owned by a civilian increases the likelihood of a violent response during a criminal incident, Mr Dube that statement is so fraught with untruths and misunderstanding of incident dynamic it is almost laughable that it is interjected into adult debate, you would argue that we all be good little victims and be completely grateful that we can be robbed and granted life by the criminal perpetrators? The reason people get robbed is not because they own or have firearms the reason is that criminal wish to expropriate their victims assets and exert power over their victims! The dynamics of these situations can and indeed have filled books never mind a simple letter however I would suggest you research criminal actions and note how many have resulted in murders or rapes whether the victim was armed or not!
No sir I am proudly South African, I stand up for myself, my family and my fellow citizens!
I also find worrisome that you would advocate increasing onerous legislation to deny me the right to purchase legitimate property, you have already insisted that a government official, often with little knowledge of the item, I am purchasing has the mandated ability to deny my right to spend my money as I see fit, now let me ask you Mr Dube if it was a motor vehicle I was purchasing would you be happy if a panel could sit and decide what type of vehicle I be allowed to purchase? Again this comparison is valid, far more people are killed and maimed by motor vehicles and far more motor vehicles are stolen than firearms? Again the irony is somewhat overwhelming.
In all reasonableness I ask you is the creation of legislation aimed at impinging upon the persons ability to purchase property of their choice not reminiscent of erstwhile social experiments that ended in the destruction of walls? I was under the impression that we were creating a democracy where the wishes of the majority as well the rights of the minority were protected?
You also discount completely the role that firearms and legitimate owners play in the various sporting codes and the fields of hunting which does require a firearm!
Do you have any idea of the role that hunters have played in the field of conservation? Do you have any idea of the economic impact a complete ban of firearms ownership would have, again Mr Dube I would suggest that you should volunteer your organizations resources to taking care of all injured animals that have to be euthanized by firearms, or problem animals that have to be dealt with, again by utilizing firearms, surely you wouldn´t advocate poisoning Mr Dube? Or for that matter would GFSA stand ready and liable for the significant economic loss caused the game and tourism industry if hunting was stopped due to a ban on firearms ownership?
Mr Dube I would also ask that you place as much energy into banning golf clubs they have as much lethal potential as a firearm and I prefer to spend my Saturday participating in IDPA than I do playing Golf yet your organization would wish to ban a sporting code which its adherents are as passionate about as the golfers are of their sport!.
Mr Dube again I would ask that you revisit the crux of your arguments as they do hold little validity in the real world! I would quite happily take you to any one of the tactical training courses provided in South Africa which teach legitimate firearms owners how to best utilize the tool that they have! I would also quite happily take you to anyone of the sporting competitions in which legitimate ownership is well and responsibly practiced as I believe you should gather more information on the subject before you criticize it so vociferously
Please note, all, that Pierre has not responded to one of the facts that I raised except to get personal with Judge Prinsloo.
Oh, yes, Switzerland being such an uncaring society….
I would point out re. Bryan’s post ref:
“I submit that an objective analysis needs to be conducted on the types of crimes as well as the origins of the firearms used in such crimes before a definitive correlation between civilian owned firearms and violent crimes can be made.”//
I have to assume that Bryan refers to LEGAL civilian owned firearms (criminals with illegal weaons are also civilians!) in which case I can state unequivocally that there is no need for such an analysis – even the SAPS and the past Min. Safety and Security have said as much. The Minister has stated that as a result of the incidence of crime committed with legally owned firearms being so ‘statistically insignificant’ (his term) the SAPS have no reason to keep records relating specifically to these crimes. This was his answer to the very question posed in Parliament by the DA.
To respond to Maggs Naidu’s statements:
“If guns are the means to provide personal safety then every person in South Africa needs one, not only the one million or so who currently have it.”//
I would be very comfortable in knowing that a greater number of the law-abiding citizens around me had a firearm since I know that they are not the problem! Currently less than 1 in 16 citizens of SA owns a firearm legally. Right now in Vermont, USA a bill is before their State Legislature to encourage citizens of that state to own a gun as a crime-prevention measure or to pay a penalty by way of an annual tax of $500 if they choose not to do so.
In another town in the US, Kennesaw, Georgia (20 miles from Atlanta) it is a local bye-law that all residents of that town must own a gun! All crime there is a mere 20% of the state average and there have been only TWO murders in the 27 years since that local ordnance was introduced.
The reasons for such success is easy to understand – criminals are predators and like predator of the animal kingdom, will attack the weakest of the herd first – when all the herd are ‘strong’ they go elsewhere!
“The state is doing a dismal job at protecting us despite their constitutional obligation to do so.”//
The state is doing next to nothing to protect citizens given their resources (of course they do a great job in allocating heavily armed bodyguards to all their apparatchiks) and the SAPS has already stated publicly and very clearly that it IS NOT THEIR JOB to protect citizens! Also fine by me as long as they leave my legal means of defence alone!
“We cannot allow South Africa to turn into Somalia because some of us want to feel macho”//
Where is it written that gun-owners feel ‘macho’? This is your erroneous perception my friend and perhaps you do not personally know many gun-owners. My own experience as a responsible gun-owner of 35 years standing is that responsible owners who commprise the vast majority are not ‘macho’ at all – but they are confident in their own abilities to defend themselves and what is dear to them – and even their neighbours and community if necessary. They are above all prepared mentally and physically for the possibility that attack can come – unlike many gun-free advocates who appear to believe, against overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that ‘it will not happen to me’!
And finally to the good professor and author of this blog – I am amazed that you have no knowledge of the two recent and important judgements mentioned by Paul – particularly since by writing this misleading article you set yourself up as some kind of expert on the subject of gun-control.
Whilst what I write may be viewed by some with suspicion since I am not widely and publicly known as an ‘expert’ on law,you are – and should therefore excercise discretion and restraint before publishing material which is untrue and misleading especially to those who may give total credence to these words as a result of those credentials.
This was said ny one of the founding fathers of the USA in 1775 – the ‘horrid mischief’ has come true under the ANC’s rule in SA!
“…Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property…Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” — Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
Just one point to the contrary. Some debaters here are pointing to the London / UK experience in apparent support of a view that prohibiting firerams does not reduce firearms related crime.
I think the most that can be said is that it perhaps proves that it does not eliminate illegal firearms or firearms related crimes. But no one can prove either that in the absence of the prohibition (‘ban”) the situation would not have been much worse than it is. My perception is that it is very much an open question and therein lies my real issue with all the debaters on this subject: everyone is shouting at each other in a real factual and knowledge vaccuum.
Until a proper independant and neutral study (or even better multiple studies) is done in real depth as to causes and effects in our South African context, everything said on the subject is simply pretty much meaningless noise.
That is with the possible exception of the debate around the constitutionality of expropriating private property and prohibiting private firearm ownership in the absence of proper supporting evidence.
It’s odd. I am one of those with a lefty background and in general like all good lefties I think guns are bad and should be banned. In the UK in spite of the rise of gun crime, the levels are still very low,
HOWEVER. South Africa with its bizarre and uniquely blend of non government and high ideals basically tests lefty theories to the max. And they fail.
Brett Nortje says:
October 28, 2009 at 10:55 am
“Please note, all, that Pierre has not responded to one of the facts that I raised except to get personal with Judge Prinsloo.”
Strange remark from a person who are dishing out insults like I’ve never seen before.
Kameraad Mhambi – Lefty’s do not all think guns are bad and should be banned – I, have referred to Julius Malema above, he doesn’t think so. I think most lefty’s actually support gun-ownership, albeit AK 47′s and so on.
Prof – if gun-ownership iis unethical, isn’t knife-ownership unethical as well? If we remove all that some beople believe to be unethical, as I’ve pointed out above (besides pointing out that the pro-gun lobby is wrong to aver that there are judgments that say the new laws are unconstitutional), then we will remain with a society where almost nothing is left for society to protect itself with or to promote its wellbeing. (E.g., agricultural poisons that are used to eradicate pests from the crops – e.g., ‘Temmic’ or ‘Two-step’ – are often used to kill people (and even dogs, a method that burglars and vehicle thiefs are particularly fond of). Should the use of that poiuson be banned, or just regulated?
Stewart Wood says:
October 28, 2009 at 11:01 am
The USA is a terrible example.
The manufacturing and trade in weapons is a significant part of the economy – I am not up to date with the stats but many years ago I read that the USA, then the largest per capita exporter in the world, had it’s biggest export apportionment to weapons.
You’re probably aware of the extent to which US weapons are fueling the drug and associated wars and instability in the surrounding countries (aided by the thousands of gun shops along the Mexican borders.
“but they are confident in their own abilities to defend themselves and what is dear to them – and even their neighbours and community if necessary.”
If that is true then is the outcry over violent crime over nothing?
I know a few gun owners – some are extremely good with weapons on the range – none have used their guns except to carry it on their hips and feel powerful.
I have encouraged some who kept firearms for personal safety to get rid of their guns – after much discussion they conceded that it was not wise and handed it in to the nearest police station.
“the SAPS has already stated publicly and very clearly that it IS NOT THEIR JOB to protect citizens!”
When?
It’s outrageous – please point me to the source of that.
Chris says:
October 28, 2009 at 11:12 am
“Strange remark from a person who are dishing out insults like I’ve never seen before”.
Heck, if people that emotionally charged are allowed to carry guns it is a frightening prospect indeed.
Perhaps the reason why the answer is different in ZA to the question ‘should citizens have the right to bear arms’ is explainable in lefty theory.
Right wingers believe in the right to take up arms as protection against the all powerfull state. Lefties believe that a strong state protectsb its citizens and theres no need for private arms.
In SA we effectively have no state – therefore from a left perspective – citizens must protect themselves in SA.
From a right wing perspective their is no need for citizens to have arms in South Africa as the state is not a threat.
So Pierre, philosophically your on the side of the Us gun lobby.
I meant US gun lobby. And of course I’m just pulling your leg. Still, I don’t think the USA, UK are very instructive as examples for the RSA.
Perhaps we should start looking at Somalia?
Kameraad Mhambi – JZ: “Awuleth, Umshini wami!” Lefty, or right-winger?
Anonymouse, Malema a lefty? Being balck does not make you a lefty.
Kameraad Mhambi says:
October 28, 2009 at 11:23 am
“So Pierre, philosophically your on the side of the Us gun lobby”.
LOL!
Ouch Pierre – to quote Jeffman from elsewhere “that has to hurt like a punch to the solar plexus!”
Maggs Naidu wrote: “I know a few gun owners – some are extremely good with weapons on the range – none have used their guns except to carry it on their hips and feel powerful.”
So do I Maggs and just offhand I can think of a number of them who have successfully defended themselves and their families in violent confrontations with criminals. For better or for worse I seem to have been the first port of call immediately following some of the confrontations so my knowledge is pretty direct and I feel able to make the point quite clearly that for some people at least the possession of a private firearm probably meant the difference between life and death and/or rape or not.
Maggs, did you not set the tone for the debate with innuendo about gun owners being dirty and greasy? Well, who looks like a dumbass now? Your side is so intellectually dishonest you simply sidestep the issues under debate.
Denial aint rebuttal. (Trying to fit in with Chris’ grammar….)
In case you did not hear Martin Hood on 702 or Cape Talk? Gun owners are gatvol of having our rights trampled upon and we’re about to start pushing back.
CD says:
October 28, 2009 at 11:30 am
Equally there’s the instances of say the little child at the creche who was shot by a “stray bullet” when the gun owner tried to apprehend the cellphone thief.
Or the lady who was killed while walking home after work, by a bullet that ricocheted of a street sign – fired by a legal gun owner at a petty thief.
The list is endless.
A friend, years ago, used to sleep with his gun close at hand – until he nearly shot his then seven year old child who was going to the loo at night (fortunately he did not).
THE TOPIC BEING DEBATED IS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FIREARMS CONTROL ACT….
Could we debate the issue at hand and stop spamming the Board with mindless BS?
Brett Nortje says:
October 28, 2009 at 11:32 am
“Maggs, did you not set the tone for the debate with innuendo about gun owners being dirty and greasy? Well, who looks like a dumbass now? Your side is so intellectually dishonest you simply sidestep the issues under debate”.
What is “intellectually dishonest” about wanting a gun free society?
Hey, you’re free to push as much as your energy allows – the debate will finally be settled by legislative measures (and the good guys always win).
Brett Nortje says:
October 28, 2009 at 11:36 am
THE TOPIC BEING DEBATED IS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FIREARMS CONTROL ACT….
Could we debate the issue at hand and stop spamming the Board with mindless BS?
——————————————————————————————————-
The topic being debated is :
“Guns kill people (with a little help of the people who own them)”
Check it out just below the picture on the left at the top of this page.
Maggs, use your finger or a pencil and read from “The pro-gun lobby also says”….
It is intellectually dishonest to devote a blog to the ‘constitutionality’ of the FCA, then to get all hissy when I rubbish those superficial unsubstantiated OPINIONS then refuse to debate the facts I used in rebuttal but take refuge in one-liners and character attacks.
ARGUE THE FACTS!
Maggs Naidu wrote:
“The list is endless.”
Indeed it is Maggs. But the negligent use of the tool by some does not of itself prove the principle of depriving others of its benefits. If it did, we would long since have prohibited electricity and automobiles amongst a vast list other things.
Brett Nortje says:
October 28, 2009 at 11:53 am
Maggs, use your finger or a pencil and read from “The pro-gun lobby also says”….
—————————————————————————————————–
Your finger stopped a bit short of the following sentence in the same paragraph. Maybe not your finger (that’s reserved for the trigger – it was your pencil.
“Well, I have re-read the Bill of Rights (the South African Bill of Rights, that is) and I cannot find the right to own a gun anywhere in that document.”
The facts are what we want it to be.
I want it to be that “Guns kill people (with a little help of the people who own them)”.
Mr De Vos points to the UK as a prime example of gun laws that work. The UK are now employing more armed police on its streets then ever before, due to high crime rates with knives and illegally held firearms, firearms that didnt come from legal owners but smuggled into the UK.
In Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK AK47′s, RPG’s, Semtex, hand grenades are illegal (therefore banned), yet the IRA managed to get hold of all they wanted despite contstant patrols by the British military including intel from MI5, MI6 and the SAS.
Quite frankly Mr De Vos, you really don’t know what your talking about.
Well No Maggs
the list is not endless, the list is far shorter than the crimes that were stopped, prevented or potential victims protected.
The race card is the one introduced defensively by the anti firearms lobby whenever they feel the facts are not supporting them, ask BGOASA how many “non” white civilian firearms owners there are?
The other fact of the matter is this, If I own a firearm, I own that to practice my sport, defend my family should the need arise (hopefully it does not) I look after that firearm, how do I impact you?
I find these statements by the anti firearms lobby disconserting, you seem to become vehemently critical of anyone who disagree’s with you (Pierre your statement with regards the judge who will never be promoted, why because he dared differ with you or disagree with your stand point?
I ask you to explain to me in the logic that you use to argue for banning of firearms why should cellualr phones then not be banned (they are too used in the commission of crimes, vehicles, laptops etc)
You cannot and firearms are being singled out because of a media inspired hysteria created around the items and a misunderstanding of the items themselves!
It is not a case of being “macho” the vast majority of firearms owners will carry a firearm without any person being aware there of (in accordance with the law!)
Again I ask you how does my owning a firearm, hunting, target shooting impact your lives at all? If I were to become a VICTIM of theft it would be as much for my mobile phone, laptop or vehicle than a firearm!
Your facts Maggs are also incorrect there are 2,5 million firearms owners in South Africa
That represents ten percent of the voting population!
(Legally you cannot own a firearm under 18 and it is still extremely difficult until you are 21 so that does detract a significant amount from the entire population base hence my use of the voting populace!)
Again fact a gun ban does not cannot not and should not be mistaken for a crime prevention or reduction plan
Pierre If I have a right to life and security and I am attacked by a person wielding a knife, iron pipe, gun or any other deadly implement and if the State should not allow me to defend my right to life and security, how pray tell is that not UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
CD says:
October 28, 2009 at 11:56 am
Indeed that’s true.
I have no issue with collectors, target shooting even hunting (although I struggle to understand how someone could look down a barrel of a gun and shoot a defenseless animal, but then I eat meat so a bit of hypocrisy there).
I would have no issue with guns for target shooting kept secure at the shooting clubs and for hunting at some suitable place.
I have an issue with people walking around in society with these lethal weapons.
Knives, crossbows, cholesterol producing fast foods etc are not the issue here – guns are.
Bryan says:
October 28, 2009 at 12:00 pm
“Legally you cannot own a firearm under 18 and it is still extremely difficult until you are 21″
That should be subjected to a constitutional test.
I cannot see how it can be successfully argued that a firearm is necessary for personal protection then deny under 21s the the same rights for the rest of society especially considering that the younger they are the more vulnerable they become.
p.s. Cellphones are being subjected to control.
Pierre, as a Gun Free Society supporter, would you be so kind as to publicly display your support at your house or on your car by means of a sign or similar, indicating that you do not own a firearm and that you are protected by the state? Constitutionally you have a right to protection, not so.
I’d love all Gun Free supporters to publicly display their support in this way, or possibly just mark your property with an X.
oh please cellphone being subject to control you say, do you have any idea of the practicality of that legislation even with Echeleon the Intel services of the world report severe operational shortcomings on the same systems the SAG is proposing, you obviously have an extremely limited knowledge of law enforcement! that is purely “happy making” legislation
with regards the denial of the right of self protection to those younger than 21, read carefully that is what the STATE via the FCA have done, not myself.
Maggs wrote: “the debate will finally be settled by legislative measures (and the good guys always win).”
No Maggs, the debate will only be settled once we fully understand the effects of the legislation. And sadly, only in Hollywood movies do the good guys always win.
Personally, I would support a private firearms prohibition if it was certain that it would result in a meaningful reduction in crime but I am far from convinced that it will and I greatly fear that the effect may be the exact opposite. FWIW and I recognise that it is perhaps tangentially relevant here but the Rwandan genocide was carried out in the almost entire absence of firearms. It is open to speculation whether widespread firearm ownership would have aggravated or alleviated the situation there.
Here is a suitable sign to display!
http://www.gunfacts.co.za/images/Gunowner.jpg
Craig says:
October 28, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Where do you suggest? Between the “Beware of the Dog” and “No Jehovah Witnesses Please” signs?
I see this is rather an emotional topic. People who get emotional so easily should perhaps not be allowed to carry guns (just a thought). The violent nature of their rhetoric is a bit troubling and scary. In any case, there seems to be two issues here:
(1) Will a ban on private gun ownership coupled with strict penalties for possession of guns (with some exceptions for collectors etc) do anything to curb crime in a violent society like SA with vast numbers of illegal guns and a huge gap between rich and poor. People throw around a lot of statistics (a bit like Thabo Mbeki on HIV) on this, just like they throw around statistics on the death penalty. Fact is, we do not know for sure what the effect of a ban on gun ownership would be in SA and cannot use statistics from other countries with different circumstances to prove anything as it might not apply to SA (apart from the fact that the statistics are often of dubious quality or manipualted). Many factors would influence the effectiveness of such a policy, including the nature of the law and the penaklties attached to it, the effectiveness with which the law was enforced, the effect of such enforcement on the criminal underworld, etc etc. Personally it seems to me it is worth a try because let’s face it, we currently DO have many, many, many, many guns in the country and it sure as hell has not done anything to bring down the crime rate. I have a few thoughts though on why another approach for SA might be a good idea (seeing that the large number of legal guns have not really done the trick). (a) Anyone who reads the paper knows that many women and children are killed by people with guns who are close relatives and family members. A ban on the possession of guns by such patriarchs might be one way to limit this. All those sad stories of men shooting their spouses and children really seems to suggest that all this gun ownership makes the country a war zone for women and children.(b) Violent crime is a big problem in SA and guns are freely avalaible. Many such guns are stolen from private gun owners and thus it cannot be disputed that the possession of illegal firearms can be curtailed if one curtails the private right to own firearms. Fewer illegal guns would have the potential to lower violent crime as it would place fewer guns at the disposal of criminals (who steal the legally owned guns – any statistics about how many privately owned guns are stolenm each year would be quite interesting to see). (c) Many offenders are never prosecuted or if they are, are not convicted. Making gun possession a crime will make it far easier to secure convictions for would-be criminals. If they are caught with a gun, the evidence is right there and the conviction would be rather easy to secure. More convictions would have the potential to lower crime as more dangerous criminals would be locked up (along with a few over-emotional gun nuts, but maybe that is a small price to pay). (d) Some gun owners claim that their guns prevent crime but this is a double edged sword as many people are killed by criminals with the very guns they had to defend themselves. Guns attract criminality and it is far from clear whether one is safer with or without a gun with you. I feel safer without one myself.
(2) Does the present law (or more stricter laws) limiting the possession of guns fall foul of the Constitution. Well, some bright spark referred to the doctrine of objective invalidity to claim the present gun laws are unconstitutional. Actually, a law must be obeyed until a court of law declares it invalid. If this is confirmed by the Constitutional Court that law – in the absence of another order – would have been deemed invalid from the day it was adopted. But no court in SA has declared a gun law invalid. It is my contention that the CC will never confirm a judgment of any court who does and that it will ok limits on gun ownership as a justifiable limitation on a persons rights (in terms of section 36). If the state claims that limits on gun posession was introduced to combat crime this will override any tangential infirngement of any right. As we do not have a right to own guns, the limit on gun ownership would constitute only a marginal infringement on any rights and it would be relatively easy for the state to justify it. I put my professional reputation on the line on this – the Constitutional Court will never confirm the invalidity of a law merely because it limist the rights of gun owners to own guns. Gun owners might not like this, but even if I was a great lover of guns and they had come to me for advice I would have told them, well rather take your oney, put it in a big pile and have a braai with it as your money would be better spent than challenging the gun law in the Constitutional Court. You WILL lose the case.
Craig, I would be happy to display such a sign. I suspect I would be safer that way.
Again Maggs I ask you this
how does my owning a firearm for self defence, hunting, target shooting or whatever impact your (anti guns) lives at all? If I were to become a VICTIM of theft it would be as much for my mobile phone, laptop or vehicle than a firearm!
I also ask those that quote the “hundreds” of so called domestic violence in which a fireamr is used to please check their facts
Far Far more of those incidents are perptrated with knives than with firearms
During my time in service with the SAPS I must have attended thousands of domestic violne complaints I can only recall one in which a firearm was used to threaten and a few others, less than ten, in which firearms played any role at all!
Pierre, are you really prepared to bet your families life on that, also remember no cheating by using armed response or armed guards only the SAPS!
Bryan says:
October 28, 2009 at 12:37 pm
how does my owning a firearm for self defence, hunting, target shooting or whatever impact your (anti guns) lives at all? If I were to become a VICTIM of theft it would be as much for my mobile phone, laptop or vehicle than a firearm!
——————————————————————————————————–
I’ve dealt with that in an earlier post
Maggs Naidu says:
October 28, 2009 at 12:05 pm
hardly
CD says:
October 28, 2009 at 12:29 pm
My sister and brother both of who had legal firearms in their households were victims of armed robberies.
I will spare the details but in both cases it would have been worse for them if those legal firearms were brandished against the heavily armed criminals.
p.s. They no longer have guns.
Pierre De Vos
October 28, 2009 at 12:32 pm
“People throw around a lot of statistics” “many women and children are killed by people with guns” “Many such guns are stolen from private gun owners” “Many offenders are never prosecuted”
Speaking of throwing around statistics, ahem, Mr De Vos?
I may be mistaken, but should a person be found in possession of a firearm for which they do not have a license, I believe there is a law against this? Is this not what we as citizens would like enforced?
Is this whole debate not actually about CRIME? Why propose a focus on law abiding citizens to reduce crime?
@ Bryan
I have no issue with collectors, target shooting even hunting (although I struggle to understand how someone could look down a barrel of a gun and shoot a defenseless animal, but then I eat meat so a bit of hypocrisy there).
I would have no issue with guns for target shooting kept secure at the shooting clubs and for hunting at some suitable place.
It’s a ditto!
Pierre with regards your emotive element which you say should preclude firearms ownership?
Would you say the same about vehicles (which kill far more people than licensed firearms!)
WOuld you say the same with regards the so called maturity of the SAPS, SANDF, Metro Police Officers? what would be the preclusion between them having fireamrs but not the average business owner, employee, accountant, farmer? some of whom seem to have the “emotional maturity” to manage multi million dollar budgets etc!
@ Maggs
so how does my self defence firearm in its holster impact your life, or my hunting shotgun in its SABS approved and bolted to the wall and cemented to the floor, covered by security sensors impact your life in anyway?
also how would the hunting clubs etc not become “targets of crimes” in your logic set?
would the SAPS with their 45 minute response time protect them?
Bryan says:
October 28, 2009 at 12:53 pm
You’re welcome to carry your holstered gun and walk around your house with it or keep it in your SABS approved safe, for now that is.
Just not in public places where i am likely to be.
Pierre De Vos wrote: “Many such guns are stolen from private gun owners and thus it cannot be disputed that the possession of illegal firearms can be curtailed if one curtails the private right to own firearms. Fewer illegal guns would have the potential to lower violent crime as it would place fewer guns at the disposal of criminals (who steal the legally owned guns – any statistics about how many privately owned guns are stolenm each year would be quite interesting to see).”
Pierre, I am not sure that your logic on this one is by any means infallible. A criminal denied one source may well simply turn to another. Statistics are apparently absent (I wonder why?) but it would appear possible based on anecdotal data that the vast majority of illegal arms are coming from sources other than private owners. Nor is there any evidence to support the view that the ultimate result will be a decrease in crime. Who is to say that you will not simply be creating a wider pool of ready victims? This is where I have the greatest difficulty with your reasoning: you take a position based on a completely untested view and treat it as though it is the gospel truth without any other possible outcome.
Pierre De Vos says:
October 28, 2009 at 12:32 pm//
It is bound to get emotional when government tries arbitrarily to remove the valuable and valued property of law-abiding people who have committed no offence at all!
For the past 200 years in many countries, gun laws and bans have been implemented continuously one after the other – none of these ‘experiments’ have produced any evidence that they have worked as desired – to reduce crime. If they had succeeded, that evidence would undoubtedly be widely and easily available from numerous source – and GFSA would most certainly have that evidence to use to bolster their argument – they do not have any such thing and cannot therefore produce it. Where is the list of successes?
Why should that be? – when the result of these laws cannot be shown as success, could it be that the opposite is true, as in the UK for example? That the banning of guns affects only the already law-abiding and therefore can have no impact on criminal activity.
Those who understand the indivisibility of freedom of the individual in democratic states also know that if the government is successful in banning guns in of course, only the law-abiding hands, then what may come next on the list of things that the government prefers citizens may not own – computers perhaps? – after all the internet can be a very powerful and subversive tool in the eyes of authoritarian states – and the list grows from there.
The ultimate issues are much larger than the question of legally-held guns in civilian hands.
“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.” – Pastor Martin Niemoller
Bryan says:
October 28, 2009 at 12:54 pm
“also how would the hunting clubs etc not become “targets of crimes” in your logic set?”
If they cannot provide proper security then the license to keep firearms must be taken away.
Why would they become targets of crime differently than now?
Pierre De Vos
October 28, 2009 at 12:34 pm
“Craig, I would be happy to display such a sign. I suspect I would be safer that way.”
I’ll see what I can arrange. As a favour, once displayed, could you please send a photo to safer@ifeelsaferwithoutagun.co.za along with your name and address and I’ll get it up on the site in a public directory of the safest households in SA.
“Emotional” is right, but it is those who would have us believe that we are somehow ‘safer’ without guns in the hands of the citizenry who are the emotional ones. You see, they cannot dig up any real statistics to support their ‘feelings’, so they resort to child like denial. As if a woman who is tortured, raped and strangled with her own panties is somehow ‘better’ than one who uses a firearm to defend herself from such beastial behaviour.
No one is forcing anyone to own a gun, but nothing else…certainly not 10111…will put a 50 kilo female on a par with one or more 100 kilo men bent on violence toward her and / or her children. As the saying goes, ‘When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away!’
Irrational fear, as aptly demonstrated by Mr. Vos, is overcome by education. There are many potentially dangerous things in society that are of great benefit when used properly and safely. Electricity, fire, water pressure, automobiles, and yes, guns. The fact that they can also be used for evil purposes is of no surprise to adults who do not live in ivory towers.
Denial is NOT a river in Egypt, and gun control is never about guns, but always about control.
“we currently DO have many, many, many, many guns in the country and it sure as hell has not done anything to bring down the crime rate”
And how, pray tell, do yo know that? How do you know that the crime rate would not be higher if there were no firearms in legal hands? In any case, that would STILL not really be a reflection of how effective firearms are at stopping violent attacks, as these attempts would still be classified as crimes.
I would say that you have no clue, and it is just more clear to see that you are thumb sucking data that supports your viewpoint.
Is it not possible for humans that are part of a society to look at the facts without emotion? Surely it is better that less people are victims of crime, then the happy illusions some people clearly have of a world without guns.
Yes, other countries may not be in the same situation as us, but how can we ignore the fact that gun bans all over the world have NOT reduced crime? We would have to be complete idiots to ignore the lessons of history! In many cases the rate of violent crime has actually increased! Governments all of the world, including ours, have spent billions on this expensive lesson. Yet we should ignore that? That is insanity.
How would you answer to the fact that most of the genocides that have taken place, and in fact still do, are often soon after the governments banned guns? Examples I can think of right now include the Soviet Union, Turkey, Germany, China, Guatemala, Uganda and Cambodia.
I believe that a lot of us need to wake up to reality. The reality is that guns are here to stay, you can even make them in your garage – and criminals will always have access to them.
We need to wake up out of our fantasies, look at the world we live in, and be willing and able to defend those lives of our families.
Legal gun owners, are not responsible for the problems in this country. Crime is caused by criminals.
Do not disarm the country because of your emotional response to guns, or your ‘belief in a better world’, without the facts to back it up. You can not be ignorant of the fact that the police can not respond quickly enough to save our lives, and you can not be ignorant of how powerful a position disarming citizens puts a government in.
well Maggs
When I carried a firearm in my holster everday as a police officer, did that bother you, how have I changed? bear in mind I worked both in uniform and civilian clothes
When I have a firearm in my holster on my side (which you cannot even see!) how does that impact you at all?
with regards the hunting clubs option yes very clever instead of letting each person to keep their firearms in the same conditions they would be at a club lets put them all in one place so the CRIMINALS can steal them all at once! very clever
pray tell exactly what expertise do you have in law enforcement, crime prevention, firearms or criminal studies?
Maggs:
“My sister and brother both of who had legal firearms in their households were victims of armed robberies. I will spare the details but in both cases it would have been worse for them if those legal firearms were brandished against the heavily armed criminals. p.s. They no longer have guns.”
It happens. That is undeniable. But of itself it doesn’t prove anything at all as to the overall outcome of a prohibition on private firearms.
Bryan says:
October 28, 2009 at 13:05 pm
LOL!
So you’re saying on the one hand that licensed guns itself is the target of criminals and then saying that we should have licensed guns.
What makes you think that only “law enforcement, crime prevention, firearms or criminal studies” should have an opinion.
Those days are long gone and it’s not coming back.
again read carefully I said using your logic set
no not having any knowledge on a subject does not mean you cannot have an opinion on a subject it just means you have an uniformed opinion with no contextual grounding
CD I have a friends who were the victim of an attack at their house, subsequent investigation revealed that the three perpetrators who there with the purpose of rape and murder, if they had not had a pistol with them that would have been the end result!
Mr De Vos wrote and I quote “When my father died, a question arose about who of us five siblings would inherent my father’s rifles which he, in turn, had inherited from his father. As the only son in the family who also carries my grandfather and father’s name, I was the obvious choice. Luckily my sister is a big game hunter (don’t ask), so to my great relief she was happy to take over the rifles. I do not want any guns near my house. They are dangerous. They are greasy and dirty. They kill people (and they kill animals too, apparently).”
Did your father run amok with those firearms murdering all and sundry? Has your sister also run amok and killed all and sundry? From your “They kill people (and they kill animals too, apparently).” I must assume that they did.
Maggs you still have not answered my question how do my firearms impact your life in anyway shape or form!
As for Maggs Naidu statement that all guns should be held at gun clubs, that was suggested in the UK years ago, until it was pointed out by a Senior police officer that such an idea was stupid and dangerous as all those firearms in one place would make a tempting target for the IRA or criminals.
It amazes me that people make such stupid statements without thinking through such a suggestion.
@ Maggs
Bryan
October 28, 2009 at 13:23 pm
Maggs you still have not answered my question how do my firearms impact your life in anyway shape or form!
I’d be interested in this answer too.
Maggs reminds me of a certain politician in UK a few years ago debating in Parliament of the ease that semiautomatic firearms are converted to fully automatic. This certain politician stood an and announced “If anyone has the equipment and the knowledge to carry out a crime, they should be deemed guilty of that crime.” Then it was pointed out to him by a member of the opposition, “If that were the case every male in the Kingdom could be convicted of rape!”
Are you by chance that very same politician Maggs?
In a gun free world the weak are at the mercy of the strong and the lone victim at the mercy of the mob. Sounds like a trip back to the Dark Ages. No thanks, I’ll keep my equaliser.
The organisation Gun Free South Africa will tell you that the main source of illegal guns is licenced guns stolen from legal owners – quote “The two major sources of illegal firearms in South Africa are loss and theft from licensed firearm owners and the state”.- Adele Kirsten, the Director of Gun Free South Africa – 2001 in an address to the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects July 8-20, 2001 New York, USA
The contention outlined in this statement requires some very careful examination. Certainly guns are stolen from legal owners, just as every other possession is stolen by criminals at every opportunity.
However what is not mentioned is the recovery rate of such stolen weapons, which is quite high and is at least 50% if not more. This from the Gun Free SA website: “Finally, too many legal guns end up as illegal guns. Between 1994 and 2003, 66 licensed guns were reported lost or stolen every day! The police RECOVERED ABOUT TWO THIRDS (my emphasis) of these”
Due to a lack of statistical base data in SA accurate figures are impossible to come by – although Gun Free South Africa and others of their ilk frequently quote nebulous statistics based on little more than guesswork.
During the 1980s literally scores of thousands of automatic weapons were issued by the previous government of SA, from military stocks to various political groupings such as Inkatha Freedom Party and others, to help fight the ANC. It is a known fact that the majority of these weapons are today unaccounted for, and presumably remain in what are now deemed ‘illegal’ hands.
For instance, it is estimated that some 3 000 G3 rifles were issued by the KwaZulu police to civilians such as ‘headmen and self-protection units’ at this time (Sunday Times, 20 August 1995). Arms were also issued to commando units of the SADF’s Area Defence System in rural areas. According to a Colonel Williams of the SANDF, there was poor weapons control and ‘it is doubtful whether the SANDF can provide an audit of the weapons it has provided the commandos in the past 20 years’ (Williams, 1995:6).
The same government also issued thousands of weapons in support of the anti-communist movement Renamo in Mozambique, and to aid Unita in Angola, and armed many of its ‘allies’ in Namibia to help them defend themselves against Swapo.
For example, almost 40 000 AKs were purchased by the Nationalist government from Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Hungary and China between 1976 and 1986 specifically to be given to Unita (Cameron Commission, 1995).
At the conclusion of ‘hostilities’ in countries such as I refer to, there was no effective disarmament and collection of these weapons, with the result that virtually all of these have found their way to the ‘black market’. Since the biggest demand at the highest prices emanates from SA this is where many of these weapons of war have ended up, easily smuggled through SA’s porous borders.
Meanwhile ‘Operation Rachel’ begun in 1995, searched for weapons dumps in Mozambique in an attempt to stem the flow of military weaponry into SA.
However, Operation Rachel has in fact had limited success. The co-operation by the Mozambican authorities has been mixed and there has been a series of scandals involving tipping off arms traffickers prior to raids and involvement of both South African officials and their Mozambican counterparts with these traffickers.” – Alex Vines
The TOTAL ‘light weapons’ claimed as located and destroyed by Operation Rachel, amounts, by their own figures, to a pitiful 3500! These include rifles,pistols and light machine guns.
INTERPOL reported that some 1.5 million (NOT a typo!) AK-47s and other rifles and pistols had been distributed to the civilian population during the course of the war in Mozambique. Few of these were ever returned.
UNOMOZ (UN Mission to Mozambique) reported that the guns handed in by Frelimo combatants at Assembly Areas were few in number and invariably old and in poor condition.
As Joao Baptista, a Frelimo soldier from Massingir AA explained: ” We knew that guns make good business. So we kept the best for ourselves. I have sold some to dealers from Joni (Johannesburg) and I keep others for the future. The secret is to keep them in good condition. Frelimo was never going to pay us for the years we were made to fight. We have to look after ourselves ”
The statistics claimed for weapons caches found and destroyed in Mozambique are actually pitifully insignificant in light of the true numbers known to exist. Perhaps for every AK47 or Makarov/Tokarev pistol destroyed another 50 are smuggled into South Africa to find a home with criminal gangs.
When it is known that of the 1.5 million guns in civilian hands in Mozambique and totally unaccounted for, a tiny 0.026% have been recovered and destroyed, why should anyone puzzle over the source of criminal guns?
Has anyone here heard of Occam’s Razor, the principle of which states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam’s razor helps us to “shave off” those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon.
In South Africa itself there remains unanswered the important question of where is the 60+ tons of weapons smuggled into the country by the ANC pre-1994 – this question has never been answered by the ANC – not to the Goldstone commission nor to the SAPS nor to the citizens of SA. Whos is controlling those weapons? – how are they safeguarded? – who has access to them? These questions in light of the crime in SA committed using illegal guns required an urgent and definitive answer.
IN SOUTH AFRICA NO ONE WILL ADMIT TO THE TRUE SOURCES OF ILLEGAL GUNS! It is too embarrassing politically – and in any event would not serve the agenda of the ANC.
Mr De Vos has yet to answer my question as to whether or not his father or his sister have run amok with those firearms, murdering innocent people.
Maggs Naidu says:
October 28, 2009 at 11:21 am
Stewart Wood says:
October 28, 2009 at 11:01 am
//The USA is a terrible example.
The manufacturing and trade in weapons is a significant part of the economy – I am not up to date with the stats but many years ago I read that the USA, then the largest per capita exporter in the world, had it’s biggest export apportionment to weapons.
You’re probably aware of the extent to which US weapons are fueling the drug and associated wars and instability in the surrounding countries (aided by the thousands of gun shops along the Mexican borders.//
I am not discussing the global arms trade here or the rights and wrongs of the US being the largest manufacturer of firearms, nor am I, in the context of this discussion, concerned with the drug wars and the instability of nations. I might however point out that the ANC is very desirous of making our very own arms industry (Armscor/Denel) a large component of our economy, which is why they keep on splurging billions on keeping those white elephants alive!
//“but they are confident in their own abilities to defend themselves and what is dear to them – and even their neighbours and community if necessary.”
If that is true then is the outcry over violent crime over nothing?//
I fail to see your point here – there is a massive outcry in SA over government’s own criminal negligence in failing to act effectively on crime – when one of their proposed actions is to remove guns from those who use them legally whilst having no plan whatever to remove guns from those using them for criminality I despair of ever hearing any sense coming from government – or from the ban-guns brigade! Meanwhile we as citizens must fall back on our own means of defence of home and hearth – at a ratio of 1:16 gun owners are not omnipresent in order to act as neighbourhood ‘armed guards’- even if all were ready to take on this task in the face of appalling laws which turn the relative position of victim/perpetrator on it’s head!
//“the SAPS has already stated publicly and very clearly that it IS NOT THEIR JOB to protect citizens!”
When? It’s outrageous – please point me to the source of that.//
The statement was made some time ago by an ANC politician in response to the question of whether victims injured in crime can sue government for their failure to protect individuals. I cannot find the source at this time, but recall it clearly. Debate ensued later in the press and of course one interpretation of the Police Act (if that is the correct name) is that the SAPS has a ‘collective’ duty to protect society ‘as a whole’ – a very different thing and a great bolt-hole for the government!
Pierre, long time no see. I hear you on Cape Talk now and then though
Last time I looked about half of the murders in SA were committed not-with-firearms.
Strangely enough, this percentage holds in the USA (about the same absolute number of murders, six times the population).
Here, we have a strict licencing system. One which (you should know
is (in many people’s opinion) unconstitutional. Licences take years (I’m a collector. Current set of applications have been pending for more than a year).
In the USA, the maximum waiting time is seven days.
Metannerwoorde, or what I’m saying is, in a country where the good guys can easily get guns (which they don’t have to keep in a safe, and where they are not prosecuted for having a gun stolen), half the murders are not committed with guns. In a country where the good guys struggle to get guns (and if the gun is stolen, the good guy is in much more trouble than the thief), half the murders are not committed with guns.
There is no correlation. If you look at Japan, it seems to correlate one way. If you look at the USA it seems to correlate the other.
You say that you would feel safer in a country with no guns. Well, granted. But would you feel safer in a country where only the bad guys had guns? Because that’s reality. Once you give the police guns, you give the bad guys guns. So, no guns for the police. Or the army.
Apartheid South Africa, with all the resources of a siege economy, could not prevent the ANC from obtaining more than sixty tons of AK-47s, bombs, ammo, etc. A mere law is not going to have better results.
I can’t recall any of the Professor’s posts receiving such a variety of commentary and particularly new commentators. Its always the usual suspects. I suppose this struck more of a cord than the “less” serious issues he’s raised!
No a question to everyone: Has this debate persuaded anyone to defect to the other side?
@Harold: Yea, but Pierre didn’t call me a murderer in any of his other posts.
@Chris: Well, I’m hoping Pierre will see the light, he’s a bright boykie
@Pierre: I’ll buy you a beer to apologise for that last remark, OK?
@ Pierre
Your argument is flawed and irresponsible. Every empirical study done shows there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime. There is also no correlation between poverty and violent crime.
According to a recent Harvard study, the answer is “no.” And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
I will protect my family with ALL and ANY means at my disposal. I do not trust the police to do it, they are overburdened, undertrained and ill equipped.
Once guns are a common tool used by criminals the only viable option becomes MAD. A poison pill defense, mutually assured destruction.
We do not live in a perfect world, humans are not perfect. We don’t need utopian ideals. We need practical solutions to real world problems.
Every man has the right to protect himself by all and any means necessary, to preserve his life and to safeguard his economic and political freedom. In those countries you mention there is a reasonable expectation that the state will be successful in protecting your life, that IS NOT a reasonable expectation in SA. The state is incompetent in the fight against crime. They have been infiltrated by the worst criminals imaginable.
You are a smart man, you should know better than to propose I place the lives of my wife and children in the trusting hands of the state. That would be a sure death sentence.
Well said A is A
Jack Pollard says:
October 28, 2009 at 13:24 pm
“It amazes me that people make such stupid statements without thinking through such a suggestion”.
Ok – next time I make stupid statements I will think through it first, then make it.
In the meantime the gun free lobby will gain momentum.
It’s bad enough having to deal with armed criminals – having emotionally charged, highly strung gun owners walking around with guns in public places (holstered or otherwise) is worrisome (I have quoted some examples of innocents having lost their lives through the actions of licensed firearm owners).
Pierre (with the XXL sized wooden spoon) said: “I see this is rather an emotional topic. People who get emotional so easily should perhaps not be allowed to carry guns (just a thought). The violent nature of their rhetoric is a bit troubling and scary.”
So we can all be relieved that your sister inherited your dad’s guns then?
;-{>}
Bryan says:
October 28, 2009 at 13:05 pm
“pray tell exactly what expertise do you have in law enforcement, crime prevention, firearms or criminal studies?”
BTW if you guys who have all the answers “in law enforcement, crime prevention, firearms or criminal studies” are so smart how come we have the violent crime situation that we have?
You guys messed up – that’s enough to say to me that you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
Jack Pollard says:
October 28, 2009 at 13:36 pm
“Are you by chance that very same politician Maggs?”
I see you learned from you own lesson – you thought through that stupid comment first, before making it.
Every comment you have made Maggs is as stupid as that politician I mentioned, so I can only assume you are he, or at the very least related.
You ignore hard proof, yet prefer to spout gun free propaganda that has been proven time and time agin to be complete and utter fabrication. I suggest that you look up Prof John Lotts unbiased study “More guns, Less crime.” Prof Lott carried out the study over many years and was surprised at the end result. But I have no doubt you will prefer to ignore hard facts.
I also suggest that you check out the town of Kennesaw.
Jack Pollard says:
October 28, 2009 at 17:05 pm
“Every comment you have made Maggs is as stupid as that politician I mentioned, so I can only assume you are he, or at the very least related”.
I am related – that’s my excuse.
What’s yours?
Jack Pollard says:
October 28, 2009 at 17:05 pm
You ignore hard proof, yet prefer to spout gun free propaganda that has been proven time and time agin to be complete and utter fabrication. I suggest that you look up Prof John Lotts unbiased study “More guns, Less crime.” Prof Lott carried out the study over many years and was surprised at the end result. But I have no doubt you will prefer to ignore hard facts.
——————————————————————————————————
“CHICAGO, March 25 /U.S. Newswire/ — A study included in a just- released book debunks the claim by leading pro-gun researcher John Lott that allowing Americans to carry concealed handguns leads to less crime.
“The book ‘Evaluating Gun Policy,’ published by the Brookings Institution Press, includes research by Professor John Donohue Ph.D., J.D., Stanford University Law School, and Professor Ian Ayres Ph.D., J.D., Yale Law School, that concludes Carry Concealed Weapons (CCW) laws do not decrease crime; they may, in fact, have just the opposite effect.”
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-13164551.html
Just whose hard facts should I accept?????
I’d argue that both sides of this debate is barking up the wrong trees. You can’t compare any western nations with whats happening in South Africa.
John Lott wrote the 1998 book “More Guns, Less Crime,” which is championed by the gun lobby as a major research work that proves CCW laws reduce crime. Lott’s scholarship — including “More Guns, Less Crime” — and actions, however, have recently come under attack on a variety of fronts.
For instance, John Lott, who is currently a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has come under fire for pretending to be a woman over the Internet (using the name “Mary Rosh”) to defend himself against his critics. “Mary Rosh” claimed to be a student of John Lott’s and praised his research. In addition, several academicians are seeking answers from John Lott about questions involving a telephone survey Lott claims to have done for “More Guns, Less Crime.” Lott can’t produce evidence the phone survey took place, claiming that his computer crashed.
John Donohue called Lott’s conclusions — that citizens carrying loaded handguns in public helps to reduce crime — “deeply flawed” and “misguided.” Donahue states in the Brookings Institution Press book that data suggests that, in fact, crime may increase when CCW laws are implemented.
Lott’s study has been widely cited by gun advocates as justification for passing CCW laws that require states to issue handgun-carrying permits to citizens who meet minimum requirements (shall-issue laws).
Lott claimed that the 10 states that enacted shall-issue laws between 1985 and 1991 experienced declines in murder and other violent crimes relative to the crime trends observed in other states that did not pass shall-issue laws. In contrast, Donohue contends that the 13 states that enacted shall-issue laws after 1992 experienced relative increases in crime.
“The evidence is stronger that passing shall-issue concealed weapons laws are increasing crime, rather than decreasing crime, ” said John Donohue Ph.D., J.D. “I don’t see any strong data that shall-issue laws are decreasing crime.”
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/K/3/pub3439.html
Eish!
@ Jack
I’m very much pro “right to bear arms” but am scared s*%tless if it means being associated with the likes of you! This hard-line attitude, which borders on fundamentalism, is contrary to what is expected from a responsible gun owner.
The quest is always to strive to be a gun-free society, though currently, I admit, it would be difficult to see that materializing in the near future. Just having a firearm in one’s house puts added dangers, and one has to be vigilant at all times – even more so that with a pool or one’s dogs … for a firearm has only one purpose … and that is to kill when used.
Please advise in how we can achieve a gun-free society if you can, rather than blindly defend its ownership when you know that other owners or both negligent and irresponsible with this most dangerous of personal property – which these laws are meant to take out of their hands.
Harold Ferwood says:
October 28, 2009 at 17:26 pm
I am waiting for our resident genius to tell us why we should rely on fake cold hard facts over such an important issue!
I have a number of fundamental problems with this article.
The first is the title which is very illogical. It is physically impossible for a firearm to kill a person. A person can very well kill another person by using a firearm. A more appropriate title would have been: People kill people (with a little help from firearms)
The second is that firearms are being portrayed as the root of all evil when people are the actual problem. People with criminal intent and no morals are the problem and not the tools they use. Address the people problem and crime will drop. Modern man is too limp wristed to take responsibility for their own actions. It is always someone or something else that caused them to murder their wife, rob a bank, torture a woman with an iron, etc.
Thirdly, I fail to see why privately owned firearms are bad while state owned firearms are good in society. All arms are just tools that can be used for good or bad. Surely if you really believe firearms cause or contribute to crime you have to target all firearms regardless of who owns them. Or do you really believe that the state and their officials are more responsible, better trained and have higher moral standards than the ordinary citizen and could therefore be trusted to use firearms only for good purposes?
Clearly ‘ConstitutionallySpeaking’ is a misnomer for this blog.
Maggs, Pierre, please copy us in on correspondence where you admonished other victims of rights abuses not to get emotional about the rape of their constitutional rights.
When gunowners demanded that our rights be protected in the Bill of Rights the reply of the Constitutional Assembly was that our rights were protected by many of the other rights comprising the Bill of Rights.
You guys might remember the Constitutional Assembly – the body determined to narrowly circumscribe the powers and functions of the police in the Constitution and put in place checks to ensure that South Africans would never again have to face a rogue police force – only to have Gun Free incite, goad and generally conspire with the SAPS until it turned into the kind of force that would institute an unlawful de facto gun ban, lie to the Minister, the committees tasked with parliamentary oversight and the nation about its ability to implemement the unimplementable Firearms Control Act, laughing off the administrative justice provisions in the Constitution, and generally rape gunowners rights to the point where its legal representatives would be forced to admit (rather than lie like their colleagues) that the conduct of the Minister, his Department and the SAPS towards gun owners was”unlawful and unconstitutional”.
Could you stop prevaricating, Pierre and Maggs? The gun grabbers have a lot to be proud of, huh?
Between 1994 and 2000 more than a million black South Africans got licenced firearms for the first time and the homicide rate came steadily down. To argue that more guns=more crime in the face of all the evidence to the contrary is the basest form of dishonesty!
@ Harold
A gun-free society is not a crime-free society. I will support a move towards a crime-free society but don’t see much use in a gun/knife/knopkierrie-free society.
You are incorrect on the firearm purpose. A firearm is a mechanical device designed to fire a bullet or projectile, nothing more and nothing less. Whatever that bullet is fired at is up to the operator or user.
I don’t know this ‘Jack’ personally and he does come across a bit strong but I would have him in my corner any day.
So, Harold, being a responsible gun owner means compromising your constitutional rights away? What garbage!
It is my right to own guns. Guns are property. In the FNB case the Constitutional Court held that movable corporeal things are at the heart of the property concept in our law of property. Guns are movable corporeal things.
Ownership gives me certain entitlements over my property: To give it away, to chuck it away, to sell, to buy more, to use, to destroy….
This garbage about guns being banned because they might get stolen and be used in crime? Your kid steals your neighbour’s car and knocks over a pedestrian. Who is to blame? Your neighbour? His car? So what if your neighbour dropped his car keys and your kid picked it up? Does that change how blame ought to be apportioned? Cars are property. Keys are property. Guns are property. Whose business is it besides yours and your insurance company if you lose them or chuck them away? If they are stolen, different thing. The police are paid to protect us and our property. The gun prohibitionists are so cynical and so dishonest they have managed to blur the distinction between victim and perpetrator completely. Because of people like Harold, who say they favour gun ownership, who I would rather have on the other side, because they would not know a principle if it bit them in the backside.
Screw responsible gun ownership. Where in S25 of the Constitution does it say I have a right to own property only if I am responsible about owning that property? If I am pre-qualified by the SAPS to own that property? THUMBSUCKERS!
@ Maggs
I see you are still ducking my question
Most of the gun owners are not “Highly strung and emotional” as you put it, they are however vocal about a lobby intended to deny them a fundamental human right to protect themselves and their families!
Again I ask what have I or any other gun owner done to impinge upon your right how is my firearm carried in accordance with current legislation in any way impacting your life?
Its laughable, the anti firearm lobby wishes to deny the firearm owners the ability to protect themselves or carry a firearm, and insists that other individuals should give up their property! I have never yet met a gun owner who insisits that an anti firearm person must carry a gun, yet more proof that this lobby does not hold dear the concept that all people have the right to freedom of thought, only freedom of thought when they agree with your ideals!
I would also ask again if you are ok with a police officer carrying a firearm in “public area’s which you frequent” assuming that you will continue to duck this question I will further this and assume you would be!
So you would be happy with a police officer who fires 870 rounds of ammunition during his basic training, another 800 or so during their tactical policing course and then maybe 125 rounds per year during continuation training (if that) compared to a dedicated sports shooter who fires between 5 and 6 thousand rounds a year, time spent devoted to skills improvement? Of course I can see the logic there!
To answer your question pertaining to expertise on crime prevention, maybe if the government had actually asked ackowneldged crime prevention experts to advise on policing AND THEN FOLLOWED their input and not write it off due to expense, adherence to minimum standards during training, wasted money on frigates and silly VIP planes we would have made a measurable dent in crime in this country!
@ Harold and all the others blindly saying private firearms owners are the irresponsible party
We are not, the SAPS and SANDF are losing far more firearms than private individuals, those firearms are the ones being used to commit crimes. Stop ignoring that fact!
@ Pierre
Please tell me if I am denied by the state the ability to protect my right to life and security how is that not unconstitutional!
Of course it would be nice for the gun prohibitionists if the owners of REGISTERED (See, S14 of the Constitution again – the right to informational privacy) guns shot their wives and girlfriends or used their firearms to commit property crimes or shot their colleagues or even blew up ATM’s at the rate members of the SAPS do!
Bryan says:
October 29, 2009 at 6:23 am
I am not ok with policepersons carrying firearm – ideally it ought to be highly specialised units that ought to be armed and then only if the need arises.
But the reality of the violent nature of our crime renders that insensible.
I agree with you and others that the state has been dismal at protecting people – that is a conversation which needs to be elevated.
I have made the point here and elsewhere that victims rights (in respect of crime in general and violent crime in particular) is subservient to criminals rights – that in my view is missing in our constitution and its absence provokes the failure of the state (in various ways) in this regard.
We need a charter of victims rights if this is to go anywhere.
It would be interesting to know what the Gun Gestapo thought of the shoot-out on the M1 between members of the SAPS and the Johannesburg Metro Police Department over a labour dispute. These are, after all, the only South Africans they say ought to be armed! (Wow, there we go again – S9 of the Constitution – the right to equality and equal protection by the law…. And they advocate an armed warrior class, and citizens who are disarmed….)
How do you gun prohibitionists explain the tardiness of the National Prosecuting Authority in bringing these rogue JMPD members to book ? (Bearing in mind always that the Constitutional Court warned us in Makwanyane that the only effective deterrent to crime was criminals’ knowledge that they would be apprehended, tried, convicted and locked away…)
Better yet – for our side of the debate, that is – how do you guys from the Gun Gestapo explain the fact that the Central Firearms Register has done NOTHING – despite my repeated demands – to hold hearings into the fitness of these JMPD members to possess firearms (See, I respect these rogue traffic cops’ right to due process – I would not advocate abrogating other peoples’ right because they spanked me in debate, for instance….)
Like the SAPS’ VIP bodyguards, Maggs?
I love me life, my wife and all others close to me.
I don’t have a Cop 24/7 outside my house.
Pray tell what is the best average response time for the Cops at the Countrie’s Best Cop Shop ??
That is a question.
In my hour of need at 03:30 when my bedroom window has just been kicked in, because someone would like to come for “Tea”
who will protect me, YOU, The State / Cops , I think not.
I can only rely on One Person and that’s Me, Myself and I.
I don’t have 15 min on my side to wait for armed response and a further 40 min to wait for the Cops.
I am a responsible firearm owner, All th other firearm owners I know are responsible people.
They practice with their firearms monthly if not weekly.
And now here fact a FACT
Firearms Owners are the most responsible People I know, Should they for any reason get into trouble with the Law they stand a great chance of losing thier Firearms. And That on it’s own is reason enough to be responsible.
And you can take that to the Bank.
Further my learn’ed friend, have you ever been in a Situation where you might have needed to protect yourself against deadly force.
Well I have on more than one occasion.
Was it not for my firearm, I and my loved one’s would not be here today.
These facts never see the News Papers as they are not of any newsworthy value.
Wakeup and Smell the Coffee.
Get out there an speak to some real people, I think they will change your mind and your opinion rather quickly.
I dare you.
Brett Nortje says:
October 29, 2009 at 7:57 am
“Like the SAPS’ VIP bodyguards, Maggs?”
I think the state has failed in a whole host of ways, including the frequent atrocious actions of VIP bodyguards.
The recently appointed Public Protector, Advocate Thulisile Madonsela, seems very promising – maybe it’s time for South Africa to engage that institution over the failures of the state agencies.
Sir, you use stereotypical language eg. gun happy; crazies; gun nutters etc In attempt to paint all owners of guns as unstable & therefore incapable of being law abiding. Since the whole debate on the FCA started, where have gun owners been marching in the street, trashing burning & looting (as with so many other protests)
The contrary is true, gun owners have been petitioning parliament and appealing to the courts. Legal gun owners are more aware of their responsibility under the law than most. Yet you choose to stoop to stereotyping to prove your point.
I would be more than happy to spend a day at the range (you are invited) demonstrating the SAFE & Fun & responsible use of firearms . I guarantee you there will be no blood split or hate/crazed talk. My offer is sincere.
Regards
To recap, Maggs believes citizens should be disarmed, only specialist police units should be armed – like the VIP bodyguards. Now Maggs admits the only people the Gun Gestapo would see armed are often guilty of atrocities, meaning, I guess, various abuses of power.
Please do not let her off the hook by allowing Maggs to redirect the debate. (Nothing is going to improve because of another ANC deployee – like the previous Public Protector, or the previous head of the Human Rights Commission, who we may speculate might very well have mitigated the compensation payout by the state to gun owners by R10 Billion. or R20 Billion, if he had been a little bit principled instead of completely, mindlessly biased against gun ownership like this lot….)
Guys,
I think we are all missing the point here. I don’t think any rational person would maintain that the State is in any way, shape or fashion fulfulling their obligations to the South African citizens in terms of securing their individual safety – the SAPS has, on several ocassions, denied that this is their role in any case.
Whether you like guns, tolerate guns or abhor guns, they remain for want of a better alternative the average South African citizen’s only effective means of driving off an armed criminal attack. I don’t think even GFSA would advocate putting your faith in 10111! I actually know this as their Chairperson said exactly that to me on Monday evening.
Where to now? Do we snipe (in a manner of speaking) at each other endlessly in an exhausting circular argument where there can be no winner?
Some folk will NEVER be persuaded to like guns, and that’s absolutely fine. Some folk, me included, will never ever be persuaded that guns are anything more than an inanimate tool which have already secured my family’s security in the most emphatic way.
That’s what we disagree on. What do we agree on? And is there common ground that will keep both sides happy?
Brett Nortje says:
October 29, 2009 at 8:35 am
It won’t make much difference but for the record I’m a he (unless you’re Italian then I accept with alacrity the respect that goes with “her”).
That said, I don’t have a clue over what you just said.
The essence of what I said is this.
Even though it would be ideal to have only specialised police units armed, it is not practical given the nature of violent crime we have now.
State agencies and institutions should be pressured to do their work and do it well.
The solution to violence is not more violence.
p.s you seem to be anti ANC – is that true for many in the pro gun lobby?
The naive belief that somehow a utopia will be created from a gun free society is nothing short of delusion. It shows a lack of accepting personal responsibility for one’s own safety and that of your loved ones. If you sleepwalk through life thinking the government will be there when an incident happens, you’re living in a dreamworld. Stop looking to a government that’s just there to increase it’s power and decrease yours.
Maggs said:
“p.s you seem to be anti ANC – is that true for many in the pro gun lobby?”
Not that this has anything to do with anything, of course… ;-{)}
I, for one, have nothing against anyone from a different political, ethnic or gender persuasion as a consequence of that persuasion per se.
The ANC happens to be the party in charge at the moment and they are currently pushing their disarming of civilians agenda quite strongly. So, for that reason I am opposed to them.
Those of us who have been involved with firearms and firearms legislation for a while will remember that it was the Nationalist party who first started with the restrictive and civilian disarmament agenda! The Nats were the reason we created SAGA in the late 80s.
Now we have new repressive bosses wielding the same billy-club.
Paul says:
October 29, 2009 at 8:40 am
“That’s what we disagree on. What do we agree on? And is there common ground that will keep both sides happy?”
There is a common thread – which is that violent crime levels in South Africa is unacceptably high and that the agencies which are charged with the responsibility for keeping us safe, are failing dismally.
The differences in views seems to be around the way to resolve it.
There are contradictions in the views that I hold (as indeed in that of everyone who argue one way or the other)
For example I hold that police should be free to use maximum force against violent criminals and, if need be, shoot to kill.
On the other hand I am opposed to police killing unarmed civilians because someone was too scared to stop when instructed to do so given the extent to which people have been hijacked, robbed and even killed by fake (or criminal) cops.
Paul says:
October 29, 2009 at 8:53 am
“p.s you seem to be anti ANC – is that true for many in the pro gun lobby?”
Not that this has anything to do with anything, of course… ;-{)}
———————————————————————————————————
Read Brett Nortje says:October 29, 2009 at 8:35 am.
Paul says:
October 29, 2009 at 8:40 am
“the SAPS has, on several ocassions, denied that this is their role in any case”.
Where does this come from – it’s the second time that it has been raised.
Maggs, the other night (actually I spent several hours there first for the Sunrise interview, then for the News Channel interview and then later for the debate) at the eTV studios I spent a lot of time chatting with the staff there, and particularly with the GFSA Chair.
I think it is safe to say that we are all unanimous on many points.
As you say, the devil is in how we resolve the crime issue.
This, I believe, is one of the problems with the entire gun control strawman. It diverts our attention from the real issue, which is crime and criminals!
We are (as South African tax-paying citizens) spending HUGE funds and resources chasing the gun control agenda to the exclusion of fighting crime, when even the SAPS admit that legal gun-owners aren’t the problem. WTF?
Maggs said:
“Read Brett Nortje says:October 29, 2009 at 8:35 am.”
Ah, yes…
Well, what can one say? I certainly don’t speak for Brett (he seems more than capable of speaking for himself anyway), but how I read that is that the Public Protector is yet another of those posts we see filled with ‘party faithfull’ (’twas the same under the Nats) who can be relied upon NOT to upset the applecart… or is that the gravytrain?
Certainly the previous incumbent in the post went out of his way to turn a blind eye to anything which could be construed to be even vaguely annoying to the regime.
Maybe since the ANC raped the oversight powers of the official opposition (remember that whole saga with SCOPA?) we have come to be justifiably cynical about cadre deployment?
Well Maggs, even if our constitution doesn’t have provisions for the formation of a civilian militia, we certainly have one!
Paul says:
October 29, 2009 at 9:08 am
It’s a worrying dimension (the link between pro-gun and anti ANC that is).
Harold said:
“Well Maggs, even if our constitution doesn’t have provisions for the formation of a civilian militia, we certainly have one!”
We certainly do! And, might I add, we private citizens who take the defence of our democracy and our families and communities seriously are getting tired of carrying this thankless burden on behalf of those who would rather leach off the taxpayers for their security.
In Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont ‘s own Constitution very carefully, and
his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New
England and elsewhere.
Maslack recently proposed a bill to register “non-gun-owners” and require
them to pay a $500 fee to the state.
Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun
Maslack read the “militia” phrase of the Second Amendment as not only affirming the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as a clear
mandate to do so.
He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a “monopoly of force” by the government as well as criminals.
Vermont ‘s constitution states explicitly that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State” and those persons
who are “conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms” shall be required to “pay such equivalent.” Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a
constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to “any situation that may arise.”
Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required
to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver’s
license number with the state.
“There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do
so,” Maslack says.
Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least
restrictive laws of any state … it’s currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate
that is the third lowest in the nation.
“America is at that awkward stage.
It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”
There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns. Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way.
TIC,… well, almost… :-{)}
Lovely leftist sentimentalist crappola. Any ideas on how we can disarm the criminals who can’t be disarmed unless we shoot them? I have an idea for you. Since you are such a gun free SA freak, I will personally donate a large sign for you to hang outside your house that says “I support a gun free SA. There are no guns in this house”. I bet you won’t do it. Hypocrite. 99,5% of registered gun owners are responsible owners and have shot no one. It’s the 0.5% in the hands of criminals who do all the killing. Get your facts right. I reserve the right to defend myself, my family and my property by whatever means possible and I don’t need leftist sissies like you who find them “greasy” and make a big bang to take that right away from me. Let me know when you want the sign.
Maggs said: “It’s a worrying dimension (the link between pro-gun and anti ANC that is).”
Huh?!
Why on earth should that be worrying?
Do you have to be a card-carrying member to like guns? I know a lot of card-carrying members DO like guns. One in partuicular (although not a conscientous gun-owner by any measure) likes to hop about on stage asking if anyone has found the machine gun he lost.
Ah Maggs
It appears you are intent on ducking most of my points to you
You would be happy with only highly specialized units such a Spe cial Task Force or NIU be armed, I put to you that the only difference between an NIU officer and a “ordinary” shift member is the training they recieve, the training NIU recieves puts them about at the equivilant of a dedicated CIVILIAN sports shooter! so I hope that addresses your skills question, also bear in mind that the SAPS general training in firearms is not even recognized as adequate training for competency to own a firearm by the CFR, a unit of the SAPS!
I will also add that it would appear as if the pro gun lobby has successfully rebutted everysingle one of the anti guns lobby’s arguments and true to form the anti gun lobby is intent on now introducing emotive hype into the debate, you make a mockery of the liberals call to freedom of expression, expression is only free if I agree with your viewpoint in your logic set.
Yes we have common ground the rise and levels of violent crime, this is due to various factors not the smallest of which is the inadequate training currently on offer to members of the SAPS whose training department has been compelled to adhere to a minimum standards element. Also I think if you read back over numerous thread CIVILIAN owned firearms are not causal factors of the violent crime rates!
I still want an answer to my question how is my firearm worn in conjunction with the current law in anyway affecting or impacting your life (bear in mind I come from a background of one of those specialised units in the SAPS and am a dedicated sports shooter?) How does it affect you and if it does not why are you so dead set about taking away my right to propert and my ability to protect my family?
Also has any pro gun group ever compelled or even asked you to carry a firearm? if not why are you so dead set at sticking your nose in their business
also Maggs you have supported the call that in Nations such as the UK and Japan require permits extended only in highly needed cases or special cases I would be interested to understand what you see as those special cases
For me living in a high crime area, being at a daily threat of vehicle hijacking, home invasion, armed robbery and murder would be significant motivation for a special case would you not think?
I would also like to emphasize that when your side is losing the debate based on facts that you refrain from attempting to bring in little digs such I guess the pro gun lobby does not support the ANC, wake up we are in a democracy why should it be pertinent who I support? again stop the childish inneunendo’s also Harold why the little dig about Militia’s are you that upset to lose this debate after all you dont seem to have property at stake here, I believe its just because there is the perception that all firearms owners are conservative, which is their right anybody can be conservative but there are thousand of liberal firearms owners! again what is this attitude that you will only support the rights of those who agree with you? also Harold are you even aware of the context of the term militia in the US constitution?
Maggs Naidu says:
“CHICAGO, March 25 /U.S. Newswire/ — A study included in a just- released book debunks the claim by leading pro-gun researcher John Lott that allowing Americans to carry concealed handguns leads to less crime.
“The book ‘Evaluating Gun Policy,’ published by the Brookings Institution Press, includes research by Professor John Donohue Ph.D., J.D., Stanford University Law School, and Professor Ian Ayres Ph.D., J.D., Yale Law School, that concludes Carry Concealed Weapons (CCW) laws do not decrease crime; they may, in fact, have just the opposite effect.”
Note the statement CCW laws do not decrease crime, they “may” in fact have just the opposite effect. Not he said “may” he did not say “has” or “will.”
Those carrying out that so called research are out and out gun prohibitionists and biased in the extreme, while John Lotts research was unbiased.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30405
Concealed Carry Permits Are Life Savers
by Rep. Cliff Stearns
01/26/2009
The right to bear arms is more than a Constitutional right: every human being has the natural unalienable right to self-defense. Cicero said 2,000 years ago, “If our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.”
The U.S. Constitution, the constitutions of 44 states, common law, and the laws of all 50 states recognize the right to use arms in self-defense. Right to carry laws respect the right to self-defense by allowing individuals to carry concealed firearms for their own protection.
So many liberal politicians and self-appointed experts want to keep honest Americans from having access to firearms, even though, since 2003, in states which allow concealed carry, violent crime rates have been lower than anytime since the mid-1970s. The reverse logic of this “knee jerk” reaction is astounding and has lead to an outright assault on our basic Constitutional and natural rights. These misguided policies to keep firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens literally mean a death sentence for thousands of Americans.
In research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, in which almost 2,000 felons were interviewed, 34% of felons said they had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim” and 40% of these criminals admitted that they had been deterred from committing a crime out of fear that the potential victim was armed.
Allowing law-abiding people to arm themselves offers more than piece of mind for those individuals — it pays off for everybody through lower crime rates. Statistics from the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report of 2007 show that states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rate and a 22% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws. That is why more and more states have passed right-to-carry laws over the past decade.
In 1987, my home state of Florida enacted a “shall issue” law that has become the model for other states. Anti-gun groups, politicians and the news media predicted the new law would lead to vigilante justice and “Wild West” shootouts on every corner.
But since adopting a concealed carry law Florida’s total violent crime rate has dropped 32% and its homicide rate has dropped 58%. Floridians, except for criminals, are safer due to this law. And Florida is not alone. Texas’ violent crime rate has dropped 20% and homicide rate has dropped 31%, since enactment of its 1996 carry law.
Another study makes the moral case for expanding and enhancing right-to-carry laws. A report by John Lott, Jr. and David Mustard of the University of Chicago released in 1996 found “that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths.” Further, the Lott-Mustard study noted, “If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly.”
@ Maggs
yes I see the Specialized Units are the ones we should trust, mmm yeah right!
news24.com
‘Evidence fabricated’ in cop trial
2009-10-28 22:24
Johannesburg – One of the three West Rand police officers accused of selling confiscated drugs to drug lords has denied giving them to a police informant at a church in Mohlakeng, Randfontein.
Speaking through his lawyer Nardus Grove in the South Gauteng High Court on Wednesday, Captain Victor Jwili, 38, said evidence given by Norman Kokoeng “was a fabrication”.
“The accused [Jwili] will state that evidence related to the incident at the church is a fabrication,” Grove said while cross-examining Kokoeng on Wednesday morning.
Church choir conductor
Kokoeng told the court on Tuesday that he had met Jwili, who was conducting a church choir at the time, and received drugs including Mandrax, cocaine and ecstasy.
Acting as a police informant, Kokoeng would give the three officers information about where to find drugs and direct them to those houses. He told the court that once the drugs were found, they would be sold for cash.
“I did meet with him there [at a church in Mohlakeng]… That’s where we collected the drugs. The stuff was confiscated at a raid the night before,” Kokoeng said in response to Grove’s argument.
Like most of the drugs confiscated by police, those handed to Kokoeng at the church were to be sold to a drug lord later on, he said.
But the man tasked with selling the drugs, Kenneth Bogopane, was arrested before he could meet with the drug lord outside a townhouse complex in Fourways, northern Johannesburg.
Never charged
A day after his arrest Bogopane was however released after alleged intervention from Jwili’s co-accused, Senior Superintendent Dumisani Jwara, 43.
“Accused one [Jwara] said he’ll sort it out… Kenneth was released a day later. He was never charged, never appeared in court,” Kokoeng said.
Jwara was the West Rand Organised Crime Unit head at the time. He allegedly convinced Kokoeng to stop operating as a police informer in Vereeniging and move with him to the West Rand.
Once in the West Rand, Jwara allegedly introduced him to Jwili and Captain Sakhepi Caiphus Shange, who died in police custody in July.
Kokoeng told the court he did not know Captain Landro Mokgosani, who was facing 13 charges of drug dealing, racketeering, fraud, theft and attempted theft along with Jwara and Jwili.
Syndicate
The three allegedly ran a drug smuggling syndicate in the Johannesburg suburbs of Paulshof, Sandton and Fourways, as well as the Pretoria east suburb of Lyttelton between 2005 and 2007.
Some of the drugs allegedly sold on by the officers included 198kg of cocaine they allegedly stole from OR Tambo International Airport on October 3 2007. They got R1 425 000 for this haul.
Grove was expected to continue cross examining Kokoeng on Thursday.
He was interrupted twice on Wednesday due to a bomb scare that turned out to be a hoax, and later by a stenographer who arrived late from lunch, sending Judge Nico Coetzee into a fit of rage.
“Tell me why you made me wait. Why did you make a judge wait? I don’t want to see you in my court ever again… Get a replacement,” Coetzee told the man who delayed proceedings by 35 minutes.
Coetzee stormed out of the court and returned a few minutes later when a new stenographer was brought in.
- SAPA
Harold Ferwood wrote
@ Jack
I’m very much pro “right to bear arms” but am scared s*%tless if it means being associated with the likes of you! This hard-line attitude, which borders on fundamentalism, is contrary to what is expected from a responsible gun owner.
Why because I passionately defend the right to protect the lives of my family and myself? Yes I do have a hard line attitude, damn right I do. I object strongly to people who want to put my family at risk to be murdered, tortured, raped and robbed by the criminal scum that blight South Africa by telling me I shall not or should not have that right!
I don’t give a toss if you want to be associated with me or not, you claim to be pro gun yet you state
“Please advise in how we can achieve a gun-free society if you can, rather than blindly defend its ownership when you know that other owners or both negligent and irresponsible with this most dangerous of personal property – which these laws are meant to take out of their hands.”
Thats not a comment of someone who says they are pro gun and neither are these laws tackling the real problem, the illegal guns in the hands of criminals, but are taking by underhanded tactics to remove legally held firearms from the hands of the law-abiding, the infirm and the elderly.
Thanks Pierre
Good post.
What I find interesting is that we have a sudden deluge of new commentators on this site, passionately defending guns.
It would seem judging from their names that white English speaking whites gets as excited about guns as Afrikaners about Afrikaans?
Paul says:
October 29, 2009 at 9:43 am
“One in partuicular (although not a conscientous gun-owner by any measure) likes to hop about on stage asking if anyone has found the machine gun he lost.”
LOL!
Jack Pollard
John Lotts cannot be said to be unbiased if he “lost” the research data.
Pretending to be some woman also does not help his case.
Maggs said: “Pretending to be some woman also does not help his case.”
Are you being gender-insensitive?
Kameraad why are you playing the race card is that an attempt to obstuficate the facts of this debate?
Paul says:
October 29, 2009 at 11:36 am
Maggs said: “Pretending to be some woman also does not help his case.”
Are you being gender-insensitive?
———————————————————————————————————–
Touche!
FYI Maggs Naidu says:October 28, 2009 at 17:17 pm
“For instance, John Lott, who is currently a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has come under fire for pretending to be a woman over the Internet (using the name ‘Mary Rosh’) to defend himself against his critics. ‘Mary Rosh’ claimed to be a student of John Lott’s and praised his research.”
My personal view is this:
1. Our subcontinent apperas to be awash in firearms left over from civil wars (including our own). By all available data I can find on the internet we are talking millions of arms, whether assault rifles or handguns.
2. These have an economic value to the possessors, whether by way of using them in crimes directly themselves, leasing them to criminals or by selling them to criminals. This I refer to as the “crime-value” further along.
3. The crime value is generally highest in South Africa because of its (relatively) wealthy population. Inevitably therefore these arms will filter through into South Africa and be used in perpetrating crimes here.
4. It is an utterly impossible task to round up millions of firearms in the hands of unidentified possessors by main force.
5. The only way to round up the arms is to create a vast a well-funded purchasing scheme in terms of which firearms are bought up at a value above the “crime-value” on a “no questions asked” basis. You produce the firearm, you are paid for it and you go on your way. No one asks your identity or where you got it from. The firerarm is immediately cut to pieces then and there. Even so it will take years and will cost many, many billions to achieve. But there is no other way at all to soak up the merchandise in what appears to be the very vast illegal and unregistered firearms market out there.
6. In the larger scheme of things, based on what I read, the arms stolen from private owners appears to be a miniscule factor in the overall problem and it that is true then disarming private firearm owners is not going to materially change anything and from a strategic perspective is probably a misguided use of resources as it does not focus at the primary cause of the problem. To the extent that private firearms are removed from the equation the equivalent market demand will simply be filled with other illegal firerams as referred to above.
Maggs Naidu says:
October 29, 2009 at 11:43 am
HAHA! He became his own praise crier?? Talk about blowing smoke up one’s ass!
I see guns create an orgy of a debate. Welcome to all the new noisemakers.
Comrade D said: “My personal view is this:…”
You have obviously given this a great deal of thought.
Interesting proposals. I’m not sure how politically palatable it will be to a government who is on record as refusing to pay even licensed firearm owners their just compensation on the basis of “How can I pay you for an evil thing!”
Gwebecimele says: “I see guns create an orgy of a debate. Welcome to all the new noisemakers.”
A veritable fusilade of responses…
This is a debate that we need to have. There are entrenched positions and ‘beliefs’ that verge on the religious at play.
Whilst ‘gunowners’ are lumped together in a big pile they are far from a homogenous grouping. One big blanket covers wingshooters, hunters, dozens of sport shooting codes, and then the real bone of contention… self-defence firearm owners.
@ Harold
as opposed to either you or Maggs banding about emotive terms such as Militia or implying that disagreement with the ANC somehow devoids ones right to adopt a standpoint! talk about hypocrysey, so called Liberals who dont believe in freedom of speech, unless of course it agree’s with their standpoints!
Bryan if you care to check above I expressed some sympathy for the pro guns guys although I have (or had) reservations before.
I was partly pulling your leg. Lighten up man.
But I have to say I find it weird that many people get so exercised about this one particular issue. Even more so than Judge Hlophe or the many other calamities were facing.
I find it odd but interesting how this issue in particular in a country with so many problems gets people on their high horse.
Kameraad Mhambi says: “I find it odd but interesting how this issue in particular in a country with so many problems gets people on their high horse.”
Ja… I think it’s maybe our version of the American saying: “The Second Amendment is there for when all the other ones fail!”
We can get by without electricity by having our own generators, solar power, or permanent braaivleis. We can commute on the potholed streets by driving 4X4s, but with a non-functional police force who’s there to protect us at 2am when the armed home invaders come over the walls if we don’t have access to a firearm?
Kameraad
Thanks for clearing that up, I suppose if government or a group of people formed a lobbyist movement to seize house, vehicles or any other property they would feel just as uptight about it!
I know for myself as a firearms owner the fact that people want to deny me a right to own a piece of property when my ownership of that does not impact them in the slightest really does get me worked up, there are a huge number of other aspects but we as firearms owners are being discriminated against! if a person was discrimnated against as much as we are due to the colour of their skins (area’s you cannot go, having to jump through hoops for the police etc etc) people would have called it Apartheid and we would have had sanctions on our side, but no we are portrayed as evil people who want to shoot everything we see, which is patently untrue I for one am tired of being trampled on!
Well a word of advice from somebody that reluctantly supports your point of view.
Don’t seem too hysterical and refrain from the habit of writing stuff in ALL CAPS. It makes you seems like you protest too much and not a little bit irritating.
Noted Kameraad and thanks!
How strange Maggs didnt comment on the town of Kennesaw in the USA. Maybe because the facts doesnt jell with his anti gun propaganda.
http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
Rense.com
Gun Ownership – It’s The Law In Kennesaw
By Jonathan Hamilton and David Burch
Marietta Daily Journal Staff Writers
http://www.mdjonline.com/StoryDetail.cfm?id=10017128&Section=Home%20Page
3-14-1
KENNESAW, Ga – Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.
In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.
The ordinance states the gun law is needed to “protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants.”
Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone “went crazy.”
“People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes,” he said. “Of course, that wasn’t the case.”
In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge.
Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law’s passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.
“It did drop after it was passed,” he said. “After it initially dropped, it has stayed at the same low level for the past 16 years.”
Mayor Leonard Church was not in office when the law was passed, but he said he is a staunch supporter of it.
“You can’t argue with the fact that Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate of any city our size in the country,” said Church, who owns a denture-making company in Kennesaw.
The author of the ordinance, local attorney Fred Bentley Sr., attributes at least some of the decrease in crime to the bill.
“I am definitely in favor of what we did,” he said. “It may not be totally responsible for the decrease, [but] it is a part.”
Although he is pleased with the outcome, Bentley said he was originally opposed to drafting the law.
“I didn’t think it could be written in a constitutional fashion,” he said. “Obviously, it was constitutional, because the American Civil Liberties Union challenged it in court and we won.”
Jones said the ACLU challenged the law in a federal court just after it was passed. In response, the city added a clause adding conscientious objectors to the list of those exempt.
Although the law is now being credited with a drop in crime, Jones said that was not the law’s original purpose. He also pointed out that Kennesaw did not have a big problem with crime before.
“The crime rate wasn’t that high to start with. It was 11 burglaries per 1,000 residents in 1981,” he said.
According to the Kennesaw Police Department, the city’s most recent crime statistics show 243 property crimes per 100,000 residents in 1998, or .243 per 1,000.
The city’s crime rate continues to be far below other metro Atlanta city’s with similar populations, like Decatur. In 1998, Decatur recorded 4,049 property crimes per 100,000 residents.
Jones said one motivation for the council passing the ordinance had to do with publicity.
“It was done in response to a law passed by Morton Grove, Ill., outlawing gun ownership within the city limits,” he said. “Several council members were upset Morton Grove had gotten a lot of attention with their ordinance so they decided to top them.
“They figured the gun ownership ordinance would knock that city right off the front pages. They were right.”
Jones said the ensuing publicity surrounding the law has given Kennesaw worldwide name recognition.
“I have been to Australia and Europe and when I tell people I am from Kennesaw they recognize the name as the place that requires everyone to own a gun,” he said.
But Stephenson said the issue was not publicity-driven but issue-driven.
“We believed in the right of people to own guns,” he said.
Jones said he has sold 550 copies of a 1994 book about the first-of-its-kind law, “The Law Heard ‘Round the World.”
He said the law in its final form has many loopholes, so not everyone is required to own a gun.
“There are many outs,” he said. “When you look at it, almost anyone could fit into one of the exempted groups.”
Kennesaw Police Chief Dwaine Wilson said no one has ever been prosecuted under the ordinance.
Among those exempt are residents “who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine.” Others exempt include the physically and mentally disabled, paupers and those convicted of a felony.
The law contains no clause addressing punishment for violating the law. If convicted, City Clerk Diane Coker said punishment would be determined by the general penalty clause of the Kennesaw Code Ordinance – probably a fine of about $100.
Jones said the unusual law has not deterred anyone from moving to Kennesaw.
“Our population has increased just like everyone’s in Georgia in the past 20 years,” he said. “The law really hasn’t done any harm to the city’s growth.”
The city’s population in 1998 was recorded at 14,493 – a sharp increase over the 8,936 residents recorded in the 1990 census.
Cobb Chamber of Commerce president Bill Cooper said odd laws are typically not counted as strike against a city when a business is looking to relocate.
“These laws don’t have laws don’t have an impact on a company’s decision to move to Cobb County,” Cooper said.
“Many communities have strange laws that are out of date. Businesses look at many factors when relocating, such as quality of life, education, infrastructure and available workforce.”
Bentley said the law actually may have helped business development.
“Kennesaw is home to more manufacturing businesses than any other Cobb city,” he said. “Companies have said they want to be located in conservative areas.”
There is most certainly a crying need for proper debate re. gun ownership in SA – but this forum is not the place where that debate carries any weight – the debate should be between firearm owners and the government and it is a debate that government have consistently refused to engage in, preferring to dismiss out of hand and even before presentation any and all reasoned and cogent arguments which might support civilian legal ownership! Is this democracy – even the most blind amongst us can understand that the answer is a resounding NO.
The anti-gun faction on this blog do not understand the nature or composition of what they globally term ‘gun-owners’. As Paul (I think) pointed out, they are not a homogenous group in any way – not socially, income-wise, occupation-wise or culturally and racially. The ‘group’ consists of hugely disparate people the majority of whom in fact do not even understand there is a real threat to their continued ownership of their means for self-defence. They do not post on such blogs as this and they do not, like some here, study the FCA – some will not even be aware that there is a new law since 2004!
The bulk of owners are solely defence-gun owners and very illustrative of this is the story below – pay close attention to “He got his pistol – which he had not used or carried for more than a decade..” – this man is utterly typical of the majority of gun-owners – not a hunter, collector, range-shooter – just a respectable man, father of two, suburban home and living his life doing the normal things we all do.
He and his family would very probably be dead or injured today had he not had the necessary tool just a few days ago!
That this family is unharmed today is all I need to inform me that guns in responsible civilian hands are totally acceptable! The left-wing liberal woolly thinkers can take a flying f,,,k! Emotional enough for you?
//http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=vn20091024075118855C336829
Homeowner puts up a fight against robbers
October 24 2009 at 08:09AM
By Alex Eliseev
It was a split-second decision between surrender and a mad dash to the bedroom to fetch a gun and square off against a gang of robbers inside his house.
That moment, in which the father of two young boys decided to stand his ground, paid off as the armed gang fled, only to be chased by the police. One was shot dead and two were arrested.
As he sipped coffee in his yard three hours later, the ground littered with empty casings, he was grateful that the “mini Beirut” that erupted had ended without him or his family being wounded.
The robbers struck at the family’s home in Fontainebleau, Randburg, around 6.15am yesterday, sneaking in through an open kitchen door.
Two gunmen confronted the father, who was brushing his teeth and getting ready for work. His wife was at the gym while the domestic worker was helping his two boys – aged two and five – get ready for school.
In that instant, while the robbers were pointing a gun at him, the father “summed up the situation” and dashed through the passage and into the bedroom.
He got his pistol – which he had not used or carried for more than a decade – and ran to the back of the house.
“I was fortunate that I could respond. They didn’t expect it and it put them on the back foot,” said the man, who asked that his name and address be withheld.
The robbers had got their hands on an old Nokia cellphone and were trying to get away. But the domestic worker, while escaping, had locked the kitchen door and they were trapped inside.
Leaning around the front corner of the house, the father began firing. The robbers fired back as they kicked the front entrance door in a desperate attempt to get out.
“I don’t know how many shots I fired. Fifteen? I emptied the whole clip and ran out of ammunition and went back to the safe for more. I came back to find that they had gone.” The security gate on the door was mangled.
In his orange Crocs, the father stepped between the bullets – circled in chalk by police – and expressed relief at the lucky end to the intrusion.
“It was an opportunistic crime. They threatened my family and me. How more people weren’t injured, I don’t know. It wasn’t a bad outcome.”
The family believe there were four or five robbers.
Three got into a white Opel Corsa and sped away. It’s unclear who called the police, but they arrived within minutes and chased the Corsa.
Police spokesman Inspector Bokkie Keulder said the robbers pointed guns at the officers, but couldn’t shoot because of the bends in the small residential streets.
The cars reached nearby Robindale and the driver of the Corsa lost control. The car swerved, crashed into a wall and rolled onto its side.
“Two guys jumped out and started shooting. The police returned fire,” Keulder said.
One of the robbers was wounded – he collapsed in a nearby ditch, where he died.
The driver of the Corsa was arrested and the third lay trapped inside the car at the corner of Valley and Yvette streets. An ambulance was called and the robber was pulled from the wreck. He was taken to hospital under police guard.
Keulder did not have information on those arrested, saying only that they seemed to be aged between 25 and 30.
Police seized a firearm from the gang.//
Hands up those who only wants cops to have guns?
Trigger-happy cops mess up again
29 October 2009
Cecil Motsepe
———— ——— —http://www.sowetan. co.za/News/ Article.aspx? id=1082822—— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —-
LUCKY ESCAPE: Two of the bullet holes in Vedzisane Tshukudu’s Golf 5. Others are in the front left passenger door, the left front wheel and the driver’s seat. PHOTO: Peggy Nkomo
Related Content
‘Trigger-happy’ police fired bullets at toddlers
PRETORIA police have again been accused of being trigger-happy after they chased and opened fire on occupants of a car after they mistook them for robbers.
The officers were responding to a robbery in Wonderboom, outside Pretoria when they came across their victims.
They sprayed the car with a hail of bullets, wounding the driver in the shoulder and leaving the VW Golf riddled with bullet holes.
The victims described the police action as shocking.
“It was was thoughtless. They really traumatised us,” Vedzisane Tshukudu said.
This comes a fortnight after other police shot and killed Olga Kekana, 29, of Stinkwater near Pretoria, when they fired at the car in which she was travelling.
The police suspected that Kekana and her companions were hijackers after a car similar to the one she was travelling in was reported hijacked.
In the latest incident last Friday, Tshukudu, 42, Kagiso Gaanakgomo, 37, and Phineas Lenkopa, 30, said they were lucky to be alive after police fired several shots at them.
Describing their ordeal yesterday, Tshukudu said the incident started when their car was bumped from behind by a minibus taxi.
“Our car stalled and just as we were trying to get it started a policeman emerged from nowhere and started shooting at us. From the way he was shooting it was clear he was determined to finish us off. More police came and started assaulting us,” Tshukudu said.
Lenkopa said: “The police just shot at us without any warning. They searched our car for guns but all they found was a couple of beers.”
When the police realised their mistake they had the three locked up on trumped-up charges over the weekend.
Documents in our possession show the men were detained at Wonderboompoort police station and incredibly charged with reckless and negligent driving.
“How do you charge passengers with reckless driving?” asked their lawyer, Tlou Selolo, who also confirmed that a case of attempted murder had been opened against the officers involved.
The Pretoria magistrate’s court on Monday withdrew the charges against the men.
Selolo said: “We are suing for close to a million for unlawful arrest and general damages.”
Maggs (sorry Maggs, I thought it was a nickname – Maggie/ Margaret) believes only select police units should be armed. Like the VIP protection unit! LOL!
Maggs, the former Commissioner of the SAPS is on trial at the moment? Senior members of the Explosives Unit were arrested for being behind the ATM bombings? etcetcetc….
One thing you can take to the bank: I hold the ANC in absolute contempt. Now Pierre has two grounds for unfitness to possess firearms he can include in his submission to the drafters of the FCA Amendments: Gun owners who spank him on constitutional issues in debate on his blog ‘ConstitutionallySpeaking’ and gun owners who hold the ANC in absolute contempt.
Stewart, I think you make some very good points.
Another example of Gun control failing miserably..
UK Gun crime doubles in a decade
Gun crime has almost doubled in the last decade despite high profile Government campaigns to tackle the problem.
By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
Published: 7:00AM GMT 27 Oct 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
Offences involving firearms have increased in all but four police areas in England and Wales since 1998, figures obtained by the Tories reveal.
One part of the country has seen the problem increase almost seven fold as the availability of guns, and criminals’ williness to use them rises.
The number of people injured or killed by a gun has also doubled under Labour.
It emerged last week that armed police are to carry out regular street patrols for the first time to help combat gun crime in London.
Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said: “These figures are all the more alarming given that it is only a week since the Metropolitan Police said it was increasing regular armed patrols in some areas of the capital.
“In areas dominated by gang culture, we’re now seeing guns used to settle scores between rivals as well as turf wars between rival drug dealers. We need to redouble our efforts to deal with the challenge.”
There were 9,865 firearm offences in 2007/08, a rise of 89 per cent on the 5,209 recorded in 1998/99.
Lancashire Police saw a 598 per cent increase from just 50 to 349 over the period while Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Essex all saw five fold increases.
In total, 21 forces saw offences at least double over the decade while just four, Cleveland, Humberside, Cambridgeshire and Sussex, saw the number fall.
While provisional figures for 2008/09 suggest overall firearm offences may be down on the previous year, they point to a doubling of the number of people injured or killed.
Some 1,760 gun related injuries or deaths were provisionally recorded for 2008/09, compared with 864 in 1998/99.
Last week, the Metropolitan Police announced officers armed with submachine guns are to patrol the streets for the first time.
A hand-picked team from CO19, the Met’s elite firearms unit, will walk the beat in gun crime hot spots in London where armed gangs have turned estates into “no-go zones”.
The officers will carry Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine guns, capable of firing 800 rounds a minute, and Glock semi-automatic pistols.
It is the first time that armed officers will be sent on routine foot patrol anywhere in the country outside Northern Ireland.
There is also a growing trend of young women being involved in gun crime.
Figures from the Met earlier this month showed the number caught hiding weapons for criminals and boyfriends increase from two in 2007 to 12 so far this year.
A Home Office spokeswoman said: “It is misleading to compare figures for 2007 / 08 with those from 2002 and before, due to changes in recording practices.
“There has been an 11 per cent fall in gun crime since 2005 and provisional figures for firearm offences recorded by the police show they account for 0.2 per cent of all recorded crime.
“We remain absolutely committed to tackling gun crime through targeted policing and tough policing.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html
Gwebecimele, there is no mystery about our presence on Pierre’s blog: A representative of Gun Free SA was confronted on CapeTalk and 702 with the fact that gun owners had won been victorious over the Minsister of Police, the SAPS and the Central Firearms Register in 2 different divisions of the High Court – arguing constitutional grounds. (In the Western Cape High Court even the SAPS’ Counsel admitted the conduct of the Minister of Police, the SAPS and the Central Firearms Register towards gun owners had been unlawful and unconstitutional.)
Typically, the Gun Free representative (who had earlier prattled on extensively about ‘personal integrity’) refused to debate the constitutional issues mumbling that the FCA HAD PASSED CONSTITUTIONAL SCRUTINY!
PIERRE’S BLOG!
So I thought I would hang out here on Pierre’s blog pointing out the poor research, the fallacies and inconsistencies of/in his arguments until eventually he kicks me off so we can accuse him of censorship if ever we run into him in debate on an open Forum – he gets invited to appear on E-TV again, say.
Brett Nortje, your style of “argumentation” (I am using the word ironically) is not much different from the style of “argumentation” used by a schoolyard bully. You seem to think he who shouts loudest and longest and hurl the most agressive insults win. But on this Blog things do not work that way (we are not in a pub or on a rugby field). Rather, here, the person who presents the most articulate and reasoned argument wins. Sadly, I have to inform you that you have not done well on that score. As yet I have not seen any legal arguments to contradict my statement that provisions in legislation to limit gun ownership will not be declared invalid by the Constitutional Court. Merely shouting about an interim interdict in the High Court does not take the matter further. What you need to do (a) is explain which rights are being limited by such provisions (not too difficult) then (b) state why the Constitutional Court will not find that the limitation is justifiable in terms of the limitation clause (that is section 36 – look it up!). The second leg of the argument has not been addressed here by the pro-gun shouters. I know why. If they had any knowledge of the CC’s section 36 jurisprudence they would know that they have not a snow balls hope in hell of convincing the court that limits on gun ownership is not justifiable in terms of the Constitution. This is because the court will find that: (i) the limitation on the rights would be minimal (especially where the law does not ban guns outright this alone would clinch the deal wfor the CC); (ii) the purpose of limiting gun use very important (the state will say guns are dangerous, that some guns – even legal one’s – fall into hands of criminals; and there are too many of them around and that it wants to limit gun ownership to make SA safer, which the Court would accept as a very important reason for limiting gun-ownership – the state would NOT have to show that this is the only way of achieving its purpose or even that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt to be the best) ; and (iii) the connection between the purpose of the law and the limitation is very close (this, again, will not be difficult to do as it will be easy to show that limiting gun posession will limit the number of guns, also the number available to be stolen). This argument is a bit like the one on same-sex marriage: those who shout the loudest do so because they know that LEGALLY they lose.
Brett my friend, just another little note to help you grasp the intricacies of constitutional law. Even if it is true that legal counsel admitted that conduct by the MInister or those who had top administer the Register was unconstitutional (something which I have no knwoledge of), it has NO (I shall just repeat that for those who are a bit slow), NO!, bearing on the Constitutionality of the Fire Arms Control Act. You seem to think it does. You are wrong. Stating that it does exposes you to ridicule by people with any knowledge of the law. Better to stop.
@ Maggs and @ Pierre
are you going to answer my questions to you?
Bryan, I think I missed that. What is the question?
Please tell me if I am denied by the state the ability to protect my right to life and security how is that not unconstitutional!
Pierre, some points:
a) Thank you so much for elaborating on these issues. It really helps to have someone to play devils’ advocate with (No! That’s not a dig at lawyers in general),
b) I believe that ‘our’ understanding of the verbatim judgements by both Pretorius J and Traverso JP are on the money. But sans the published judgements can offer no further proof. Since this is merely a speculative discussion in any case I would submit that this should be taken on faith in the interim (it’s not like anyone is going to hold you to an opinion),
c) You complain (rightly) about the aggressive and combative style of some of the commentators. What you fail to take into account is, as one of the commentators stated, that firearm owners have been vilified and driven with our backs against a wall by a law, a regime, and a process which is in the words of Pretorius J “prima facie … unconstitutional” (whatever you may think of the careeer prospects of the man. He may not be politically astute, but he gets full marks for speaking truth to power), and
d) That said you indulge yourself in a fair amount of sarcasm and ad hominem ;-{>}
Brett Nortje says:
October 29, 2009 at 15:36 pm
“Maggs (sorry Maggs, I thought it was a nickname – Maggie/ Margaret) believes only select police units should be armed. Like the VIP protection unit! LOL!”
No problem about the gender thing – I may be a girl, I just don’t know it yet
.
You’re right that I think only select units should be allowed to carry guns.
You and others have pointed out, quite well, the inadequacy of the general policepersons training.
p.s. read the rest of what I wrote in that regard – if you still don’t follow I will be happy to do the baby steps thing.
Maggs said: “No problem about the gender thing – I may be a girl, I just don’t know it yet
.”
How fast can you run? There may be an opening in the athletics squad…
Paul says:
October 29, 2009 at 16:27 pm
How fast can you run? There may be an opening in the athletics squad…
———————————————————————————————————
LOL!
p.s. I presume that you’re hinting at the Presidency of ASS (eish these Freudian slips) I mean ASA that will probably be vacant soon!
Paul says:
October 29, 2009 at 16:23 pm
You complain (rightly) about the aggressive and combative style of some of the commentators. What you fail to take into account is, as one of the commentators stated, that firearm owners have been vilified and driven with our backs against a wall by a law,
———————————————————————————————————
If these guys are not able to contain their emotions and tempers in an internet debate, they should not be allowed to carry guns.
Prozac them I say!
Yes, yes, Pierre! So now we have a fragment of an opinion out of you on the interim interdict (although you are still ignoring the verbal reasons Judge Prinsloo gave for his judgement) and a denial of what was reported widely in the media about the compensation case.
You still have not ventured a FACT about the most important infringements of our rights I listed right at the beginning are inconsistent with the Bill of Rights but offered your summation instead. In case you just want to prattle on about the limitations clause again there is a lot of opinion to the effect that there are so many internal qualifiers in the property clause there is not much scope for applying the limitation clause.
For example, how is an arbitrary numeric limit (4) on the amount of guns I may own consistent with S25?
<<>>
Brett Nortje says:
October 27, 2009 at 15:34 pm
“S 25 of the Constitution guarantees the right to own property. Guns are
property.”
“S33 of the Constitution guarantees the right to administrative justice. Does making someone (well, actually, a million somebodies) wait 5 years for renewal of a gun licence sound to you lawful, reasonable or procedurally fair?”
“Does an unlawful de facto gun ban instituted by a middle-level manager at the Central Firearm Register because of Sheena Duncan’s goading sound consistent with PAJA to you?”
“S14 of the Constitution guarantees the right to privacy. Does unlawful home invasions to do safe-inspections when the Constitutional Court has addressed the issue of regulatory inspections that extend into private homes in Mistry and in Mahanjane sound consistent with S14?”
“S 137 of the Firearms Control Act makes provision for compensation for surrendered firearms. Charles Nqakula and Jackie Selebi told Parliament they just flat out refuse to pay. The Western Cape High Court told the Minister August 31 that the Department and the SAPS’ conduct towards gun owners since 2004 was “unlawful and unconstitutional””
“Anyone can see our ill-advised President wants to Amend the Firearms Control Act retroactively to bypass/thwart the Western Cape High Court judgement so completing the destruction of the rule of law and our constitutional rights”
Why do you lot from the Gun Gestapo not push to criminalise ‘vehement exercise of their right to freedom of expression by gunowners’?
Be honest – you object to any gun owner offering an opinion that contradicts you. You have very little respect for other people’s constitutional rights were you disagree with them. You pay lip service to the rights culture.
When Cesare Beccaria wrote On Crimes and Punishments in 1764 what did he mean by this comment on laws that de Vos is so vehemently defending.
Chapter 40 Of Laws of Utility
The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.
It is a false idea of utility that would give to a multitude of sensible beings that symmetry and order which inanimate matter is alone capable of receiving; to neglect the present, which are the only motives that act with force and constancy on the multitude for the more distant, whose impressions are weak and transitory, unless increased by that strength of imagination so very uncommon among mankind. Finally, that is a false idea of utility which, sacrificing things to names, separates the public good from that of individuals.
There is this difference between a state of society and a state of nature, that a savage does no more mischief to another than is necessary to procure some benefit to himself: but a man in society is sometimes tempted, from a fault in the laws, to injure another without any prospect of advantage. The tyrant inspires his vassals with fear and servility, which rebound upon him with double force, and are the cause of his torment. Fear, the more private and domestic it is, the less dangerous is it to him who makes it the instrument of his happiness; but the more it is public, and the greater number of people it affects, the greater is the probability that some mad, desperate, or designing person will seduce others to his party by flattering expectations; and this will be the more easily accomplished as the danger of the enterprise will be divided amongst a greater number, because the value the unhappy set upon their existence is less, as their misery is greater.
Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, what did he mean by his expression of a similar sentiment to Cesare Beccaria. Blackstone discussed the right of self-defence in a separate section of his treatise on the common law of crimes. Blackstone himself also commented on English game laws, Vol. II, p. 412, “that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws.
St. George Tucker criticised the English Bill of Rights for limiting gun ownership to the very wealthy, leaving the populace effectively disarmed, and expressed the hope that Americans “never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty.
All human rights agreements confirm the right of citizens to defend their lives.
Yet we are now asked to believe that those who are supposed to uphold the law and demand we the citizens adhere to human rights, democracy, freedom and liberty are wrong to even suggest the law is an ass. That it is being perverted to suit the oppressors of freedom, liberty and democracy.
Which results in a blog by such a person that can only be described as the out pouring of a demented and hate filled soul filled with appeals to fear peppered with slogans, labels and hate speech designed to turn public opinion against a segment of society that has yet to be proven guilty of anything. I am reminded of Hitlers blogs on Jews and the Roman Catholic Church’s opinion of heretics.
Would that one assertion of the guilt of firearm owners Prof so readily condemns were true. And I am loath to use that as a title because it sure is not deserved by his blog.
I shall ask only one question of Mr de Vos. Which more strict gun control law passed anywhere in the world can be shown with reliable proof to have reduced either crime or the supply of guns to criminals. When you have found one assuming you can find one do comment on the statical significance of this law/s and the reliance that it has any valid meaning in passing more such laws.
The safety of citizens depends on truly great people being able to face the truth and make sure that laws are not passed by unscrupulous governments to subvert the rights and freedoms of citizens no matter what persuasive “evidence” is presented.
The question the people of South Africa should be asking themselves is should government be chasing guns when clearly the problem is one of criminality. When the SAPS “lose” thousands of firearms, the problem is not seen as condoning criminality in the SAPS and attempting to cover up and diverting attention from this failure.
Our crime rate is not a problem of GUNS as can be very easily demonstrated by anyone who wishes to do so but one of utter incompetence and bad policy. When the SAPS spend a fortune on tracking registered gun owners and 500..1000 police members each day do nothing but push gun control paperwork without the hope of arresting a single violent criminal, that is a waste no government will admit to or even produce figures to show its worth.
What would be the result of such a ban, that no law-abiding citizen would be armed and how would criminals with violent natures react to this situation?
· Would violent criminals as the gun control lobby claims now be deprived of firearms? Greenwood’s study has already found that the pool of illegal firearms is more than sufficient to continue the supply for many years.
· Would criminals already enticed by easy money, low risk of prosecution and an expensive life-style from the massive proceeds of crime suddenly develop a social conscious and seek menial low paid work? Few would think there was even a vague chance of such lofty ideals.
· Would unarmed citizens now dissuade criminals – and aspirant criminals – not quite so brave enough to risk life and limb with confrontation of an armed citizen, in a safe work place and no risk of serious injury or even death, from committing crime?
· Would government’s gift of unarmed victims to criminals be seen as an act of friendship and aid or a reason to rehabilitate themselves into becoming law-abiding model citizens?
· Would all citizens suffer higher crime rates and increased risk of injury, even death, because of this ban or would we be living in the promised land of safety and security?
It should come as no surprise to anyone that violent and even non-violent criminals will react by celebrating the bounty of unarmed victims awarded to them by government in the only way possible, by becoming even more brazen and active in crime. Government will not accept any responsibility for increased crime by paying victims compensation for their decisions, the self-evident results of such legislation could hardly be claimed to be unknown.
But as long as citizens demand gun control the government is let off the hook for its dismal failure to control violent crime.
Maggs said:
“If these guys are not able to contain their emotions and tempers in an internet debate, they should not be allowed to carry guns.
Prozac them I say!”
I assume you’re being seriously unserious here.
But this is illustrative of the problem we have. We are bullied into a corner like rats, then, when we become strident or vehement in our own defense our attackers (remember, we are not trying to force you to own firearms!) sit back and say: “Oooh! Look how ill-tempered they are…”
Bear in mind that the attack on US – it’s not even on our rights anymore. The attack has long ago shifted to an attack on our persons and characters (as well illustrated by some of the comments on this board) – is NOT founded on any reasoned argumentation or peer-reviewed (not you, Pierre) collection of data. Every single credible study on the subject – backed up by the SAPS’ own data, such as it pretends to be – supports our case!
I should point out that “strident and vehement” is not considered to be illegal in South Africa just yet – although there are worrying signs that it may soon become so.
For all the people shouting gunowners down and likening them to rabid, uncontrollable dogs, it is these same ‘rabid dogs’ who are employing (at great personal expense) the courts and the laws of South Africa to castigate and punish the government and various State intitutions that are breaking those laws. Wierd, innit?
It would appear that the gunowners (who should really just bend over – some more – and take it with a smile) are the ones fighting on the side of the angels, time and again…
And yet WE are vilified??? WTF???
Paul says:
October 30, 2009 at 7:11 am
“I assume you’re being seriously unserious here”.
You’re being a teeny bit melodramatic in most of your comment.
“The attack has long ago shifted to an attack on our persons and characters (as well illustrated by some of the comments on this board)” for example.
This is cyberspace – except for Pierre and I, maybe a few others, most use pseudonyms or monikers that is hardly traceable – even if they were traceable nobody cares much (except those who maybe missed their Prozac).
Comments are made and ripped, laughed at, scorned at – all in the glory of the world wide web.
So go and fight a good fight – if you win, so be it.
If you lose, tough titties!
Crybabies!
One very important proviso when you read his comments: Implicit in Pierre’s resorting to the limitations clause is that he agrees with Judge Prinsloo:
There is a strong prima facia case that the FCA is unconstitutional.
It is a two stage approach.
Of course, what Pierre discounts is that gun control punishes the innocent. (He and Maggs think gun owners are crude, dirty, greasy men who hang out in bars so they deserve no rights. News for you: I do not follow rugby and I think I have had about 3 beers this year and a couple of glasses of wine .)We’re not even talking about the limitation of the rights of suspects here, but people against whom there is not even a hint of wrongdoing. Gun laws are not aimed at criminals but the innocent. It is a unique form of prior restraint. ‘We will ban guns to prevent them from being stolen.’
Can you imagine anything more morally corrupt?
Brett Nortje says:
October 30, 2009 at 8:03 am
“He and Maggs think gun owners are crude, dirty, greasy men who hang out in bars so they deserve no rights.”
Need I remind you that some of my best friends are gun owners?
Men and women!
But now that I think about it, maybe you have a point there.
Brett Nortje says:
October 30, 2009 at 8:03 am
“Can you imagine anything more morally corrupt?”
Yeah.
Closing down of teacher training colleges.
Arms Deal I
Refusal to roll out ARVs
Arms Deal II.
There’s a long list.
Yours is number 8’798’367 on that list.
Pierre,
I have been reading these posts with some interests.
I am not necessarily supportive of private gun ownership in South Africa but I think one needs to take unbiased view of matters. I form the view that your responses so far may well be coloured by your dislike of firearms, just as some of the other posters here I think have their views coloured by their affinity for firearms. We need to get the heat out of the discussion though in order to arrive at anything meaningful. Unlike you I am not a constitutional lawyer although I am a lawyer and I have been around the block a good few times. There are a couple of observations I would like to make and I am genuinely interested in hearing your reasoned response to these if you have a moment:
• Firstly, I am not sure if I have understood your previous posts correctly but if you are making the point that there will never be recognised by the Constitutional Court an absolute right to private firearm ownership, I have to agree with you. This is not America. But that has never been the issue before the courts and has never been the stance of the firearms owning lobby (much as emotionally that may be what they would prefer).
• Secondly, I think you may be being unfair on Prinsloo J. Have you read all the papers he had before him? I have and I must say that SA Hunter’s and their counsel did a very creditable job (though not nearly the masterpiece of FUL in their matter with the JSC recently, which took me a good few hours to read in full) whereas the state presented a really unsatisfactory piece of work. After having read the papers and even before the interim order was handed down it was reasonably obvious what the outcome would probably have to be on the evidence before the court. Prinsloo wasn’t dealing with the issue of whether limitations placed of private firearm ownership was unconstitutional per se but rather the specific mechanisms and processes of the FCA and the state’s inability to comply with its own legislation.
• You raise the question of the limitation of rights. Certainly, when it come to firearms there should be such limitations. I don’t think there can ever be an argument to the contrary, at not successfully. But surely it is a question of the nature and extent of those limitations and that can only be assessed against a relevant factual background, not in a complete vacuum.
• I am going to ask you make a few assumptions for the purposes of this discussion:
o firstly, let us assume that cogent evidence is led to the effect that the vast majority of firearms used in crimes in this country are ex-military stock as referenced in an earlier post of mine;
o secondly, let us assume (as has been the case until now) that the state is unable to show a meaningful role of stolen private firearms in the overall crime situation (excursus: I agree that some people use private firearms negligently and that some possess them just for show and some others are simply emotionally too unstable or lacking in judgement to be permitted possession; this is however no different in principle to private motor vehicles which I imagine probably claim more lives annually through negligent handling than private firearms do) or that expropriating private firearms will have any real effect on the violent crime sitaution;
o thirdly, let us take the view that the state is unable to properly guarantee the rights in sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Constitution (the rights to human dignity, life and freedom and security of the person);
o Lastly let us assume that cogent evidence is led (and I have no doubt that it will be) to the effect that possession of a private firearm supports or may well for some possessors, support the aforementioned rights.
• If so, do you think that denuding *appropriately qualified* (i.e. taking account of the issues that I have raised above in the excursus and whatever else is relevant) private possession of firearms will be found to be a justified limitation? I have my reservations but perhaps you see something I do not.
• As a separate leg of the discussion, the state has avowed that it intends to pay nothing for expropriated firearms which were lawfully obtained (in apparent contravention of its own legislation). Do you foresee that unpaid expropriation will ever be found to be constitutional and a justified limitation? I refer here particularly to sections 25(2)(b) and 25 (3). The numbers involved are large and while I have no direct knowledge myself, I hear talk of estimates of R30 billion. If payment for all firearms has to be made, the cost of it (unless funded by resources from outside South Africa) may well simply kill the whole project.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
I guess the same kind of person would punish the innocent by banning registered firearms leaving only criminals armed and do nothing about the AIDS policy agreed upon between the ANC Women’s League and Dr Rina Venter’s Dept of Health, so condemning 6 million people to a painful, lingering death huh Maggs?
And you wanted to know how I felt about the godless, shameless ANC?
To the ANC there is no such thing as an objective morality therefore there can be no such thing as an objective reality.
Which brings us back to your list and my list of morally corrupt actions by said ANC…
Anti-gun types ahould consider this – so far and after many years of disparagement by GFSA and government of gun-owners in an attempt to serve their agenda of unconstitutional confiscation of property, the behaviour of firearm owners as a group as they have watched their rights being eroded and continually threatened has been nothing short of exemplary.
After protesting vigorously many of the stringent, onerous and needlessly costly provisions of the FCA, and being ignored, gun-owners now see a likely further tightening of this law whilst the actual implementation of the FCA has been shown to be impossible within any reasonable time-frame and at any reasonable cost to the state or to gun-owners!
The SAPS have admitted this by their failure to defend these charges in court and by the recent proposal to allocate yet more manpower in excess of the 1000 officers currently chasing legal owners and paperwork – this while real and violent crime rises inexorably in SA!
Representations have been made continuously and pleas to government for proper consultation have been ignored – Muleki George at one point was quoted as saying that “it does not matter what gun-owners say – the decision has been made”, in relation to the creation of the FCA of 2000.
Finally in desperation and at the 11th hour, court action has been used to try to protect certain rights of gun-owners and has been successful so far. That fight of course is not over.
However, unlike others who regularly threaten violence and mayhem in the streets at the slightest hint that their ‘rights’ are threatened, firearm owners have done no such thing which shows remarkable restraint and determination to remain within the law.
As a group and purely on a hypothetical level, is there any other group more equipped for mayhem?
As I pointed out earlier, gun-owners as a group cannot be simply characterised, cutting across the entire spectrum of society and race – there are for example around 1 million or about 50% black gun-owners.
Thus any characterisation of gun-owners that seeks to paint them collectively as anti-social, irresponsible or dangerous is simply a lie – one of many lies put about by gun-free advocates.
Brett Nortje says:
October 30, 2009 at 8:37 am
There’s a lot of things wrong in the world – see http://www.peta.org for example.
Or we can consider the cutting down of Amazon rain forests to plant soya which many of us gobble up and and and.
I dunno about this “punish the innocent” thing in South Africa – the rastas were denied their holy weed.
Some people with fast cars get denied the right to drive at over 120 k/h even though their cars are safe at 200.
There are serious human rights violations in prisons – I reckon that the conditions under which many are kept are cruel and inhuman treatment.
It goes on.
Your hatred for the ANC seems to be inspired other than reality – that’s a debate we will have elsewhere – hold your thoughts for 2011 or 2014.
Quote of the week
*
October 29, 2009 | 15:06 pm
If the law is evidently partial and unjust, then it will mask nothing, legitimize nothing, contribute nothing to any class’s hegemony. The essential precondition for the effectiveness of law, in its function as ideology, is that it shall display an independence from gross manipulation and shall seem to be just. It cannot seem to be so without upholding its own logic and criteria of equity; indeed, on occasion, by actually being just. – EP Thompson on the Rule of Law
Now all Mr de Vos has to do is prove that the Firearms Control Act is not unjust, that it serves some useful purpose and is not just an ideological law based on governments desire for more power and control of citizens
That should be easy, lets see, I offer a challenge. Where in the world has any more restrictive gun law reduced either crime or the supply of guns to criminals. Show with verifiable and reliable proof any success and comment on the statical significance of any laws that you may claim as a success.
The preamble of the FCA clearly states its purpose thus the above question and answer is vital for the justified existence of this law.
Is it a law of utility, ideology and unjust or has it a proven purpose? If it is unjust why have those who are supposed to protect the public from unjust laws said not one single word?
We should also note that government is espousing an acceptance of proof that there is a causal relationship between levels of firearm ownership and crime. There is no known relationship and this is in fact a world first. Why can I find no proof of the relationship published by the government? Why has the ANC not presented this proof to the world and claimed the honour due?
Is this ANC government not the very same ANC organisation that smuggled into South Africa some 40..60 Tons of war arms and explosives which it still hopefully has possession of because it never handed theses caches in for destruction.
Furthermore is this not the same ANC which claimed in the Goldstone hearings on illegal firearms that its possession of these arms and explosives caches and arms in general even in civilian hands cannot be proven to be a danger to the public because there is no evidence to support such a view. That the SAPS presented evidence to support the ANC claim that arms and explosives s held by the ANC was not a danger to the public
The ANC are still in illegal possession of these admitted illegal war arms and explosive caches yet the SAPS have not charged the ANC with such possession why?
Nor has the ANC shown any responsibility in proving safe-keeping to legislated requirements of these illegal caches.
Is it not hypocrisy of the highest when the ANC president who cannot deny knowledge of these caches claims that civilians are fuelling crime by possession of firearms? When the ANC itself claimed its possession of war arms was not a danger to the public?
Let the ANC show its true colours or produce the caches and accounting of every weapon, ammunition and explosives in its possession from illegal import to now.
If the President is right and he is not how much crime has the ANC caused by the illegal possession of 60 TONS of WAR arms and explosives for which it has not shown any responsibility for in safe keeping?
Clearly the problem is not one of guns but incompetence and bad policy with ideological laws because the Firearms Control Act has not removed a single firearm from criminals hands nor reduced any crimes. As long as citizens demand gun control instead of viable crime-fighting the ANC are more than happy because nobody is pointing out their failure to secure a safe environment for all citizens.
It’s known as the politics of distraction. See Calathes W. Gun control in a developing nation: the gun court act. Intl J Comp & Appl Crim Just 1991; 14:317-343.
Calathes W. Criminal Justice and Underdevelopment: A Case Study of the Jamaican Gun Court Act. J Carib Stud 1988; 6:323-358.
Jamaica: Another fine example of gun controls success “fill in your own description” what for South Africa.
Stewart Wood says:
October 30, 2009 at 8:45 am
Thus any characterisation of gun-owners that seeks to paint them collectively as anti-social, irresponsible or dangerous is simply a lie – one of many lies put about by gun-free advocates.
———————————————————————————————————
That is distorted.
It’s one thing to dislike the idea of guns in society, it’s quite another to say that people are all those things.
Stop making up stories, it does not help your cause.
Bryan says: October 29, 2009 at 16:20 pm “Please tell me if I am denied by the state the ability to protect my right to life and security how is that not unconstitutional!”
One way to answer would be to say you are asking the wrong question. Another way to approach the matter – and the way I believe the Constitutional Court will approach the matter – is to ask a different question: “Is it unconstitutional to limit the ability of South Africans to posess dangerous devices which daily cause injury and death to countless fellow South Africans?” Given everything I know about the jurisprudence and attitudes of the Constitutional Court judges I would be extremely surprised (no shocked) if the court answered this question in the negative. In the same way that a court will not declare invalid a law that limits the right of a blind person to drive a car or a plane or the ability of all of use to possess and use pharmaceutical products (legal or illegal) as we wish, the court will almost certyainly endorse a law that limits the ability of citizens to own guns. I may well argue that the prescription drugs I use are good for me and will save my life, but that would not give me a right to access such drugs without a doctors prescription and – in certain cases – not to access that drug at all because the state or one of its agencies have decided that the dangers inherent in that drug outweighs it possible advantages.
The Court may well say if we do not like the fact that the state is limiting our ability to own dangerous implements that daily kill fellow South Africans we can vote for somebody else and agitate for a change of government, but I strongly suspect it will not find that one has a “right” to own a gun.
In any case, just another small constitutional law lesson: from a constitutional perspective there is ABSOLUTELY NO SIGNIFICANCE in the fact that I refer to the limitation clause. No right is absolute so even if one shows that a specific law limits your rights (as will almost always be the case where a law imposes duties or regulates anything) that is irrelevant as the real question will almost always be whether that limitation was justifiable in terms of the limitation clause. One ONLY has a RIGHT if what one claims may not be justifiably be limited by the state in terms of the limitation clause. Just because a law limits a right, does not give you ANY RIGHTS. It is only when that law is fgound not to have been justifiable in terms of the limitation clause that one can claim to have a right to do a certain thing.
Maggs now I know I am truly in the land of the oppressor when injustice and human rights violation is used to justify even more violations.
Probably the most used instrument in crime is a stolen motor vehicle. Why are motor vehicle owners not blamed for fuelling crime by not securing their property and allowing it to be stolen and used in subsequent crime?
Surely if we clamped down on motor vehicle owners who irresponsible leave their vehicles where they can be stolen and reduced the number of vehicles on our roads, crime will decrease.
You think blaming motor vehicle owners for theft of their property and subsequent crime and holding them responsible would be tolerated by anyone including Mr de Vos?
You think this would not be seen as a rights violation for which the public would be up in arms.
So what gives anyone the right to accuse firearm owners of exactly the same charges?
Why are you surprised when firearm owners say enough, no more. Are they not justified and entitled to get angry, to state their case or should they be loyal subjects and slaves.
Let government pass a law that you must hand in your motor vehicle without compensation and see how you shout and scream.
Peter, you are making essentially a highly emotional political argument based on your view that private gun ownership is an unqualifuied human good. Your assumption (that private gun ownership is an unqualified human good) is, to say the least, politically and ideologically contested and is based on “arguments”, “statistics” and “facts” that are at best disputed and at worst disproved. My question to you would be: how does a law that limits your ability to own an implement that daily causes injury and death to thousands of South Africans infringe your human dignity (compared, say, to a law that told you you were not a fully human being ebcause of your race?)
Is it possible for you to see the other side of the coin (perhaps in a less emotional moment) and accept that guns ARE indeed dangerous, that a society awash in guns is perhaps a less humane society than one that is gun free and that it would perhaps be better to live in a society where every second person did not own a gun (whether legally or illegally), that it is not unreasonable for any state to take steps to try and address the large amounts of this implement floating around among the population, given the fact that this implement is used daily to maim and kill people, and that it would be better if there were not so many guns floating around.
A more reasonable tone and attitude might do your case less harm and might help to bolster the political argument you wish to make that, given the dangers we face, and despite the fact that guns are dangerous killing machines, at present it might be an unfortunate fact that “some among us” wish to own guns to defend ourselves. (I might hear your then. I do not hear or listen to the screaming and the insults. I switch off because I experience a kind of apartheid mindset when I hear that tone and I will refuse to have my dignity tainted by such things.) I find (but I might be wrong) that white people who benefited from apartheid and wish to preserve the priviledges gained because of the colour of their skin do their cause no good when they shout histerically and angriraly about the infringement of their “rights” and abuse the government of the day in tones that display contempt and could easily be experienced as racial superiority and racism. A more reasoned tone, coupled with some acknowledgement that guns really are rather dangerous and do kill many people in SA and that it is not unreasonable for a government to want to do something about the proliferation of such guns, might do your cause more good than the kind of shouting and screaming laced with contempt that have been displayed on this Blog by some (but not all) the pro-gun people.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20091030043212188C528855
10111 service ‘disastrous’
October 30 2009 at 08:32AM
Submit your comment
By Political Bureau
The police have been slammed by MPs for failing to deal effectively with domestic violence and not properly running the 10111 emergency call centre.
Referring to the auditor-general’s finding that the system was not functioning properly, Themba Godi (APC) said he hoped the police would deal with the problem urgently.
“Except for sector policing, almost all the areas of challenge point not to a lack of policing or procedural guidelines, but to a lack of implementation and effective management or supervision,” he said.
‘This law is not doing what it is supposed to do’
Dianne Kohler Barnard (DA) said the auditor-general’s report made “sickening reading”.
The police’s failure to respond quickly to emergency calls had led to the unnecessary deaths of some victims of crime.
Continues Below ↓
“The (police) had spent, at latest count, R600-million on the Gauteng 10111 system … and the auditor-general says it’s an unmitigated failure.”
The MPs were speaking in the National Assembly during the debate on the recent 16 Days of Activism against violence against women and children.
MPs said the increasing number of cases of such abuse showed police were not implementing the Domestic Violence Act, passed 11 years ago.
Barbara Thompson (ANC) said it was “clear this law is not doing what it is supposed to do”.
Debbie Schafer (DA) said a number of police stations were not complying with the act.
Pierre, can you furnish the sources for your contention that there are 365 000 shooting injuries and deaths every year?
I would like to check this ‘fact’ for myself.
There you have Pierre’s frank admission that he ‘switches off’ when he is confronted by challenges to prejudices he holds dear or the challengers are white South Africans claiming they have rights too…
Well I was not going to bother posting here anymore as it is a futile excercise – however De Vos’s latest lies and falsehoods cannot go unchallenged – frankly I am appalled at the deliberate dishonesty shown here by De Vos,(I would have at least expected a modicum of honesty and accuracy from a ‘leading’ member of the legal fraternity – silly me!) exemplified by statements such as:
“that daily causes injury and death to thousands of South Africans”
Check with the SAPS – even they cannot claim ‘thousands’ or anything close to it.
“that white people who benefited from apartheid and wish to preserve the priviledges”
Before 2004 when the FCA finally became law, at least 1 million black people obtained firearm licences in compliance with the previous legislation, the Arms & Ammunition Act of 1969. Thus the racial slur contained above is seriously out of order – but again rather typical of anti-gun rhetoric. Furthermore nowhere in any pro-gun rights argument can it be shown that any case has ever been made for whites only to have guns!
De Vos – you may not like to hear the aggressive tone of some posters here – but as the representative of SAGA (SA Gun Owners Association), the largest representative body, said just days ago in a radio discussion, “Gun owners are sick and tired of being painted as the problem when it is the state’s failure to effectively address crime that is the problem – and they are going to become much more agressive in defending their rights”.
Brett said:
“There you have Pierre’s frank admission that he ’switches off’ when he is confronted by challenges to prejudices he holds dear or the challengers are white South Africans claiming they have rights too…”
That certainly would be and easier ‘out’ than tackling many of the substantive challenges he has been presented with on this thread.
I think we should allow the good Prof to catch up on his reading before jumping to the otherwise obvious conclusion that he has been ‘out argued’ to say nothing of ‘out lawyered’.
I, for one, am waiting in delicious expectation…
If the law is evidently partial and unjust, then it will mask nothing, legitimize nothing, contribute nothing to any class’s hegemony. The essential precondition for the effectiveness of law, in its function as ideology, is that it shall display an independence from gross manipulation and shall seem to be just. It cannot seem to be so without upholding its own logic and criteria of equity; indeed, on occasion, by actually being just. – EP Thompson on the Rule of Law
Pierre De Vos says:
October 30, 2009 at 10:19 am
“Peter, you are making essentially a highly emotional political argument based on your view that private gun ownership is an unqualifuied human good”
If I made any argument it was based on the very foundations of good law and was not political in the least. Suggesting that Cesare Beccaria on of the founding fathers of Criminology was mistaken is not going to score any point here. Nor will suggesting Blackstone or Tucker were misguided prove your point.
While it is indeed a sad day when constitutional court judges are guided by rhetoric and propaganda of unproven assertions of the politicly motivated rather than sound judgement of facts.
You Sir are the accuser and as such need prove your case that any gun control measure proposed is based on sound reason and proof of fitness to the purpose for which it is intended.
I offered you a challenge to prove gun laws in fact increased public safety. I noticed that you instead preferred emotional appeals to fear and irrelevant argument rather than address the crux of the matter. Unjust laws.
Would it surprise you that a number of studies had been conducted in the USA and not one of these has found not a single law which can be shown to be of any benefit to public safety.
The massive 238 page report from the Clinton administration appointed Academy of Sciences survey of 99 books, 43 government publications, 253 journal articles, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study with a known bias in the favour of Gun Control panel. Found in short, no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.
The Center for Disease Control in an effort to regain lost funding and remove a Congressional ban on “advocating” for stronger gun laws conducted an independent survey of its own publications and identified sources of research on gun laws. The Task Force on Community Preventive Services in summary found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence. The following laws were evaluated and found ineffective:
· Bans on specified firearms or ammunition.
· Restrictions on firearm acquisition
· Waiting periods for firearm acquisition
· Firearm registration and licensing of owners
· “Shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws
· Child access prevention laws
· Zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools
· Combinations of firearms laws
The Carter administration appointed ground breaking work of Wright, James D., Peter H. Rossi, and Kathleen Daly, Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America (New York: Adline de Gruyter) 1983.
“Wright, Rossi, and Daly were asked to survey the state of research regarding the efficacy of gun control, presumably to show that gun control worked, and America needed more of it. But when Wright, Rossi, and Daly produced their report for the National Institute of Justice, they delivered a document quite different from the one they had expected to write. Carefully reviewing all existing research to date, the three scholars found no persuasive scholarly evidence that America’s 20,000 gun control laws had reduced criminal violence.” ~~ David Kopel
What law would you propose that will work to increase public safety?
Would it not be a whole lot better if the focus was removed from guns to that of criminal investigation, arrest and prosecution of violent criminals instead of being misdirected by mischievous people with nothing more than an emotional bias?
The only sense I have seen written on here by those in the legal fraternity is CD, his comments are sound and fair, unlike Mr De Vos
Mr De Vos you have been shown up for who and what you are, your frequent side stepping of direct questions with nothing but waffle, unproven statistics, rumors or hearsay. We on the other hand have posted a magnitude of checkable proof which you and your cohorts brush aside as insignificant or simply ignore, which is in my opinion extremely suspect and dishonest to say the least.
I would state that the pro gun posters have proved their case, you have not.
By the way, you never did answer my question “Did you father and sister run amok with those rifles?” I suspect not, which shoots down your statement “They kill people (and they kill animals too, apparently).
Peter says:
October 30, 2009 at 9:44 am
Maggs now I know I am truly in the land of the oppressor when injustice and human rights violation is used to justify even more violations.
———————————————————————————————————-
Huh?
Since you guys insist on keeping guns – you can have it.
Let’s ban bullets!
Jack Pollard says:
October 30, 2009 at 11:53 am
“We on the other hand have posted a magnitude of checkable proof”
LOL!
The statistics were lost cos the computer crashed, remember!
I take it that you dont like proof that refutes your closed minded unproven and quite frankly suspect ideals.
As with Mr De Vos, Maggs have been shown to be equally dishonest.
Jack Pollard says:
October 30, 2009 at 16:11 pm
I take it that you dont like proof that refutes your closed minded unproven and quite frankly suspect ideals.
As with Mr De Vos, Maggs have been shown to be equally dishonest.
———————————————————————————————————
Equal to Pierre. Hey that’s a great compliment. Thanks.
Do you only have suspect research and papers to rely on?
Your Lotts-Mustard thingy is highly suspect. For example :
“Lott/Mustard Study
“Category: More Guns Less Crime – Posted on: August 15, 1996 3:33 AM, by Tim Lambert
“Daniel Polsby writes:
Lott’s results are highly plausible and internally consistent.
“Highly plausible? Lets look at Dade county:
“Lott reckons that the carry law caused a reduction of 8% in murders, 5% in rapes, 7% in aggravated assaults and 2% in robberies. For Dade county that translates to 1,500 fewer aggravated assaults, 450 fewer robberies, 65 fewer rapes and 30 fewer murders each year. From Cramer and Kopel’s paper on CCW (TN Law Review v 62p733) one learns that “the police kept track of every known incident involving [Dade] county’s more than 21,000 handgun permitees over a six-year period.” and there were 12 defensive gun uses by CCW holders against persons known to the police over the six year period. That’s two per year.
“It does not seem highly plausible that those two uses prevented 2,000 crimes.”
It will be nice if you make a proper case!
@Jack Pollard
Well done to the little town on reducing their crime rate.
There website proudly shows off their crime combating strategies.
Nothing related to the “one settler, one gun” thing though.
http://www.kennesaw-ga.gov/index.aspx?nid=319
Click this: http://library6.municode.com/default-now/home.htm?infobase=12813&doc_action=whatsnew
Then go down the index to Chaper 34 Civil Emergencies – click that and then click on Article II Firearms.
Here is the clause to save you the bother.Only 2 lethal shootings in the past 27 YEARS! Coincidence perhaps?
ARTICLE II. FIREARMS
Sec. 34-21. Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
(Ord. No. 2009-03, Exh. A, 2-16-09)
Sec. 34-22. Use of firearms.
No person shall fire a gun, pistol or other firearm in the city, except in the defense of person or property, and except peace officers or military forces of this state or the United States, in the discharge of official duties.
(Ord. No. 2009-03, Exh. A, 2-16-09)
Stewart Wood says:
October 30, 2009 at 17:06 pm
“(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.”
—————————————————————————————————–
Thanks for that – it’s enlightening.
Mental disability – now there’s a thought, an angle that I did not think of.
And the “result of beliefs or religious doctrine” especially “thou shalt not kill” brigade.
Maggs Naidu says:
Equal to Pierre. Hey that’s a great compliment. Thanks.
Its a compliment to be equally dishonest? LOL
A reduction in crime isnt making a proper case?
Why do you think crime has reduced in Dade Country even though there were only 12 reported cases of self defence reported over a 6 year period? Criminals are not totally stupid, they think twice about carry out any kind of attack, an attack on someone who could be armed. Criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed and defenceless.
I really dont know what makes you so stupid, but it really works
Jack Pollard says:
October 30, 2009 at 17:14 pm
“I really dont know what makes you so stupid, but it really works”
Hey Jack – I was born that way.
You?
Those ‘get-outs’ were put into that city ordnance deliberately – in effect owning a weapon is NOT compulsory for anyone in Kennesaw who does not want to own one. Any resident claiming religious or consciencious objections (wide latitude there) neither has to prove his beliefs nor does he have to own a gun – he simply can state that ‘due to his beliefs’ he will not own a gun – end of story.
All this occurred in 1982, in response to a wave of criminality that began in and around Atlanta (at one time ‘crime capital of the US) – crime figures (all types of crime) immediately took a dive and have remained low (around 20% of the average for the state of Georgia) since then.
I call that a success – wouldn’t you?
Here’s some interesting stats :
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
And for the USA – your Kennesaw does not feature on the safest cities list :
http://www.morganquitno.com/cit04pop.htm#25
And States – GA is pretty low down :
http://os.cqpress.com/Crime%20State%202008_Safest.pdf
Stewart Wood says:
October 30, 2009 at 17:27 pm
“I call that a success – wouldn’t you?”
Indeed.
I would hope we can learn some lessons from them.
It’s very likely that serious crime combating strategies were put in place – looking at their website (ref their T.R.A.C.K. programme), they seem to take this very seriously.
Interesting stats indeed, Maggs.
The countries where they chop heads and hands are at the bottom.
The Scandanavian countries where there is a very high rate of gun ownership are way low.
What would really interest me, though, is if you could give us a before and after – homicide rates in SA before 1 million black South AFricans got licenced firearms for the first time, and after.
Do you think you could answer a straight question – well, straight – for once?
Brett Nortje says:
October 31, 2009 at 7:03 am
Hey Brett – happy Saturday to you too.
Nice to see you nice and calm – must be the coffee.
No, I am not going to answer your “straight question” – it’s not so straight and I am definitely not inclined to assisting your case
.
Here’s some useful stuff – happy reading (see I am being nice to you).
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/sas/publications/year_b_pdf/2007/CH2%20Stockpiles.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate.
Now go and make your own case – I look forward to ripping it apart.
p.s. There’s no reliable stats before 1994 – so stop with the curved ball questions.
The only reliable before and after data that I can propose is that before fatal shootings people were alive and after they are dead. Nice dichotomy, eh!
I see Maggs has declined to answer a straight question again.
As for his so called research regarding the list of countries by firearm related deaths is seriously flawed. It doesnt break down the figures to their various catagories such as (1) Deaths by gang bangers killing each other over turf wars, (2) Deaths caused by police shooting criminals (3) Legal armed defence (4)Death caused by criminal acts, and so on.
Besides which Wikipedia is not known for its accuracy.
The latest population figures for Kennesaw is around 28000, up from 5000 in 1980
http://www.mcsm.org/kennesaw.html -
Why Doesn’t The Media Visit Kennesaw?
By Chuck Baldwin
Kennesaw, GA’s
Mandatory Gun Law
A Proven Success
11-6-99
The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia’s ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.
The city’s population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997).
“After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.”
With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn’t. The fact is I can’t remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you? The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence. The facts tell a different story.
What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city’s crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed.
The bad guys didn’t force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don’t have a death wish. There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired. Yet, in both cases the thugs bent on criminal mischief decided to take their ambitions elsewhere and my family remained safe. Only God knows what would have happened if a firearm had not been handy.
As I stated before, the pro gun lobby have proven their case, anti gun Maggs and De Vos haven’t.
Hey Jack,
There’s the solution to violent crime – make babies.
“The city’s population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996″
You should visit there and become a happy chappy too – all in pursuit of first hand research that is!
I am willing to bet the murderers suffer from ED!
Most of the stats given for South Africa on Wikipedia is missing. What else did they leave out. That piece of so called research is seriously flawed.
Jack Pollard says:
October 31, 2009 at 9:06 am
Actually most of those stats help your cause – don’t tell Brett though, let him sweat it out a bit!
Maggs Keep talking, someday you’ll say something intelligent.
Jack Pollard says:
October 31, 2009 at 9:10 am
“Maggs Keep talking, someday you’ll say something intelligent”.
So there’s hope for me.
Sorry about you though, never mind stupid people have human rights too.
Maggs to Brett, Now go and make your own case – I look forward to ripping it apart.
You havent ripped anything apart, you have not offered any credible evidence whatsoever. The only thing you have proven is that you select seriously flawed and suspect research in a feeble attempt to support your case. If anything Brett (and others) have ripped your propaganda to shreds.
Sorry Maggs, I dont think there is hope for you, if ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person alive.
Yes stupid people do have human rights, which likes of you and de Vos want to take away.
Jack Pollard says:
October 31, 2009 at 9:45 am
“Sorry Maggs, I dont think there is hope for you, if ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person alive”.
hahahaha – yeah I am.
But I did show you the work of some highly acclaimed researchers who established that your Lotts is a bit of a masseuse of data, fact and research.
Too bad for you that your acclaimed report is so shaky that an ignoramus like me can spot the fake!
Hey, I don’t want to take your rights away. You can keep the guns – I am campaigning against bullets only now.
Maggs But I did show you the work of some highly acclaimed researchers who established that your Lotts is a bit of a masseuse of data, fact and research.
Too bad for you that your acclaimed report is so shaky that an ignoramus like me can spot the fake!
If they are your idea of highly acclaimed researchers, I rest my case. You dont like John Lotts report which you consider shakey, which you would as his research is at odds with your propagandist statements and ideals.
What a pity an ignoramous like you cannot spot anti propaganda exactly for what it is, lies and deception.
Gun Free South Africa (and others) frequently refer to the number of children killed each year by guns, what they don’t mention (which is highly dishonest) that the vast majority of those children are in fact 17 to 19 year old gang bangers fighting over drugs or turf.
Jack Pollard says:
October 31, 2009 at 10:36 am
The Lotts thing is dead in the water, give it up – better make up some new facts.
In the meanwhile let’s play some ‘You’re so stupid that …”
On second thoughts skip that (I would fill too many pages on how stupid you are)!
But before you blow a fuse and go crazy, I am not emotionally committed to this.
I am opposed with either side making up facts to fit their positions and if GFSA are doing that they need to be smacked.
Sure enough I prefer a gun free society – if the powers that be decide against that so be it, however the regulations and the agency issuing the permits have to be better managed and controlled.
We have legal guns in society now and the sky has not fallen on our heads, so Brett can walk around with his Magnum on his hip.
So chill a bit, take more Prozac, eat a lot of fish and almonds (it’s reported that those improve the brain, if you have one that is) and have a great weekend.
Shoot at few targets while you’re at it (inanimate ones that is) and make some babies like the okes in Kennesaw.
p.s. Stay away from advising the pro gun lobby (if they take and use your advice they will be sure to lose).
Maggs I see that you are now resorting to insults as you cannot and never will prove your anti gun stance. Whats the problem, don’t you like losing?
You state that you are opposed to either side making up facts to suit their posistions, yet all you have done is dig up so called facts to support a anti gun stance which again in another dishonest statement. You totally ignore, laugh off research such as Kennesaw or make some stupid inane remark regarding babies. I learned from your parents mistake, I use birth control.
I suggest that you report back to your village as soon as possible, they are missing their idiot
Keep taking the tablets.
Jack Pollard says:
October 31, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Hey Jack – did you hear the one about “too little sleep makes Jack a dull boy”?
Get some.
I cannot be losing – I am for a constitutional democracy.
If it is within our constitution to allow private ownership of guns, that’s the way it is.
Of course your “research” is comical and it’s useless.
“I learned from your parents mistake, I use birth control” – LOL.
I know you’re smarter than me, you’re even smarter and faster than Chuck Norris – he counted to infinity, twice.
I bet that you can count backwards from infinity in half the time.
Guys,
Can we stop insulting each other? It only creates heat where we need light.
Maggs, you’re right. It’s about a constitutional democracy. So how come it’s only the gunowners that are fighting for this, and not the institutions created for this purpose like the HRC?
How come it needs to be the much-maligned gunowners who expose the illegal and unconstitutional actions of the institutions who are put in place to protect our constitutional democracy? How is it that the SAPS officers who happily went along with the illegal and unconstitutional instructions of their superiors di not cry foul?
How come the good proffie (who seems to be absent) did not pick up on this?
I agree, Paul. Thabo Mbeki should have done the statesman-like thing, for a start, and referred the Firearms Control Bill for constitutional scrutiny. Could have saved this country a lot of money.
Then again, have you seen the gun prohibitionists call on the SAPS once to respect gun owners’ constitutional rights? Bunch of hypocrites!
Have you seen the gun prohibitionists call on Terence Mbembe – Auditor General – once, to conduct a forensic audit of the implementation of the Firearms Control Act?
Surely gun prohibitionists are taxpayers? (Or are some of the rumours about funding from George Soros true?)
Maggs – here is a good rule of thumb. If the post has SAPS in it, shut up and sit down. You wanted only the SAPS armed. I pointed out how often they are involved in crime – if gun owners committed crimes with their registered firearms at the rate the SAPS do with service firearms….From robbery to shooting of colleagues to murder of wives and girlfriends!
Then, you reinvented your argument. Only specialised units should be armed….
Then, I pointed out the VIP bodyguards were a specialist SAPS unit – we all know their track record. That you skated over.
Now, are you ready to stop lying?
Before 1994 the Commissioner of police issued a Annual Report with all the statistics we have been talking about, including the Homelands, based on Hansard. SO, really….
Be honest for once and stop filibustering. http://www.gunownerssa.org/crimefree/samurder.html
Go look at the examination of the SAPS’ homicide figures between 1994 and 2000 as a million black gun owners joined our ranks on gunownerssa.org. Those figures come from SAPS/CIAC.
Then, you will never again be able to argue there is anything but a negative correlation between rates of gun ownership and homicide rates in South Africa.
Paul says:
October 31, 2009 at 15:34 pm
“Can we stop insulting each other? It only creates heat where we need light.”
Paul, I think by now it is clear that we have to do people who are incapable of debating without insults.
Anyone who wants to take a bet that this post with result at another insult, aimed against me, despite the fact that I have not posting anything against private gun ownership?
Chris said: “Paul, I think by now it is clear that we have to do people who are incapable of debating without insults. ”
Chris, frankly I despair of the debate itself….
No-one seems to be interested in the issues, and the proffie seems to have abandoned the field of reasoned debate once he got caught with his ‘law trousers’ around his ankles.
Very sad…
It is very difficult to justify that a criminal armed with a gun is more dangerous than a criminal armed with a gardenspade.(resident woke up, heard noises, investigated…last thing through is head was his garden spade…and it actually happend) It is even more difficult to fatom somebody willingly admitting that he is not Rambo or Vernon Koekemoer, to rather take on a big strong intruder, used to gunfights as he is to knifebattles with a knife? or with his bare hands? Logically speaking, looking at the successes the police are having fighting crime… does the writer really think that they will now suddenly be more effective in fighting crime if all the legal gunowners are disarmed? because do you really think that all the illegal guns will suddenly also be handed in? You will sit with a situation where all the criminals will still be armed, but their victims not, making it just the more easier to do what they already do best. You mention jailterm of 5 years if caught with an illegal firearm if all civilians are disarmed. Why not implement it if a criminal is caught with an unlicensed firearm? Why target law abiding citizens? How many cash in transit heists do you know of where the criminals used Oom Sakkie’s 30-06 or Carlene’s 5 shot .22 revolver? Or mall robberies? Or ATM bombings? The guns being used are automatic weapons and 9mm service pistols. Control those better, have stricker penalties for illegal possesion or use of firearms set in place. Enforce the law! Then you will bring crime down. Not by disarming lawabiding citizens. I submit your logic appears faulty.
Pierre De Vos says:
October 27, 2009 at 15:44 pm
Brett Nortje, thanks for your post. It kind of confirms my feeling that some people really should not be allowed close to guns (well, almost all people, really, but obviously you would be included…)
Well Pierre, I actually thought that he argued his points quite well? He didn’t resort to senseless violent threats or any other acts. Could you please substantiate your reply as quoted above? Why do you think he should not be allowed to own a firearm? because he argues his points? Can you provide factual reasons for your above statement? Just for interest sake
Paul says:
October 31, 2009 at 19:30 pm
Paul, let me give you my situation: I am a legal professional. Constitutional law is not my speciality, but I have a post graduate qualification in constitutional law and therefore I do not consider myself as a layman in the field.
I had a fire arm for more than 25 years, which I handed in at police station under protest as a result of the Arms and Ammunition Control Act. My father had a rifle, and I wanted it all my life. Last year he wanted to give it to me, also as a result of the legislation. I had to decline, knowing that my chances of obtaining a licence were slim. Besides that I do not have an open day in my dairy for the next four months. I leave home early in the morning, I come home late, and in winter time I see my wife and children in artificial light only, so I can’t see how I can make time to write an exam at a police station. I don’t think I need to write an exam on the law relating to fire arms, I know it better than any policeman I know. I completed military service (2 years) and know how to handle a fire arm. I think I need a fire arm to protect myself, but I don’t have one. I regularly move in dangerous places, and in my line of work I make enemies. Some of them are very dangerous. I have received death threats, and there has been at least one attempt on my life that I know off. So at this stage a gun free South Africa is simply not a viable option, no matter what the ideal may be.
I can see why prof De Vos went on with the new posts in his blog. This tread is dominated by people (unfortunately mainly from the pro-gun side) trying to debate legal issues while they clearly don’t have the legal knowledge or intellectual ability to do so. If you go to past threads you will see that Pierre and I don’t always agree on things, and although I don’t agree with him on some moral aspects of this posting, I can assure you that as far as the legal side goes, he is 100% correct. There are some valid arguments that can be raised in favour of the pro-gun lobby, but instead I have seen, with only few exceptions, nonsensical legal arguments by people who clearly don’t know what they are talking about. I have seen people drawing conclusions that are not supported by the facts they are trying to use to sustain their conclusions. I have refrained from participating here for days because I saw the tread being taken over by people with whom I have no reason to debate with. They have neither the will nor the ability to take part in any reasoned debate. I can put forward valid legal and other arguments, but they will not be able to understand or be persuaded by reason.
Chris, you could make an invaluable contribution to our cause. By being specific instead of generalising for a start. Denial isn’t rebuttal by a long shot. Instead….Other people (the ones you look down upon as intellectually inferior to you) gritted their teeth and are fighting back where you just flat-out hensopped. NQOCD?
Paul says:
October 31, 2009 at 15:34 pm
Did the CC rule on this yet?
Brett Nortje says:
October 31, 2009 at 17:26 pm
You’re delirious.
Whatever Jack has is contagious – stay away from him.
Maggs, what are the grounds for Appealling the decision to the CC? Inadequate representation? LOL!
Author: Maggs Naidu
Comment:
Paul says:
October 31, 2009 at 15:34 pm
Did the CC rule on this yet?
@ Chris.
Fair enough. Most (but not all) of us are laymen doing our very best to figure out why we have been placed behind the eight ball, despite having proven to be exemplary citizens. We are maligned and castigated for no clear and compelling reason, and we feel aggrieved!
So, you’re correct. A lot of our comments and suppositions are without legal validity. But what about those comments which are plainly in a completely different class? I refer specifically to some of the comments posted by “CD”. Reading through his questions I get the feeling that he is attempting to move this debate along in a very legally correct fashion. And yet he (she?) also is summarily ignored???
Frankly it appears as if the proffie lacks the answers and is not as morally courageous as Julius Malema, who seems to have had the courage to back down on the Jonathan Jansen issue when he saw he was wrong. I would love to be proven wrong…
I need to be clear here:
I do not necessarily support the ownership of private firearms. Nor am I necessarily against the ownership of private firearms.
My sole concern in this debate is twofold: firstly to better understand the best means by which the safety and security of individuals and of the South African public in general may be obtained and secondly to understand the intersection between the foregoing (including any proposed remedy to achieve that goal) and constitutional rights in the South African context.
If it be shown that the complete eradication of private firearm ownership will achieve the safety and security objective, then I am all for it. If however the contrary can be shown (the two obviously being largely mutually exclusive) then I am all for that equally.
At all times however I am for the concept that private firearm ownership should be regulated. For example, I do not believe that at the moment there is (or ever has been) appropriate psychological evaluation of existing or proposed owners to ascertain whether they have the emotional stability or sound judgement to be trusted with such an instrument. The current method of having some poor policeman look into the applicant’s eyes and ask a few questions to ascertain whether he is suitable or not is entirely worthy of derision. Just as there are some people who should not have driver’s licenses so there are many people who should not be licensed to possess a firearm. I would wish to see a far higher degree of rigour in determining psychological fitness than is currently the case.
Comrade D, it might interest you to know that Gunowners SA were in the forefront of suggesting the the Designated Firearms Officers in the SAPS should be equipped with psychological evaluation skills for precisely the purpose of better evaluating potential firearm owners. Our suggestions, as with all the other suggestions we made, were discarded by the SAPS and the South African Qualifications Authority.
The situation as it pertains is that ‘Liegbek’ Bothma had his way and the DFOs only have to have rudimentary clerical skills to fulfill their task.
Unsatisfactory? You bet!
Our desired result? No way!
Another example of just how responsible and conscientious are the gunowners and how perfidious and uncaring are the authorities who have arraigned themselves against us.
Do civilians – who had their right to informational privacy infringed by being forced to register their guns after their right to property was qualified by the SAPS – abuse those guns at the rate the SAPS and Metro police departments do?
The SAPS and Metro cops are subjected to psychometric testing….
Guys,
This thread is INCREDIBLY important to the future of Saffer Constitutional Democracy.
Reviewing the comments on this thread it seems to me that we have those that say there is a prima facie case that provisions of the Firearms Control Act (Act 60 of 2000) are unconstitutional, arraigned against those who either disagree that this alleged prima facie case of unconstitutionality means anything at all, or who maintain that despite any (many?) potentially unconstitutional provisions, the FCA remains constitutionally intact.
It further seems to me that these are irreconcilable positions. Either the Act is vrot with unconstitutional provisions and ought to be struck down at least in part, or the limitation clause allows the government to suspend massive and fundamental elements of our Bill of Rights (the right to be presumed innocent, the right NOT to be forced to incriminate ourselves, the right to privacy, the right NOT to be submitted to warrantless seach and seizure, the right NOT to have our bodily integrity violated to provide blood, DNA and other bodily samples without being so ordered by a court, the list goes on…).
Maybe we need to start deconstructing the monolith of the FCA, and testing the various constitutional ‘issues’ against any evidentiary basis which could be used to argue for the limitation of our rights under the Bill of Rights?
It seems to me that the FCA and firearm ownership is a hot button topic that sends the various parties off into hysterical invective and thereby clouds the issue.
Maybe once we have examined the parts we can reconstruct the sum of the parts and reach some kind of rational consensus?
Paul says:
November 2, 2009 at 8:50 am
“Maybe once we have examined the parts we can reconstruct the sum of the parts and reach some kind of rational consensus?”
That’s the most sensible suggestion (maybe the only one) yet!
Well suggested.
I think that there is a way for the government to implement a very elegant solution to the problem of firearms ownership and at the same time reduce the crime levels in the country. But first they need to separate the two issues and put together two separate solutions:
1. Suspend the FCA of 2000
2. Create an independent (of government and police) body responsible for all the firearms in the country – illegal ANC cashes, Gov, SADF, SAPS, civilian – allowing controlled but otherwise undiscriminated ownership on (constitutionally) equal basis – that means if a under-aged, semi-proficient soldier can can be given to use a machine gun, so should be the highly proficient civilians.
3. Task that body to undertake an audit and in consultancy with all stakeholders, create and submit new law to govern the firearm ownership, storage and use (competency and proficiency)
4. Abolish all laws that treats preferentially ANC VIPs, Gov, SADF and SAPS wrt firearm ownership, storage and use (competency and proficiency)
5. Create an independent (of government and police) body responsible for auditing and assessment of the Government’s (SAPS) ability to provide safety and security, particularly fighting crime (conducted by all means, not only with firearms)
6. Task that body to asses the current situation, publish the reports to the public so to set a basis on which to assess future progress, publish a plan how they intend to stop the crime levels and further reduce the crime levels
7. Give highest support and priority to the above body ands its programs, so the results can be seen in months and not years.
Of course, all the above can only be done of the ruling party and the Government is willing to reduce the crime as they state as they say. But I am willing to bet that ANC and the current Government are only providing lip-service and definitely not interested in reducing the crime – why, there are so many other interesting things they can do, instead of ensuring the safety and security of the public…
@ Maggs
I cannot be losing – I am for a constitutional democracy.
Of course your “research” is comical and it’s useless.
————————————————————–
The ANC stated that they consulted with interested parties including SAGA, which was in fact a downright lie, the ANC refused to even talk to SAGA. The ANC admitted that they didn’t carry out any economical impact studies that would be affected by the FCA, as a result of this legislation around 800 firearm dealers went out of business resulting in thousands of people thrown out of work without even being consulted on the FCA. Is that the act of a constitutional democracy?.
I suppose the official statistics from the FBI, the town of Kennesaw (and others) , are comical and useless?
Despite the fact that the act being rammed through without the proper consultation, a DFO admitted to me that the SAP have not got the staff or the infrastructure deal with the act. This act has done nothing to take away guns from criminals, only the law-abiding.
Thousands of police officers and civilian clerks, millions of man hours and billions of rands are being wasted chasing legal gun owners, instead of doing what they should be doing, chasing and catching criminals.
One (there are a lot more) of the problems I have with the FCA is that the police have the despotic, capricious and illogical power to refuse a licence after an applicant passes extensive and expensive training with their usual “Lack of motivation” or “Not convinced of need.”
I know of a SAP officer who was refused a licence despite threats on his life and that of his wife, despite case numbers of crimes in his area, then there was a firearm dealer known to me who was refused a self defence licence. Both were given the reason of “Lack of motivation.”
Jack Pollard says:
November 2, 2009 at 10:12 am
This is a matter for government, not the ANC.
It’s unfortunate that people lost jobs (that also happened when illegal casinos were shut down).
Kennesaw is an interesting place (see my earlier comment re that) but hardly a basis for argument either way.
I am not sure where “(t)his act has done nothing to take away guns from criminals, only the law-abiding” is intended to go in the debate, but as a general rule criminals are not interested in laws – that’s why they are referred to as criminals.
“Thousands of police officers and civilian clerks, millions of man hours and billions of rands are being wasted chasing legal gun owners” seems very exaggerated and hardly convincing.
Yeah, the police (and the rest of the criminal justice sector) is hardly impressive and have been doing pathetically – the solution is to work towards setting them right.
Our country is extremely violent in many respects, I am not sure that a more gun friendly approach will help or hinder that.
@ Maggs,
You draw a distinction betwwen the ruling party and the government which many do not acknowledge (including many in the ANC who are forever expecting partial treatment from deployed cadres).
Your lumping of legitiamte employment along with criminals employed by illegal casinos is untenable. If I may say, this is EXACTLY the form of low-level sniping that is likely to push this discussion off the tracks once again!
The cost (both in financial terms AND in personnel) of the failed and almost farcical implementation (refer Prinsloo J) of the FCA has never been revealed, or audited! Maybe that is where we should start? Audit the damned thing on efficacy and cost/benefit!
Paul says:
November 2, 2009 at 12:08 pm
There is the distinction between the ruling party and government – that many do not acknowledge is it neither here nor there.
Government, the respective state institutions and courts is where this ought to go – of course the support of the ANC will help the cause of particular positions.
I stand by my comment on unemployment – it’s unfortunate that people lose their jobs, but that is not a basis for allowing or not allowing private firearms.
BTW, it matters not to me if the discussion goes off tracks, I am not emotionally committed either way – it’s up to the pro gun lobby to make their case and if they become irate, irrational, explosive (p/i) that will weaken their case, not mine.
After all gun owners are expected to be reasonable, rational, collected and calm under very testing conditions – if they go off on a whim in cyberspace, they are hardly the kind of people whom we want to be walking around with loaded weapons in public spaces.
@ Maggs
Maggs, you are engaging in brinkmanship. You push the debate to the edge of the precipice and then stand back and wail about your dislike of heights!
Since you now admit you have no interest in advancing this debate, but are merely trolling for some vicarious thrill, I fail to see any further reason to engage you and thereby feed your adiction.
Fare thee well.
Maggs stated “BTW, it matters not to me if the discussion goes off tracks.”
That just about says it all Paul, he’s not interested in sensible debate.
To even compare legal and licenced gun shops and dealers with illegal casino’s shows where his mind set is at.
Paul says:
November 2, 2009 at 12:35 pm
It seems that you selectively read what I write.
My position is anti-guns – I will continue to push that position in this and other forums.
But I am not emotionally connected to that.
I have confidence in that the authorities will do the right thing in the end, after taking all views into account (hopefully not the effect of employment in gun shops).
And if there is a CC ruling on it, I am confident that they will find appropriately.
Whatever the outcome is, I will accept it.
Ciao.
What garbage you prattle, Maggs!
“In considering the question of whether such remarks give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, a court should not hold a judge to an ideal standard which would be difficult to achieve.”
In South Africa, gunowners are held to an ideal standard.
Judges are not held to an ideal standard, SAPS members are not held to an ideal standard, we have 4 convicted Travelgate fraudsters heading Parliamentary Portfolio Committees and a whole host of other ANC MP’s who made this law would should never get a competency certificate because of crimes ranging up to murder.
But the hypocrit Gun Gestapo demand a standard of perfection from gunowners they require from no-one else: Not their President, not their parliamentarians, not their police nor army.
I laugh in your face, Maggs.
Thousands of police officers and civilian clerks, millions of man hours and billions of rands are being wasted chasing legal gun owners”.
I challenge you publicly: Tell us how many SAPS members from Designated Firearms Officers down through the ranks staff Firearms Registration Centres, the Central Firearms Register, and local SAPS stations, all tasked with administering the FCA. Work out their shifts in terms of man-hours and tell us again about hyperbole.
We’ve told you about the Western Cape High Court judgement that ordered the SAPS to roll out compensation to gun owners who surrendered their firearms which might cost the taxpayer as much as the Arms Deal….
Really, Maggs, from your posts wrt other topics you did not appear a complete idiot – is the reality of the immorality of disarming the innocent while leaving the ungodly laughing affecting your game?
Brett Nortje says:
November 2, 2009 at 12:47 pm
“I laugh in your face, Maggs.”
481 policepersons, eight hours per day, 52 weeks per year, will be required for one million hours.
That times the number of millions of wasted man hours will answer that.
It seems highly exaggerated from comments posted earlier.
Indeed there is a lot wanting in our society and it’s unlikely that all will be resolved in our lifetimes.
How does that make your case for guns?
S22 of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of trade, occupation and profession.
That, read with S25 of the Bill of Rights – and the fact that they had licences to deal in guns and ammunition and paid their taxes – gives the 900 out of 1000 gun dealers (and their 10 000 workers) who were forced to close their businesses down because the Central Firearms Register instituted an unlawful de facto gun ban after goading from Gun Free SA a legitimate sense of grievance, would you not say, Maggs?
Brett Nortje says:
November 2, 2009 at 13:17 pm
Re S22 “22 Freedom of trade, occupation and profession
Every citizen has the right to choose their trade, occupation or profession freely.
The practice of a trade, occupation or profession may be regulated by law.”
Especially “(t)he practice of a trade, occupation or profession may be regulated by law” does not further your argument.
http://www.saga.org.za/Registration%20Centres.htm
Maggs, there is a list of Firearms Registration Centres. You will note that at 1, 5 employees per Firearms Registration Centre we have already surpassed the incredibly obtuse requirement you set for Paul.
DO some homework.
ROTFLMAO@Maggs!
Maggs, where is ‘regulate’ defined as ‘stall licence applications for years’ or ‘refuse licences on arbitrary grounds until the dealer has to close down’?
Your side made a mockery of PAJA and S33 of the Constitution.
What do you think happens to the rule of law and the state administration if the Legislature enacts laws that cannot be implemented, that the Legislature knows are unconstitutional?
Er – service delivery riots?
Then there are those who passed all the testing and training applied and received their competency certificate from the police stating they are competent to own a firearm, only to be denied their licence on arbitrary grounds by the CFR.
A constitutional democracy? Yea right
Brett Nortje says:
November 2, 2009 at 13:48 pm
What???
Can I get the same prescription that you’re on!
Eish!
Brett Nortje says:
November 2, 2009 at 13:54 pm
“What do you think happens to the rule of law and the state administration if the Legislature enacts laws that cannot be implemented, that the Legislature knows are unconstitutional?”
Hooliganism is one way – some soldiers tried.
The sensible way is to go to the legal route – if I recall correctly that was the challenge re the ARVs and it was successful as one example.
Blah de Blah de Blah
Prof de Vos
PLEASE introduce me to your sister — the Professional Hunter.
I am all for familial contradictions.
Thanks
“semi-automatic machine guns”
Oxymoron of the week.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!
AND MAY THERE BE MANY, MANY MORE!
http://www.nuus24.com/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/Al-hoe-meer-wapens-glo-by-polisie-gesteel-20101021-2
Wot?!
Are you referring to this thread or is this just a typical non-commital, generic scamming message?
guns don’t kill people, people who shoot the gun kill people.