Reader Blog
Reader Blog

We need more gun owners in South Africa, not less

By Gideon Daniel Joubert

Gun ownership in South Africa has again been thrust into the spotlight, in no small part thanks to the high-profile criminal case against Oscar Pistorius gracing our television screens and the front pages of almost every newspaper. It is mindboggling that the allegedly negligent actions of but one famous public figure can reflect so badly on an entire population of lawful and responsible gun owners, the vast majority of which will likely never discharge their firearms at another human being during the course of their lives. Unfair but not unexpected: there is a deluge of misinformation about the nature of firearms and firearm ownership propagated through the media and organisations like Gun Free South Africa, and the public readily believe this due to ignorance regarding the issue.

I carry my legally owned handgun with me every day as prescribed by law, and I do so for a very simple reason: If there is a criminal who wishes to do me or my family harm, I now possess the capacity to fight off his attack and protect my life and the lives of my loved ones. Our criminal element are not renowned for their courtesy to dispatch written notice to their intended victims as to the where, when and how they plan to perpetrate their vile deeds. They strike when they believe their target least expects it, using the element of surprise and extreme violence to achieve their objective. It is crucial to be prepared for that eventuality: a gun owned for self-defence is utterly useless locked away in a safe when you need it most. I am far from the only person in my social circle that carries his gun concealed on him every day, most of my friends do exactly the same. We are all firmly aware that a great responsibility is thrust upon our individual shoulders when one owns and carries a firearm, and it is not something we as a community take lightly. We are not “Rambos” or “cowboys” or self-appointed guardians of our fellow man: we are just normal everyday people going about our business and staying out of trouble. We avoid confrontations. We avoid doing things or going to places that we consider too risky or too unsafe. In essence we avoid as far as is humanly possible getting ourselves into situations where we would be forced to use deadly force to defend our lives. There is the argument that citizens do not possess sufficient training or proficiency to use their guns to protect themselves, which is I disagree with. There are frequent reports in the media of successful defensive gun use by ordinary citizens, in many cases without fatalities.

South African firearms legislation, the Firearms Control Act of 2000 (FCA), is among the most restrictive and onerous gun laws in the world. It has failed to stem the out of control violence in our country perpetrated by criminals: the horrendous amount of people killed monthly in Manenberg, Mitchell’s Plain and Lavender Hill attest to that. Not surprisingly, none of the guns used in the numerous daily criminal acts are legally owned firearms. Criminals do not tend to bother licensing their weapons. There is the argument that if no civilians could legally own guns the criminals would be devoid of their source, which is naïve and ignorant: the SAPS and SANDF lose hundreds, if not thousands, of their firearms yearly. There are no prizes for guessing where these lost firearms turn up. Our criminal element has a virtually limitless source of guns with which to ply their violent trade, and the only thing a prohibition on legal civilian firearm ownership will achieve is to make law-abiding citizens completely defenceless. There are frequent media reports on the inefficiency of the South African Police in responding to violent crimes in progress. Would any citizen want to gamble their and their family’s lives on the response time of our SAPS? I truly hope not. What we desperately need in this country is more legal civilian firearm ownership, not less of it.

If there is any doubt in your mind regarding the conduct or nature of gun owners in South Africa, I invite you to find visit your nearest active shooting range. You may be surprised at the warm welcome you will receive and how much you may learn from experiencing what it really is all about.

Gideon Daniel Joubert is an airline pilot by profession, a devoted husband, and dedicated sport shooter. Residing in Strand, Western Cape.

Tags: , ,

  • In solidarity with women who speak out
  • Miley Cyrus, Taylor Swift and American gun culture
  • Polarised debate on Charleston hate crime, gun control leads nowhere
  • Senzo: Let’s get rid of the guns
    • Comrade Koos

      South Africa IOL March 15 2013 at 09:49am:

      “Cape Town – In the month since the shooting of model Reeva Steenkamp by her boyfriend Oscar Pistorius, Gun Free SA estimates that an average of 540 South Africans have been shot dead.

      Gun violence may have dropped by half in the past 15 years, but as many as 18 people a day are still being shot dead, said Gun Free SA’s Adèle Kirsten on Thursday.>>>>>>>>>>>>

      >>>>> “The country’s gun laws are good, solid laws,” she said. “The strengthening of South Africa’s gun laws has helped save lives. Since 1998 the number of people shot dead has halved from a high of 34 people a day.”>>>>

      However, she added: “More needs to be done.”

      Loopholes remained in the gun licensing process, she said, and her organisation also suspected some legal processes – like mandatory background checks on gun licence applicants – were not being followed correctly.

      “Gun Free SA calls for a complete review of South Africa’s gun laws, to close loopholes and tighten controls. This is one way in which we can reduce and prevent gun violence,” Kirsten said.

      Full report:
      http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/sa-s-gun-death-toll-shooting-up-1.1486924

      :-) :-)

    • Comrade Koos

      High gun ownership makes countries less safe, US study finds:

      Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare.

      Their findings, published Wednesday in the prestigious American Journal of Medicine, debunk the historic belief among many people in the United States that guns make a country safer, they say. On the contrary, the US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least.

      Full report:
      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study

      :-) :-)

    • Todor

      Koos. You are right. Gun control works. So long as your definition of “works” is preventing “gun murder”, “gun suicide” and “gun accidents”.

      All you should’ve said to us from the start is that you are perfectly OK with being bludgeoned, stabbed, strangled, poisoned, dismembered, hung or decapitated but you have a serious issue with being shot to death.

      You oppose the tool because of what it can do TO you. I support the tool because of what it can do FOR me.

      Fundamentally the choice is spectator vs participant.

    • Todor

      And if there were no guns in the world I’d still carry the next best tool available to suit my need and skill level – a sword perhaps. Certainly at least a knife. Maybe a bow. Who knows?

      Not that I don’t have the option of a sword, bow or a knife today, it’s just that carrying a gun is more practical. It is lighter, I can conceal it better, it has longer effective range, it reloads faster than a bow, it requires less physical strength than a sword so it’s equally effective in my hands, my girlfriend’s hands or in the hands of my grandmother.

      I tried sword fighting once and it was bloody hard, it’s even harder now that I am older, weaker and less fit so I much prefer my odds in a gunfight than my odds in a sword fight.

    • zoo keeper

      Comrade Koos

      1) You have provided no scientific data. Certainly nothing which has withstood peer-review

      2) I quoted the violent crime stats after the implementation of the FCA, which are devastating to your argument. You have not replied at all.

      3) I’m seeing a lot more common sense from the gun lobby. Why have you not dealt with my scenario? What do I do when the bad guys arrive at 03h00 and I am not allowed to be armed? I do not own a firearm. Why should I listen to you and not Gideon?

      4) Populations with high gun ownership figures show this to be a Hollywood fantasy. In the days of the Wild West, Dodge City had 5 homicides in one year 1878 – by far its most violent year. Everyone carrying a gun and drinking didn’t lead to Friday night bloodshed.

      5) The evidence shows that the answer is YES, it would be remarkably peaceful. In any event tens of thousands already go out on a Friday night with a weapon.

      6) Your comment about Australia misses many points – like the massive spike in homicides, home invasions and violent crime between 1996 and 2007. How many died needlessly for you cause?

      Since 1981, US and UK violent crime rates have been converging, the US consistently decreasing, and the UK’s consistently increasing.

      Also, the FBI and UK crime reports are different – the US classes all homicides as murder to increase the stats whilst the UK classes only successful murder prosecutions as murder to reduce the murder count!!!

      Why is the UK trying…

    • zoo keeper

      Comrade Koos

      The FCA was passed in 2000, but was only implemented in 2004. No change in crime before 2004 can be attributed to the FCA and GFSA’s efforts.

      Nothing. GFSA and the FCA have to take the rap for what happened AFTER 2004.

      South Africa was coming out of a period of effective civil war. All categories of crime began to plummet after 1998, until 2004 – when they began to increase exponentially.

      Explain that Comrade. Explain the dramatic increase in violent crime after the implementation of the FCA.

      For GFSA to claim their brain-child, the FCA has been successful is unfortunately an outright lie.

      The FCA contains many constitutionally offensive provisions, such as deemed guilt – forcing the accused to prove beyond reasonable doubt he is innocent!!!!! Search without warrant or just cause?!

      It is untenable as a piece of legislation in our constitutional democracy.

      To tout the FCA as a good piece of legislation is to have less understanding of human rights than Joseph Stalin, Comrade.

    • Todor

      Yet another argument that doesn’t revolve around statistics: https://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/

      No amount of statistics is going to convince me otherwise because I didn’t make the choice based on statistics in the first place.

    • Comrade Koos

      GUN CONTROL MAKES US SAFER :-)

      SCIENCEDAILY: Countries with lower gun ownership are safer than those with higher gun ownership, according to a new report.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130918101643.htm

      Throw your gun away and be safe. :-)

      >>

    • http://necrofiles.blogspot.com Garg Unzola

      Am I the only one who is puzzled by the fact that Japan has only 1/6th of the gun-related deaths that the USA has? Surely, there should be no gun deaths in a country with little to no guns? (this of course taking those convenient factoids at face value and ignoring their misleading usage here).

      Call me a gun nut but this seems to indicate to me that banning guns will not really solve the problem of guns. Least of all if you take into account that Japan’s figure is homicides only.

    • http://necrofiles.blogspot.com Garg Unzola

      Oh I get it the one with the most smilies is the one with the most convincing argument.

    • Bang Bang Gang

      # “It is one of the great joys of home ownership to fire a pistol in one’s own bedroom”
      ― Alfred Jarry

      # “You don’t spread democracy with a barrel of a gun.”
      ― Helen Thomas

      # “Our love affair with guns has nothing to do with tyranny, or militias, or self-preservation. Just ask any NRA member the following: If Jesus Christ himself were to come down off the cross and grant you one wish, would you opt for a world without guns — or the one we live in now? If every gun owner truly feared for their life and liberty, the answer would be obvious. But it’s not about life and liberty. It’s all about the sheer hard-on of owning a gun.”
      ― Quentin R. Bufogle

    • Bang Bang Gang

      # Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34th president of US 1953-1961 – From a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953.

    • Comrade Koos

      Stricter Gun Control made South Africa safer for women:

      “14 February 2014: A year ago today Reeva Steenkamp was shot and killed by Oscar Pistorius. Apart from being celebrities, Reeva and Oscar’s story is not unique: A man legally buys a gun to protect himself and those he loves from a stranger intruder; instead he uses his licensed gun to kill the person he loves. In 1999, 34% of women murdered by their intimate partner were killed with a gun; in 2009 this figure dropped to 17%. At the same time, the percentage of women killed in other ways (e.g. strangled, stabbed or beaten) remained the same. The researchers at the Medical Research Council assert that the single most important intervention that contributed to halving the number of women shot and killed by their intimate partner was the implementation of the Firearms Control Act (2000).”
      http://www.gfsa.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2014-02-14_AnniversaryReeva_KnowUseLaw.pdf

      >>>

    • zoo keeper

      Comrade Koos

      According to your logic it is a straight-line equation. Less guns in society mean less “gun” homicide.

      That means Japan would have a lower prevalence of “gun” homicide than the US.

      That means that because it is a straight-line equation, wherever guns are lower per capita there would be a lower “gun” death rate.

      Therefore, as the most heavily armed society on earth, the US should have the highest “gun” homicide rate on earth.

      But as shown above, a quick look around shows the US to be much, much lower than countries with a far lower prevalence of guns.

      Therefore your straight-line equation is completely false.

      Also, weapons bans in Japan were for the purposes of ensuring the population were kept under control, that uprisings could be avoided because the people could be suppressed and tax could be collected.

      The UK instituted gun bans from 1920 onwards for fear of a working class rebellion against the political elite. Nowhere has avoidance of violent crime been a rationale for gun control, even tangentially. The Australian PM who led his country’s gun buyback, praised the fact that Australia has no Bill of Rights which allowed him to ride rough-shod over his people’s rights.

      Are Bills of Rights a problem for you too, Comrade?

    • Todor

      @Koos

      I think you’ve ticked just about every box on https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ by now.

      It’s time shout “BINGO!” about now.

    • zoo keeper

      Bang Bang Gang

      “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”.

      Chairman Mao.

      Comrade Koos

      I have read the Medical Research Council’s report. The FCA was implemented in 2004 not 1999. 1999 is irrelevant for any impact of the FCA.

      The MRC report does not even establish the remotest logical link between its data and its rather surprising statement. That statement pops up in the middle of nowhere, unsupported by any traceable logic or data.

      To say the report fails to establish cause a effect is an understatement in the same way as saying a black hole is a little heavy.

      But then I saw that the Medical Research Council report was compiled by board members of GFSA.

      Gun control may have saved Reeva if Oscar did not have a gun with him that night. But on the same day, a woman in Atlanta Western Cape, shot two intruders coming to rape and murder her (had been a spate in the neighbourhood).

      According to your logic, it is preferable for Reeva to have survived and the other woman to have died a violent, violated death.

      So what you are now saying is that gun control is all about stopping intimate murder? Is that really what it is all about? What about all those women (and men) strangled, burnt, beaten, stabbed, chopped up, run over, hung, and so on? According to your analysis, their deaths are OK. According to you they are expendable.

      So long as they are not killed by a gun, their deaths are acceptable to you.

    • zoo keeper

      Comrade Koos

      What if Reeva had a gun?

      Assuming OP attacked her as per the State’s case. If Reeva had a gun, would OP have shot her in the first place?

      I’m not expecting an answer

    • zoo keeper

      Bang Bang Gang

      “We don’t let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns.” Joseph Stalin

      “The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.”

      James Earl Jones

      “To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.”

      Adolf Hitler

      “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

      Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

      “In the debate over guns, both sides are angry. The pro-gunners are angry at the ignorance, lies, and distortions of the anti-gunners, and the anti-gunners are angry with the pro-gunners for presenting facts.”

      Dave Champion

      “Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors? It cannot.”

      Tiffany Madison

    • zoo keeper

      “That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
      – George Orwell

      “Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.”
      – Anonymous

      “No Kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.”
      – James Burgh

      “Remember the first rule of gunfighting … have a gun.”
      – Jeff Cooper

      “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
      – Thomas Jefferson

    • Comrade Koos

      Britain’s really strict gun control took effect after the Dunblane massacre in 1986.
      “Public give up 160,000 guns after Dunblane”
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/164402.stm

      Britain had something like 138 gun deaths in 2009 while the USA had something like
      31 000 gun related deaths in 2010.

    • zoo keeper

      Comrade Koos

      Go read Joyce Malcolm’s work: “Guns and Violence: The English Experience”.

      See how “gun” crime doubled after the Dunblane ban.

      Please also explain why the US and UK violent crimes are converging. The US is reducing (as more and more firearms are owned) whilst the UK’s rate of violent crime is increasing.

      Surely the results should be the opposite if your theory is correct?

      Surely violent crime should be the highest in the world in the US?

      Why does the US not have the highest violent crime and “gun” murder rate in the entire world? Why do jurisdictions with far more restrictive gun policies suffer far higher rates of violent crime?

      Why did Jamaica and Ireland both suffer huge increases in Violent crime after their bans.

      Cherry-picking from the UK, Australia and Japan is not winning this debate for you.

      You still have to explain why in South Africa there were more murders in 2006 than in 2004 when the FCA was implemented. Why did the home invasion rate increase 240% from 2004 to 2011? At the same time burglary decreased – this can only mean that criminals are now more confident of entering a home with the people there than with them away.

      It may also explain why the rate of home invasion in the UK is 56% but only 13% in the US.

      Why are criminals bolder in gun controlled countries than in relaxed gun countries?

    • zoo keeper

      Comrade Koos

      Just in case you missed geography at school – the UK is an island, the US is a country the size of a continent.

      Your figure of 31 000, as has been pointed out numerous times above, includes suicides.

      It looks like you’re regurgitating debunked arguments so that a new reader of this blog will think you have won the day.

      A little honesty would go a long way, comrade.

    • zoo keeper

      Bang Bang Gang

      Your quote on asking an NRA member what he’d ask Jesus is actually hilarious, thanks for the humour!

      In case you missed it, Jesus lived in a time of no guns and vicious Roman oppression of his people. How did it work out for Jesus?

      And as for not spreading democracy with a gun, please show me one society in history which has not had to fight for its freedoms? I don’t expect you to answer that because it is not possible to find one.

      Every freedom we have, including the one we are currently enjoying on this blog is drenched in the blood of those who fought for freedom. if you leave the political powers-that-be with a monopoly of force, you have betrayed the millions throughout history who died for you to be free.

      As Chairman Mao correctly said: “Political power grows out of the barrel of the gun”. You take away the gun from the people and you take away their power.

      What does it feel like to betray those who died for your freedom? I mean really, it interests me that people would do that.

      Please tell us, under cover of your anonymity of course, what it feels like.

    • Comrade Koos

      HIRED GUNS:

      :-( :-(

      US Senators are in the pockets of the gun industry. They are paid to destroy gun control legislation that would make the US a safer place.

      THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT SCHOOL MASSACRES. MONEY TALKS. :-(

      “All but three of the 45 senators who torpedoed gun control measures in Congress on Wednesday have received money from firearms lobbyists, according to new analysis by the Guardian and the Sunlight Foundation.” FULL REPORT….
      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/18/pro-gun-groups-donated-senators

      :-(

    • Bang Bang Gang

      # “One only wishes Wayne LaPierre and his NRA board of directors could be drafted to some of these scenes, where they would be required to put on booties and rubber gloves and help clean up the blood, the brains, and the chunks of intestine still containing the poor wads of half-digested food that were some innocent bystander’s last meal.” ― Stephen King, Guns

      # “New Rule: Gun-control people have to stop pressuring Starbucks to ban guns. I want my gun nuts overcaffeinated, twitchy, and accident-prone. That way, the problem will take care of itself.”
      ― Bill Maher, The New New Rules: A Funny Look At How Everybody But Me Has Their Head Up Their Ass

    • Comrade Koos

      :-)

      1) Crime in England and Wales down 10%, survey shows……It is the lowest estimate since the survey began in 1981…………….The CSEW said household crime, related to vehicles and property, was down by 10%, while personal crime, including thefts from the person and violent crimes, fell by 9%. It also estimated violence had fallen by 13%, taking it to its lowest level for 33 years.
      http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25858421

      2) What the Gun Lobby DO NOT tell you about the Harvard study “The Harvard Injury Control Research Center, part of the Harvard School of Public Health, found that “The rate of gun homicide, and the total homicide rate was significantly correlated with levels of gun ownership”,

      3) A number of studies have examined the correlation between rates of gun ownership and gun-related, as well as overall, homicide and suicide rates internationally.[21] Martin Killias, in a 1993 study covering 21 countries, found that there were significant correlations between gun ownership and gun-related suicide and homicide rates.

      :-(

      Sorry @ zoo keeper. I am correct, I have done my research. :-)

    • zoo keeper

      Comrade Koos

      Snap out of your hallucination.

      You have lost pretty much every point.

      Your straight-line correlation – more guns = more “gun” deaths is factually wrong.

      The next thing is your false category of crime. There is no such thing as “gun” murder. Overall murder rates, assaults, home and business invasions and rape have to be studied.

      You are concentrating on a single facet, I am looking at the whole picture. You are misdirecting by inventing a fictitious category of crime.

      I notice you post about suicides. Is gun control about suicide then?

      Firstly it was about intimate murder, then suicide. Not once have you dealt with overall crime trends in all violent crime categories.

      You are not being honest in your answers. You consistently avoid answering any material point put to you.

      You consistently avoid explaining why violent crime soared in the 5 years after the implementation of the FCA.

      For GFSA to claim figures from 1999 prove something is actually fraudulent.

      I have told you I do not own a gun, despite my arguments for gun ownership. You have not addressed my scenario (very real) in which the choice between your philosophy and Gideon’s was made very apparent to me.

      If you can convincingly show me how your philosophy will help at 03h00 when the bogeymen arrive I will change my mind.

      That is your challenge Comrade Koos.

      Tell me right now how your philosophy will help me?

    • zoo keeper

      Comrade Koos

      You need to update your research. Killias’ earlier study didn’t prove anything. It is regarded as junk science.

      You mention Harvard, you mean the study that stated the following:

      “The same pattern appears when comparisons of violence to gun ownership are done within nations. Indeed, “data on firearms ownership by constabulary area in England.” like data from the United States show a “negative correlation” that is “where firearms are most dense, violent crime is lower, and where firearms are least dense, the violent crime rate is the highest.”

      and this:

      “…the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.”

      Sorry Comrade Koos. Looks like you just got “fragged”.

    • zoo keeper

      Bang Bang Gang

      “These Sarah Brady types must be educated to understand that because we have an armed citizenry, a dictatorship has not happened in America. These anti-gun fools are more dangerous to liberty than street criminals or foreign spies.” – Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor

      “To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow. … For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.” – Jeff Snyder, author

      “I have yet to hear anyone afflicted with the “gun control” disability dial 9-1-1 and specify, “Now please be sure to send the kind of cops who are disarmed. If you can’t do that, we’d rather you not send anyone at all to stop the men who are holding my daughter at knifepoint, because in this household we don’t believe that guns ever solve anything.”” – Vin Suprynowicz, writer

      “An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.” Lt.Col. Jeff Cooper

    • Comrade Koos

      Yawn……@zoo keeper

      In 2011, the U.K. had 0.07 gun homicides for every 100,000 people; the U.S., by contrast, had 3 gun homicides for every 100,000. There is 42 times more gun homicide per 100 000 people in the USA than the UK.

      And crime is coming down in England and Wales, so don’t try and tell me its gone up since gun control came in. Check out this BBC report http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25858421

      Research in 21 countries showed a correlation between rates of gun ownership and gun-related, as well as overall, homicide and suicide rates internationally. Fewer gun owners equal less gun homicides while crime can (and often does) come down at the same time as gun control is introduced. Crime is related to socio-economic and political forces. When you have negative socio-political conditions, more guns are the last thing you should add to the mix.

      In South Africa In 1999, 34% of women murdered by their intimate partner were killed with a gun; in 2009 this figure dropped to 17%. At the same time, the percentage of women killed in other ways (e.g. strangled, stabbed or beaten) remained the same. The Firearms Control Act (2000) worked.

      @zoo keeper ~ I have done my research.

      Carry on living in your dream world.

      :-)

    • Comrade Koos

      @zoo keeper

      “If you can convincingly show me how your philosophy will help at 03h00 when the bogeymen arrive I will change my mind.”

      If you have a gun when the bogey men arrive at 03h00 you are far more likely to be shot. A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater. [American Journal of Public Health]
      http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099?journalCode=ajph

      Thanks for giving me the opportunity to convince you.

      :-)

    • zoo keeper

      Bang Bang Gang

      “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”

      Lenin (1870-1924)

    • zoo keeper

      Comrade Koos

      It is fraudulent of GFSA to compare the FCA with figures in 1998 or 1999. The FCA was only implemented in 2004. There is a world of difference between the passing of the Act in 200o and its implementation in 2004. Why were there more murders in 2006?

      Your claims are contradicted by both Jamaica and Ireland. Two very different societies.

      South Africa has a few more guns in private hands than the UK, but our murder rate is 32/100 000. Why?

      Please also explain why, since 1980, the UK’s violent crime stats are increasing and the US’ are decreasing.

      You consistently avoid the trends in violent crime. Why?

    • zoo keeper

      Comrade Koos

      RE: American Journal of Public Health

      I read up on that one, and it has been validly criticized. It is junk science. It took a miniscule sample of folks from low-income, high drug trade areas (read gang activity) and extrapolated that to the entire population. It had a predetermined outcome.

      Anyway, your answer tells me everything I need to know.

      All you did was point out a study, did not save my life. The bogeymen still came through the window. Following your advice, I have no chance and must submit. Perhaps I will be comforted whilst I bleed out on the carpet from a stab wound that I was not shot. Perhaps I will be comforted my wife is being gang-raped and my kids forced to watch because no-one got shot.

      It will be a comforting way for me to die – comforting for you.

      I asked you what I could do @ 03h00. I have a wife and small children to protect. You have made it clear you wish me to be defenseless – it explains the 240% increase in robberies after the FCA.

      So thank you Comrade. Not one piece of your research has helped, as Gideon’s side survives heavy peer-review, yours did not. Not once.

      If I have a gun and I get shot, I will die trying to save my family, & maybe I will save them. I will have given them a chance to survive and fight back themselves.

      Your way is one of helplessness, praying for mercy from the merciless. Insane.

      I will take my wife too. With her own firearm, she can protect me as well as I can protect her. Now…

    • Todor

      @Koos

      You seem obsessed with statistics as the answer to everything and I make an observations – your entire argument is framed around risk minimization.

      So lets prod the edge case then. Your wife is about to be raped and you have a gun. Do you :

      1.) Sit and watch because you are more likely to remain alive
      2.) Embrace the risk and take the chance of defending your family

      Hint: the above is a loaded question because I am pretty convinced each side of the gun-debate only sees one acceptable answer. The answer you choose is what sets us apart.

      There comes a point where risk minimization comes second to regret minimization.

      Unless of course you are perfectly content with being a coward.

    • Todor

      (and I am not judging. You have the right to be whatever you chose)

    • Comrade Koos

      The affliction of Gun Lobby Denialism:

      1) Head in the sand — “there is no evidence supporting gun control”
      Bwaahaa, ha, haa, ha :-)

      2) Head in the clouds — “I don’t care how many studies you find, it’s all just elite liberal anti-gun bias” Equally ridiculous. :-)

      In fact, the pro-gun lobby can’t even answer the one question that drives any good conspiracy theory… Who benefits? :-)

      Many sound peer reviewed research published in reputable journals supporting gun control can be found here:
      http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118×422849

      :-) :-)

    • Comrade Koos

      Peer reviewed research the pro-gun lobby deny:

      1) Reductions in firearm-related mortality and hospitalizations in Brazil after gun control.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17339689

      2) Firearm legislation reform in the European Union: impact on firearm availability, firearm suicide and homicide rates in Austria.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17766767

      3) Firearms as a cause of death in the United States, 1920-1982.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3553611

      4) An evaluation of state firearm regulations and homicide and suicide death rates.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15805435

      5) Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15470007

      6) State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003.

      7) International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8485675

      8) Firearm availability and unintentional firearm deaths, suicide, and homicide among 5-14 year olds.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11834986

      9) Firearm availability and suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm deaths among women.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11937613

      10) Household firearm ownership and suicide rates in the United States.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15805435

      11) Mortality among recent purchasers of handguns.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10564689

    • Comrade Koos

      12) Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17170183

      13) Effects of restrictive licensing of handguns on homicide and suicide in the District of Columbia.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1669841

      PS For those unfamiliar with the body of research on gun control, the papers linked to above are just a sample and definitely not a comprehensive summary of the gun control literature. Moreover, going straight to research papers is not always the most effective way to familiarize yourself with the body of literature as a whole. I would suggest this book as a good overall summary.

      “Private Guns, Public Health [Hardcover] David Hemenway (Author)
      http://www.amazon.com/Private-Public-Health-David-Hemenway/dp/0472114050

      :-) :-) :-) 😉

    • Bang Bang Gang

      # “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”
      -Anonymous

      # “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”
      -Albert Einstein

      # “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity.”
      -Martin Luther King, Jr.

      # “Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education.”
      -Bertrand Russell

    • zoo keeper

      Comrade Koos

      You speak of reducing firearm-related stuff.

      But what of the consequences of a disarmed, vulnerable public?

      This is where you become, frankly, casual with the effects of gun control.

      Gun lobbies constantly refer to violent crime. The whole picture. Suicide is not violent crime, it does not count.

      What counts is assault, rape, robbery (when the bogeymen arrive in your home whilst you are there) and murder.

      The whole picture of violent crime changes after gun control. As Harvard has pointed out, it is a big negative for gun control.

      If you are happy because fewer people are killing themselves with firearms, but exponentially more people are violated in their homes, then you might have a psychological problem.

      You have constantly misdirected the argument, and even lost badly when I temporarily entertained your fictitious category of crime.

    • zoo keeper

      Comrade Koos

      With gun control comes another, deeply insidious aspect. People are vulnerable, and naturally ask how they will defend themselves in their time of need. In order to control this, legislation is passed/courts influenced to restrict the definition of acceptable self-defence to the point where resisting an attack may lead to harsher results for the innocent victim. Its reinforced by public figures rabbiting on about “vigilantes”. Constant media bombardment until the populace is forced to accept it, so long as it doesn’t happen to them.

      This is achievable in a very low-crime environment like the UK, because the vast majority don’t care and won’t ever expect to be victims of crime. But this is South Africa.

      If you take away my tool for self-defense, what are you going to replace it with? This is what my question regarding my family’s safety was about.

      You had no answer at all. You have no answer at all.

      So what’s next, except to become a police state. In the UK police have powers to stop and search randomly without cause. The Dangerous Weapons Act is an extension of this, where police can arrest anyone anytime, because pretty much anything can be a dangerous weapon. Again, this is about police control of the population.

      We spent decades fighting a police state and you just want to open the doors and let them back in?

      What is your motive? Its not public safety after all.

    • zoo keeper

      Comrade Koos

      Who benefits from the gun lobby?

      Easy, gun dealers and gun and ammunition manufacturers are the obvious answer. They provide jobs and pay tax. Its an honest living by the way.

      Who else benefits?

      Obviously the citizens benefit. They are safer from crime because criminals are more wary of confrontation. Terrorism becomes exponentially harder because resistance is immediate and impossible to cater for. Police benefit because their workload is lightened by lowering incidences of violent crime, and fewer victims. The police’s risk of lawsuit from unjustifiable arrest diminishes rapidly.

      Gun Control

      Politicians benefit, and their business associates. Politicians are cocooned from rebellion because their subjects are too afraid to take them on. Their business associates can take advantage, do what they like.

      The history of humanity is replete with countless examples of disarmament and political domination.

      Why were blacks not allowed to own guns in Apartheid? Why were Jews not allowed to own guns in 1938? Those are just the most obvious examples. I can go on for millennia.

      Behind your ideology is an insidious shadow of tyranny.

      The media got excited about the Secrecy Bill, but that is nothing on gun control.

      Without the means to physically resist political tyranny, our constitution is a paper tiger.

      Its deterrence just like the Armed Response poster on your wall.

      Listen to the voices of our victims. Listen to the voices of the…

    • zoo keeper

      Bang Bang Gang

      Stick to the subject please.

    • zoo keeper

      Comrade Koos

      Thanks for your links. Especially the “Democratic Underground” – all it was is a grade 1D “dog ate my homework” excuse for failing peer-review!

      It undermined you even further.

      What do I do at 03h00, Comrade? What do I actually do?

    • Todor

      @Koos

      You have an amazing ability to regurgitate statistics, so I propose to you a challenge.

      I’d like you to give us a country where you can show a trend of total murder, (not “gun murder”!) decreasing after gun control has been introduced.

      Just one.

    • Todor
    • Japie

      @Todor, @ zoo keeper @ Gideon Daniel Joubert

      There has been ample peer reviewed research provided above to back up the position for gun control.

      Kindly provide peer reviewed research that the implementation of the Firearms Control Act in South Africa was directly responsible for the the 240% increase in robberies.

      I have searched and searched and searched, and find criminologists giving all sorts of reasons for the dramatic increase in crime in this country, but cannot find a peer reviewed study to prove that the Firearms Control Act is to blame for the 240% increase in robberies since its implementation.

    • Comrade Koos

      OK, lets look at the South African scenario:

      1) Half of South Africa’s murders occur in only 13% or 143 out of 1 127 of police precincts.

      2) Low-income areas most affected – Most murders happen in areas where crime and violence are part of the daily despair of residents who already feel marginalised and forgotten by media and politicians.

      3) Research shows that most victims are killed by acquaintances, friends or family members during disputes overwhelmingly fueled by alcohol and in some occasions, drug abuse.

      4) People tend to focus on our national murder rate, which is four and a half times higher than the global average of 6.9 per 100 000 people. Yet, some 13% of police precincts in South Africa have murder rates below this rate.

      5) Over 10% of our policing precincts – more than 115 stations – have a zero murder rate. Three in four murders occur in just a quarter of the country’s police station areas.

      Source: http://mg.co.za/article/2013-09-19-where-murder-happens-in-south-Africa
      Lizette Lancaster is manager of the crime and justice information hub, governance crime and justice division at ISS.

      QUESTION: So does the pro-gun-lobby really believe arming citizens with guns in low income areas where murders and are mostly of friends, family members and acquaintances in drug and alcohol fueled violence?

      A peer reviewed study to prove that arming people instead of addressing the underlying social problems to reduce murder and crime would help…

    • Todor

      @Japie

      There is ample peer-reviewed research to back up both stances. That’s very much my point from the start – surely the answer should be black or white if we’ve framed the problem correctly? So where is the ambiguity coming from?

      One ambiguity is the definition of “works”. Koos thinks it means reducing “gun violence”, while I care about reducing all violence.

      Then the ambiguity of “peer reviewed”. It’s not a rubber stamp of trustfulness and a study can be both “peer reviewed” and “discredited” at the same time.The moment we discredit a methodology though, we ought to discredit all other studies which used a similar approach too, no?

      My issue with majority of the research around the “gun debate” is that it focuses on comparing cross-sectional data from various countries. That’s really bad science! There are so many variables across societies it’s virtually impossible to have a control case.

      The only sound methodology I’ve seen so far one which takes a region as a single system then reasons about crime patterns before and after gun control. This way you can assume all other factors have remained somewhat constant.I have found that all studies which follow this methodology have found gun control to be ineffective at best, and counter-productive to reducing crime at worst.

      So if you want to prove me wrong, then discredit the methodology – don’t throw other, discredited studies in my face just because they agree with your opinion.