Sarah Britten
Sarah Britten

Would stricter gun control have saved Reeva?

So Lulu Xingwana thinks we need better gun control. “Domestic violence is exacerbated by easy access to guns. We are making a call for stricter gun control,” she said at a media briefing last week. “As a country we need to wage a sustained and effective campaign against the availability of guns in our homes and streets.” Reeva would still be alive if there were no gun, she said, and she’s probably right. But would stricter gun control have saved her? I am not so sure.

For one thing, South Africa’s rules around private gun ownership are already very strict. You can’t walk into your local Makro and buy a gun. A background check isn’t sufficient, as it is in the US; you have to demonstrate that you can handle the weapon and are familiar with the rules regarding its safe and legal use.

Oscar obtained the 9mm pistol that killed Reeva Steenkamp legally. At the time he obtained it, there were no grounds to deny him a gun licence. Apparently, he was denied a licence in 2008 for reasons that aren’t clear, but received one in 2010. Perhaps if he’d had to complete a psychological assessment, there might have been a clue to the possibility that he’d shoot someone four times through a bathroom door, but there’s no way to know — not unless we engage the services of psychics as in The Minority Report, the 1956 Philip K Dick short story turned into a movie starring Tom Cruise.

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people goes the tired cliché beloved of the pro-gun crowd, but there is no doubt that guns increase the risk of fatalities significantly, even when the gun involved is legal and there is no immediate external threat. Guns are the leading cause of suicide in the US; there, gun-related suicides outnumber homicides.

Just last week it was reported that a Limpopo game farm manager succeeded in killing himself accidentally when the gun he’d left on top of a washing machine he was moving fell on the floor and fired a bullet into his stomach. The safety catch wasn’t on. Family members who’d flown out from the UK for his wedding will attend his funeral instead.

But here’s the awful, simple truth: the law, and the state, can’t be everywhere. Human beings are complex and flawed, and human relationships exponentially so. You can legislate against bad decisions, stupidity or just plain irrationality but you can’t prevent them from happening — we don’t always think of the consequences, we just act, and the law can only act with hindsight. Maybe Oscar was incubating the kind of paranoia or blind rage (depending on which version of events turns out to be what we accept as truth) that resulted in Reeva’s death, but there was no way to prove that, and no way to deny him a licence in 2010. As for the contention that his gun should have been taken away after he threatened to break someone’s legs — that is surely an entire legal process, one which can’t be based on hearsay. Magistrate Nair didn’t think any of these incidents made Oscar a danger to society. Would they have been enough to justify taking away his gun?

If the Oscars of this world can’t own guns, then neither can all of the responsible gun owners who don’t go around shooting innocent people. Let’s face it: the reasons for wanting to own a gun in South Africa are pretty compelling — perhaps not for someone like me, who lived with guns in the bedroom for years and hated them, for certainly those who do. So while the gun control debate seems like an easy target for government ministers looking for a convenient bandwagon to hitch a ride, the solution we’re looking for is far, far more complicated.

As it always is.

Tags: , , ,

  • In solidarity with women who speak out
  • Polarised debate on Charleston hate crime, gun control leads nowhere
  • Leave Judge Masipa alone
  • Pistorius and the unfinished gun ownership debate
    • http://http// Paul Whelan

      Is that a Yes or a No?

    • Joe Soap

      I understand if there is a case of domestic violence the police can/should (?) rescind a gun license. If this happened and the police did not take Oscar’s gun away prior to the shooting they are to blame. Obviously the gun laws are not being properly implemented.

    • Joe Soap

      “Let’s face it: the reasons for wanting to own a gun in South Africa are pretty compelling” – like a teddy bear for a small child, a gun gives one a sense of security.

      However, local and international research shows that people who own guns are four times more to be killed by one than saved by one.

    • Joe Soap

      CORRECTION – ‘are four times more LIKELY to be killed by one than saved by one’.

    • Lennon

      How about the ability of citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government?

    • Tofolux

      @Sarah, this dinner-table approach to critical debates in our society really takes us nowhere. The point is that guns kill. Furthermore, it is these very guns of legal owners which finds its way into townships and into the hands of illegal owners etc. I mean, it doesnt take a genius to ask the question as to whose guns are in circulation today, noting that criminals do not go to a gun shop to purchase their guns. The gun debate however is a broad debate. I am also wondering why some in our society is so temporary and so fickle in supporting critical issues in our country, which most accept, is in developmental mode. Not only does it seem that these sections tend to over-analyse everything, they have NO SOLUTIONS. Not so long ago, once again we saw images of children being gunned down in a school in America. The American President has of late being calling upon the Americans to look at stricter gun controls. Other than the brutal shooting of Reeva and others, shouldnt the images of America be a worrying sign to all of us? A gun is a luxury item to a very few. This luxury item however is dangerous even to those who are responsible owners, it also kills. Hence shouldnt we take the opportunity to confront and address critical questions around guns,now? ALL of us, ultimately, want to live in a society that is safe. In trying to achieve this safety especially for women and children, isnt stricter gun controls, a small price to pay for our peace of mind?

    • Garg Unzola

      @Joe Soap:
      That’s a flawed statistic as it’s based on shoddy research.

      It appears that most people who die from guns, die as a result of either suicide or of their spouse shooting them with a gun.

      In Oscar’s case, stricter gun control would not have saved Reeva. However, if our laws were enforced, she may have been saved as Oscar was not supposed to be in possession of a gun – if the rumours are true that he’s been cited for previous domestic disturbances.

      Then again, his ammunition was for all intents and purposes illegal. Keep in mind that this would count as a slaying with an illegal gun and it shows once more that stricter gun control would have no effect in this case.

    • The Creator

      If you think you can protect yourself against a tyrannical government with a 9mm phallus-substitute, you have another think coming, comrade.

      Nobody actually has any reason to possess a handgun; their only function is killing other people.

    • Jon Story

      Asking the question is trying to look into the shooters mind.

      The mind is like a tube of toothpaste you can squeeze for the contents to emerge – so psychiatrists like us believe – and we do, witness our wholesale flocking to the couch in the hope of finding answers of who we are and what makes us tick, why we did what we did.

      I have heard my Dutch friend use the term ‘ziele-knijper’ (soul-squeezer) the idea being if you knijp long enough the truth will eventually emerge. And with the truth, hopefully a solution.

      No doubt the shooter will be thus investigated by a ‘zieleknijper’ but whether we will be much wiser?

      Bloggers and respondents have been squeezing this awhfull happening to the limit but questions still remain. We want answers to put this behind us.

    • Papa


      People using guns to protect themselves from a tyrannical government is one of America’s biggest and dumbest myths.

    • Mr. Direct

      Ban guns, then knives, other sharp objects, bottles containing liquid more than 100ml. And at the end, we will still have murder.

    • Erich Rautenbach

      Perhaps access to cricket bats should also be controlled?

    • bernpm

      “Would stricter gun control have saved Reeva?”

      Who cares?? the answer will not bring her back alive.

      Will it save other lives in the future?? The “stricter” will not achieve anything as proven with all other “controlled” issues that are out of hand…….corruption, rape, traffic, name it.

      SA has the best constitution in the world and yet, many things are in chaos because “control” is a “NO NO”.

      Recent rejection by Education Union of the Minister’s proposal to put equipment in schools to check teacher’s attendance is but one example.

    • Gavin Foster

      Hmm. So David Protter, the villain of the Fox Street Siege in 1975, who was convicted of murder, kidnapping, 45 counts of attempted murder and three contraventions of the Firearms Act when he captured the Israeli Embassy, held the staff hostage, executed the head of security and then machine-gunned the crowds in the street below with an Uzi sub-machine gun that he was not legally entitled to have, would surely never be allowed to ever legally own a firearm. This is unfortunately not the case. Protter served just 15 years in jail and in 2001 he, despite having been declared a psychopath at his trial, was granted three gun licences by the SAPS Central Firearm Registry.

      All the laws in the world are useless if you have an administrative system as corrupt, inefficient and disinterested as we have.

      See noseweek 161 for March 2012 for more about this.


    • Gavin Foster

      I see that some familiar Gun Free South Africa fans are posting comments here. For an interesting read go through the comments posted by some of these people on my gun ownership Thought Leader post in June 2010

      Whichever side of the argument you take you’re entitled to have your say. It would be great if the GFSA supporters could present reasoned, logical responses though. They ended up demonstrating their intellectual deficiencies by resorting to puerile insults as the game went on. I loved it.

    • Lennon

      @ Papa: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, shall NOT be infringed.”

      Where’s this myth you speak of?

    • Lennon

      @ The Creator: I’ll take a 9mm over a brick.

      Stalin, Mao, Hitler. Mass murderers agree: gun control works.

    • Momma Cyndi

      I dare not possibly say what my opinion of Lulu is in a public forum. Suffice to say that only Angie ranks lower.

      The information available tends to suggest that gun related death did go down when the new legislation for tighter gun controls came in. Guns still only account for around 11% of all ‘un-natural’ death (most deaths are by stabbing or blunt force)

      Domestic violence is a crime of passion. The use of a gun in those situations is unusual. That is why the corpse normally has 10 or 20 knife holes in it. Anger is a hands on type of emotion.

      Sane South Africans don’t have guns because they want to kill someone – they have guns because they know that the likelihood of being a victim of a crime is waaaaay too high for complacency.

      I also wish that we were not always fed American nonsense. I can feed out Swiss figures to counter that ….. makes no difference because this is SA and we are neither American nor Swiss.

    • OneFlew

      Channelling the NRA?

      If private ownership of handguns had been outlawed the SA murder rate, and the rate of accidental killings, would be considerably lower.

    • Garg Unzola

      I hope the gun free south africa fans are aiming their ire at the police too. Because they are the source of most of our gun crime.

      Come to think of it, nobody really needs dentistry. We should outlaw dentistry too.

    • Gary Koekemoer

      Stricter gun control would not have saved Reeva, current gun control measures implemented as intended may have, not having a gun handy could have prevented the tragedy, but not enough is known yet about what went down, what Oscar’s state of mind was, to know for sure about anything…

    • Sipiwo Pahlane

      People seem to have solutions for the eradication of gun ownership in the legal sense but I have as yet to see a person who has a solution for the illegal guns. Me thinks it is a question of a chicken and an egg. Should we deal with illegal guns first and legal ones later or vice versa? An easy explanation by those opposed to guns is that a legal gun gives rise to an illegal one once it gets stolen or lost from a legal owner. That is a simplistic view of course.

      Fact is people have killed and are killing people with or without guns. The great number of people that die in motor vehicle accidents is so high but I havent heard anyone saying we should ban motor vehicles. A bigger number of people die through stabbings and we still buy knives over the counter. Nobody bothers to look at those statistics and I wonder why? Does it become softer when one is killed by other means than guns? Me thinks not.

      I think we need to come with solutions to deal with violence irrespective of how it is perpertrated, by whom, to whom, where. As long as we categorise violent conduct, we are still a long way off in solving the problem. We shouldnt abuse legal gun owners because they are able to account and leave out those who cant account in the equation.

    • Hakuna Matata

      Pro- and Anti- Firearm protagonist seem forever to be at each other throats. I, as I suppose many others, do not think the answer is a clearcut one. I have 26 licensed firearms, six of which are handguns. All these firearms are of military origin. Despite that I do not view myself as pro-firearm. These firearms simply have historic value to me (but I do fire them at shooting ranges). Am I convinced that firearm owners that own a firearm on the self defence ticket can protect themselves? No. Few of these have had the physical and psychological training to, meaningful, pull the trigger when the time comes. Forget about getting the firearm out of the safe in time to confront a potential murderer. Their guns are probably a liability to them.

      In a country like New Zealand, so I understand, you only have to have a license to own firearms, thereafter you can own as much as you like. Yet we seldom, if ever, hear about mass shootings there. Perhaps then the answer lies elsewhere: our moth eaten moral fabric, or perhaps something like a society where stress is too high and need to be reduced (perhaps by lower crime rates.)

      Did Britten say yes or no to guns? I think she said yes, but lets be less rabid about it.

    • Zeph

      Personally I do not want a gun as I do not know if I will have the courage to use it or, god forbid, I am pissed and I have and urge to use it on someone who has really ticked me off.
      That being said; I do not think banning firearms is the solution. There are too many illegal firearms out there, as well as knives, axes, bricks, acid, rat poison, cholesterol (testosterone) and stress.

    • Truth be known

      I believe Reeva would probably be alive today if Oscar did not have a gun in the house.

      Research done in some states in the USA found that 73% of women killed by guns were killed by someone they knew, a spouse or partner, they were not killed by some intruder or a stranger in a dark ally.

      If a country has a responsible gun culture, then individuals can keep many guns, but certain countries have very irresponsible gun cultures, so gun control is necessary.

      Its no good quoting the research, the gun-nutters just deny research that does not suit their beliefs no matter how sound it is. But the research is there for the more balanced people in society to look at.

    • The Realist

      This is one of the most convincing projects that gun control works:

      “The chances of gun death in Australia dropped twice as steeply after 700,000 guns were destroyed in a national firearm ‘buyback’ and amnesty, reveals a decade long study in Injury Prevention.”

      Read full article, there are some amazing and unexpected facts :

    • Garg Unzola

      @Truth be known:
      If it’s no good quoting the research, then please don’t.

    • Pig-dog

      1) “In the United Kingdom, firearms are tightly controlled by law, ……………………………………….[It} has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world. There were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010, compared to the 3.0 in the United States (over 40 times higher) and ……………………..”

      2) Crime statistics for England & Wales: what’s happening to each offence?

      ………………[The figures show] a 41% drop in crime between 2002-03 and 2011-12 for police recorded crime figures, compared with a 26% drop in the crime survey results over the same period…………….


    • Joe Soap

      “Let’s face it: the reasons for wanting to own a gun in South Africa are pretty compelling”

      “There is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in. Hemenway, David, PhD. “Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home.” (American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine. May 5, 2011)”

    • Joe Soap


      1) A recent study shows that access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times compared to instances where there are no weapons. In addition, abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners. (J.C. Campbell, Webster J, Koziol-McLain, CR, et al. 2003. Risk Factors For Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results From A Multi-Site Case Control Study. (American Journal of Public Health. 93 (7).)

      2) Women are twice as likely to be shot and killed by intimate partners as they are to be murdered by strangers using any type of weapon. (Tjaden P., Thoennes N. Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice: 2000. NCJ 18781.) (Rothman E. F., Hemenway D, Miller M, and Azael D. Batterers’ Use of Guns to Threaten Intimate Partners. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association, 2005. 60 (1): p. 62- 68.)

    • Kreefstert

      No No No and No.

      Oh and Joe Soap, your stats are BS. No reliable way to measure it.

      Stop talking nonsense.

    • Shaun

      I’m no fan of guns, but I doubt we will see a significant reduction in gun related deaths by banning them.

      Unless those pesky criminals who slay entire teams of cash-in-transit guards have gone through legal channels to get their hands on AK 47s.

    • Paul

      Let’s see now… a) There is NO VALID reseach (either locally or internationally) that shows anything like the tired old rhetoric that you are 4 times more likely to have a gun in the home used against you that in your defense. It, quite simply, is a lie!

      b) The Firearms Control Act (partially implemented in 2004) had the effect of SLOWING the decline in the homicide rate in SA. If you plot the steady rate of decline since 1994 to 2003, and continue it on to 2011 you will see that the FCA has cost us almost 6000 ADDITIONAL homicides per year! That’s a lot of bodies and a lot of blood on Gun Free SA’s hands. And this doesn’t account for the billions of rands and enormous wasted resources which the SAPS could have devoted to crime fighting.

      c) I’m heartened to see that the notoriously perverted Medical Reseach Council Intimate Femicide Study has at last been consigned to the bin where it belonged. The South African data showed that the most heavily armed portion of SA society had the lowest rate of Intimate Femicide… a very clear negative correlation.

    • Steve

      Good grief, not the GFSA trolls/useful idiots again.

      They trot out the same research done by researchers with an agenda and they never tell you the truth about how these so called papers have been utterly debunked. Lets take the latest gems from GFSA: “Since the FCA crime has come down”, Really?

      If you look at police stats from 1994 you will see there is a steady drop from 1994 to 2004 where the numbers plateau with small bump in 2006 and then slowly start to go down again. Problem is that FCA only came into effect in 2004. And there was a massive surge (+-1million) in gun ownership post 94, especially among newly enfranchised blacks who could now get licenses. And the crime rate dropped….until the restrictions. hmmmm So As GFSA wants to impute correlation = causation well then by doing some numbers this act is responsible for some 6000 live lost per anum.

      As for guns “causing suicide”, well thats laughable. How can an inanimate object cause you to top yourself? Canada had the same belief and yes suicide by gun did go down after restriction (Yay victory for Gun control) but the overall suicide rate remained unchanged. OOPS. If someone is going to kill themselves and they are serious, you wont stop them. While we are on this subject , would GFSA care to comment on Japan’s suicide rate? No guns at all there but suicide is rife.

      to be cont..

    • Steve

      The 4x more likely to be shot with your own gun tripe. before we get onto how this paper has been debunked and actually withdrawn in shame by the guy who vomited it up. Lets look at simple logic. If it were true, why would criminals then use guns, or cops? By the logic of the GFSA crowd, un armed victims should be disarming crooks and shooting them down regularly and cops should be being disarmed daily on the streets by crooks. But its not happening. Why just last night a man rescued his daughter from a crook who had a gun to her head. Yes, he outdrew a drawn weapon and prevailed 1 vs 3 and did not kill his daughter, for those who say you cant do it. In fact As I read the papers all the time, the majority of armed citizens prevail against armed aggressors.
      Let me be the first to point out: A gun is no magic wand/ talisman that will save you in the event of an attack. It doesn’t guarantee your victory. It does however give you a chance, a good chance if you put in the effort to train and become skilled. If you dont feel the need for a gun, good for you. Will you deny me though because you dont want one? Remember though, that if you ever hit the panic button and expect armed response or diall10111 for the cops in an emergency, you in fact are calling for a someone with a gun to come to your aid. Thus you DO believe in guns for self defense. Can you reconcile that with your belief about guns?
      Also for unbiased stats on guns and crime, check out the FBI unified crime report.

    • Bertie

      How difficult is it to make everybody understand that there is no such thing as “gun control”????
      It is CONTROL over society, if society relinquishes a right to an authority, the authority CONTROLS that right.

      It is not CONTROL over the “GUN”, how do you tell a “GUN” to do this or do that or act in a certain manner?

      It is apparent that no lawmaker or politician understand the root cause of the CRIME problem, not the “GUN” problem for heaven’s sake! The “gun” do not go and get drunk and drive a car and beat his wife or molest his children or rape a woman, the GUN also do not kill anybody, how could it if not handled by a stupid human being?

      I dare ANYONE to take any matter like this to court and then prove that the GUN killed anybody!! I double dare anyone!!!!

    • JohanP

      If there was no gun in the house, would Reeva have been alive? most probably, or she could have been killed by a bat, or a pillow, or a knife, IF that was Oscar’s inntetion to do.
      If Adene had access to a firearm, and was trained to use it, would she have been gangraped and brutally slaughtered, or would she have been alive to tell the tale?
      Read any of the rape and killing news clippings, and ask yourself IF that victim had access to a firearm, would the result have been different, as the perpetrator most deffintely had access to something to give him/her an unfair edge, be it size, strength, overwhelming numbers, or weapons ?

      In most cases I believe a firearmand the ability to use it, would have made a huge difference.
      GFSA people should hang big posters outside their windows advocating that they do not bear arms, and will not support any organisation that do, including their (now fired) armed response service. See how safe and happy you will be in “Never-Never land” .

      If the bad guy comes knocking on your door, in the middle of the night, with rape and pillage on his mind, plans to kill your family by drowning them in a bath of boiling water, or use a steaming hot ironing machine on them, do you think a firearm could serve to protect you?
      Think of that before you call for removal of the means to protect yourself

    • Paul S

      Complicated, most definitely. Yes, you can’t stop by Makro and pick up a gun but a huge number of our fellow SA’s are committing crimes with guns bought on the street. Besides, if you don’t have a gun there’s always a cricket bat …

    • Paul S

      The pro gun crowd have a valid argument with their ‘people kill people’ mantra, and especially in the SA context. We have are an inherently violent society with a predisposition to act first and deal with consequences (if any) later. Murders are and will continue to be committed with whatever is at hand. Guns are just one of those implements of death…bottles, knives, pangas and sticks are just as effective as we see every single day. Quoting successful Australian models for gun control unfortunately has no bearing in SA. Australians are probably the most micromanaged law-abiders on the planet, the polar opposite of SA’s..
      Nothing will change until the national psyche changes at every level. Though with our cops dragging people to death in front of a cheering mob you have to wonder if that can ever happen.

    • CorditeCrazy

      Well at this stage it cant be said, we dont know if he planned to kill her or if ti was an accident, if he wanted to kill her he would have succeeded in any event, with or without a firearm. If it was an accident I dont think stricter laws would have helped as the act would have been one of gross negligance. You cant legistate away stupidity.

    • Sipho

      Me thinks it’s brainless to call for stricter gun control in order to curb gun-related violence, in fact it’s a populist nonsense. As long as there’s acceptable gun-related violence like shooting at an intruder or mistaking a black child for a baboon, there will always be unintended victims of bullets fired at acceptable targets. If Oscar had pumped four bullets into an armed or unarmed intruder in his toilet, most people would be congratulating him. Who said if one gets a gun under strict conditions, they’ll be always rational in its usage.

    • Truth be known

      I told you so.

      Further up I said “Its no good quoting the research, the gun-nutters just deny research that does not suit their beliefs no matter how sound it is. But the research is there for the more balanced people in society to look at.”

      Reading the above little rants, I am more convinced than ever that Lulu Xingwana is correct, we need better gun control. “Domestic violence is exacerbated by easy access to guns. We are making a call for stricter gun control,” she said at a media briefing last week. “As a country we need to wage a sustained and effective campaign against the availability of guns in our homes and streets.”

      There is tons more research to support Lulu Xingwana’s stance, but why cost the gun lobby money who have to employ public relations experts to spend their time denying it.

      Just let the truth be known.

      Reeva Steenkamp would probably still have been alive if we had had stricter gun control.

    • Garg Unzola

      @truth be known:
      I’ve linked you to the research. Are you sure you want to discredit yourself by calling on Lulu for support?

    • Truth be known


      Lulu obviously understands the research better than most. And there is so much more research if you scratch below gun industry rhetoric.

      You just cannot fault her statement on gun control can you ?

      I mean she’s absolutely spot on.

      I am still waiting for some gun-nut to dismiss the post further up showing the UK has one of the lowest gun murder rates in the world, and the USA is 40 times higher than the UK, yet some gun-nutters still believe “more guns, less crime”. Totally cuckoo.

    • http://WouldstricterguncontrolhavesavedReeva? proactive

      Gun control- character or mind control? Guns do kill- used mainly by mindless people, also used by mindful ones due to accidents or intend! Is our men population today a mix of too much amateur cowboy and Hollywood Rambo?

      By what has the former basic ‘character training- also seen as a ‘waste of time’- by the now forgotten compulsory army call ups (even globally) after reaching 18 years of age- been replaced?….. With nothing, except e- games, fiction and clubbing!

      A professional army robs a generation of that advantage to obtain some discipline, respect & fitness, helpful in facing the awakening challenges in life!
      Owning a weapon as civilian has become an easy personal choice depending on one’s perception! If important enough, a referendum could decide that!

      Having gone through a compulsory army call up, returning my guns recently- which
      were only used to kill Rinkhals, Cobras etc to protect my family (sorry SPCA!)- I opted for vigilance, physical barriers, electronics & cameras and the increased civilian risk to rather confront any threat without a gun! ………..C’est la vie……

      My vote would go to eliminate & collect all guns efficiently by an uncorruptable private professional entity with all required legal powers- except from professional hunters, antique weapons collectors, Olympic sports enthusiasts & half the police force!- ……..somebody forgotten?

    • thandinkosi sibisi

      Seems there aremany gun lovers out there!
      Is there evidence that guns ever saved anyone from criminals?Remember criminals are armed too, possibly with better ( illegal) firearms than the toyguns that gun lovers probably have. Is there anyone who is prepared to guess who would have been killed if the person in Pristorius’s house was a real burglar with a real gun.? Killing Reeva may have been a ” walk in the park” . Killing a real criminal would not. So much for the false security of owning a gun.

      If pro gun lobby merely want a “right to own a gun” I would not debate this ” right” if they are responsible. Does the gun offer protection? From whom?

    • http://http// Paul Whelan

      Why is there a ‘right’ to own a gun?

    • Land of Oz

      Gun control worked well in Australia, read the research, not the gun industry propaganda. Check out the facts on the ‘Australian gun buy back’.

    • Momma Cyndi

      Truth be known

      Not only does Lulu not know the difference between English and Afrikaans but she is clueless about the difference between Calvinism and Catholicism.

      Approximately 11% of un-natural deaths in SA are gun related crimes and about 35% are stabbings. Are you advocating the total ban on anything other than butter knives? seems to indicate that it is an endemic problem rather than a weapons problem. Violence will out. Take away the violence and we can all be Montserrat.

    • Momma Cyndi

      thandinkosi sibisi

      I was looking for a specific article about a guy who convinced the tsotsis that he needed to lean against his bedside table but couldn’t find it. Just google ‘gun owner saves family’ – I’m sure the article is in there but there are way too many to go through