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
  • 211 Responses to “We need more gun owners in South Africa, not less”

    1. Dries #

      Yes, you’re all “responsible”. Until the day you’re not. The gun lobby has, for a very long time, lived by the mantra that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. They’re bloody-well right too, and the people that kills the most efficiently of all are the ones that use guns to do it. To me, there is no difference between a person who owns a gun legally or otherwise; Reeva Steenkamp, Trayvon Martin and the masses of people slain by erstwhile “responsible” gun owners are just as dead as any victims shot through the use of “illegal” firearms.

      Sorry Gideon, but you don’t get to claim how “responsible” you are and simply get buy-in from the rest of us; to me, you’re simply a man with a gun.

      26 March 2014 at 2:14 pm
    2. Gideon Joubert #

      @Dries: straw man argument. Reeva Steenkamp may or may not have been alive regardless, Oscar’s motive is still on trial. Bringing up Trayvon Martin is disingenuous: the court found that he attacked Zimmerman, who acted in self defence. Would it have been preferable if Zimmerman had died or sustained serious injury instead?

      As for your last comment: One day you may be in trouble, and then you may get the time to phone the police or the armed response, and hope that a good man with a gun gets to you in time.

      26 March 2014 at 3:29 pm
    3. @Dries:
      Efficiently? Yes, of course. Guns are designed to be lethal projectiles. But effectively? Cars are far more effective as far as the sheer number of people who get killed on the road go.

      Trayvon Martin was killed legally, tragic as his death may have been. Rather than being an argument against legal guns and an indictment of Zimmerman, it’s an indictment of Trayvon Martins everywhere and an argument for legal gun ownership for the purpose of self-defence.

      Your stance is very telling but fortunately, we’ve long progressed past the point of presumption of guilt – for very good reasons.

      26 March 2014 at 4:30 pm
    4. zoo keeper #

      @ Dries

      Should the police carry firearms?

      If so, why?

      26 March 2014 at 4:35 pm
    5. Momma Cyndi #


      How on earth do you equate the Reva story with the Travon story? They are completely different. Should I now equate Reva’s murder with the woman who stabbed her husband to death with a squirrel (yes, it is a true story and yes, it was an ornament).

      I can honestly say that I have great neighbours. There are some who are very anti-gun ownership and some who have more than one gun. It is, however, the men and women who go out, with their guns, at the slightest hint of distress (be it an alarm or a scream), that have brought crime in our neighbourhood down to virtually nothing.

      In the over 20 years that I have lived here, one tsotsi was shot and wounded and one woman took her own life with a bread knife (now that is tenacity!) – other than that, we have a completely violence free ‘hood. We also have a relatively crime free one.

      26 March 2014 at 6:15 pm
    6. insomniac #

      No. 1 for me is no guns owned by anyone. But the reality in South Africa is that violent gun crime is endemic, so therefore it is reasonable to expect a competent man or woman to be able to carry a handgun for self defense if they expect to be in a situation where their lives may be at risk. The problem is that many of these weapons, do end up getting stolen and used by criminals, as do police and army weapons. But somehow, certain people, like Oscar for example, who are obssessed with weapons end up owning more than one. I know of so many cases where accidental discharge of legally owned weapons end up in injury or death to innocent people. There was a case in Zimbabwe recently where 2 teenaged boys, stole the keys to one of their parents’ gun safes and were taking pot-shots at cars going past on the road outside.A passenger in on of the cars was seriously injured – case went to criminal court – boys father paid a large amount of money – boy got off charge!!. These sort of incidents are the tip of the iceberg, even in Zim where gun crime is almost non-existent. We all know what the root cause is; poverty, unemployment and lack of education.

      26 March 2014 at 8:43 pm
    7. Comrade Koos #

      Nearly 3 000 (three thousand) people die from gunshot wounds in the USA each month. That is the same number as Al Qaeda killed in a once off attack on the USA in September 11, 2001. Americans and their guns are more dangerous to US citizens than Al Qaeda terrorists.

      26 March 2014 at 10:05 pm
    8. Dries #

      @Gideon:The only one using “straw man” arguments are you. Steenkamp did not die from a heart attack, or from stubbing her big toe. And it has never been contested that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation with Trayvon Martin.

      And as for YOUR last comment; I have dealt with a lot of trouble in my life, including the type caused by so-called “good” men packing guns. Since I’m not the type to hide behind security walls or personal arsenals, I’ve probably dealt with it more than you have. And I did it without the use of a gun, the police, or people like you.

      26 March 2014 at 11:39 pm
    9. Mark #

      @steve then what is the flying squad for? To get over to your house ASAP to investigate a crime?

      @ zoo keeper In the UK and Oz it is near impossible to own a gun privately. hence the reason why the cops on the beat only carry batons, mace and tazers. When I was in Oz two years ago there was a murder in one of the towns. The public were so shocked that they wanted the police chief to resign (as if he could’ve been in the house at the time and stopped it).

      We don’t get shocked by over 1000 people dying on our roads over the Christmas/New Years month (there were less than 1000 boys at my high school – to put things in context)what is wrong with us? We need an overhaul of our society, not more guns…

      27 March 2014 at 9:01 am
    10. Zeph #

      The touble is this: I trust a gun but I do not trus tthe person who is holding it.

      27 March 2014 at 10:53 am
    11. Gideon Joubert #

      @Dries: Best of luck to you then. Firearm ownership is a personal choice fortunately, and does not hinge on the opinions of one or two people who think like you do. I prefer being prepared for trouble as opposed to your preference of being defenceless and at the mercy of your assailants.

      27 March 2014 at 11:06 am
    12. Gideon Joubert #

      @Mark: indeed we require a serious “overhaul” of our society, but I doubt it is realistic to expect one any time soon. The only thing I personally have control over is my own risk management regarding everyday life: this involves making myself and my family a hard target. It is one achievable and practical option while, hopefully, society sorts itself out. I’m not holding my breath though.

      27 March 2014 at 11:14 am
    13. Steve #

      When seconds count, police are minutes away.

      The flying squad will try to come rescue you if they can or arrest the criminals if they can get there in time, however, they are under NO obligation to rescue you. If you are in any doubt, check the parliamentary records and you will see this has been very clearly explained. In a recent survey of convicted criminals in SA, each robber had committed up to 90 robberies before arrest. I dont know the stats, but I cannot think of a single incident of house robbery where the cops arrived in time to prevent the attack. They did not fear contact with police as it was extremely rare, and usually they could escape through bribery or incompetence. Interestingly, they uniformly preferred victims who did not fight back and feared armed citizens. (funny that)

      My Armed response company has a very good 2 min response time average. My own armed response from fast asleep to armed, with gun and torch ready to act is under 10 seconds. By the time the AR guys arrive, I have already checked my safe area/ kids and wife, determined which zone activated, swept the rest of the house, opened the gate, had comms with AR company and am ready to repel micreants already safe in the knowledge that my family is where they should be.

      27 March 2014 at 11:27 am
    14. Louwrens #

      @Dries: You seem to be under the impression that we as the supporters of individual freedoms (including the “freedom” to own any, and as many firearms as allowed to us by the Firearms Control Act) are trying to convince YOU to change your viewpoint. Please be safe in the knowledge that this is not the case. We, as rational thinkers, know that it is impossible to convince someone like you who has an emotionally-driven mental inability to judge facts on their objective merits, if they don’t fall within a pre-conceived frame of reference. Please continue living in your world of blissful ignorance where inanimate objects have the capability of ill intent. I’m very glad I don’t live in that world. We do thank you for the opportunity of debate, allowing us to show the rest of the readers that we are normal people that chose a well-considered (and LEGAL!) path that not only allows us to be in control of the security of our person, but also opens up a world of interesting and exciting skills, sport and opportunities to interact with nature on the most basic level. Because firearms ownership is about much more than carrying a gun for self-defence: sport-shooting is growing fast, with many varied disciplines; my hunting rifle reminds me that meat isn’t made in the supermarket, but that I should have respect for my chosen prey. We invite anyone interested to visit your nearest shooting range, where normal guys and girls will be eager to show you that firearms aren’t scary…

      27 March 2014 at 11:53 am
    15. Dear Dries.

      You have made a whole lot of assumptions and defaulted to stereotyping.
      As a firearms owner it is pretty common to experience this.
      It is quite unpleasant and makes no sense how the actions of one individual (Good or bad) can be imputed to an entire population!
      If it could be objectively proved to me that I would make my family safer by NOT owning a firearm I would be first in the cue at the smelters, However the contrary is true, my family is safer because I am armed. I am responsible for the welfare of my family, economically and physically. I will therefore use the best tools available to do this, including alarms, armed response and the firearm I carry. If your experience has allowed you to get out of some tight spots without the use of a firearm/weapon then well done, I, however prefer to have the odds a bit more in my favour,

      27 March 2014 at 12:09 pm
    16. zoo keeper #

      @ Mark

      The UK is seeing an ever-increasing rise of armed police officers.

      They’ve been dropping their batons and increasingly picking up firearms since 1998.

      I’ve just returned from London, there is a heavy police presence everywhere – why?

      Also, Australia and the UK always had very, very low levels of violence. That’s why you need to see the trends. In London 1900, a city of 8 million and unlimited access to firearms (no regulation) there were 2 murders. 2. How many 100 years later with strict firearm laws in place?

      The UK (including Scotland) now has the highest violent crime rate in Europe. Gun control has seen significant negative correlations in violent crime, and not one single positive correlation. Nothing.

      Lax gun regulations in the US have seen long-term positive violent crime trends.

      Our FCA has seen significantly negative violent crime trends. We’re way, way more likely to be assaulted, tortured, raped and murdered than before the FCA.

      Gun controllers know this, which is why they should be classed as sociopaths.

      27 March 2014 at 12:35 pm
    17. zoo keeper #

      @ Comrade Koos

      Stop dodging the issue.

      Please present your peer-reviewed crime studies which prove your point.

      27 March 2014 at 12:37 pm
    18. Mic #

      I absolutely agree with everything said in this great article by Gideon. I am also a fellow responsible gun owner who carries a firearm every day of my life. I do this because I have the guts to stand up to possible murderers and rapists who want to harm myself or my family. Keep in mind that if someone attacks you, you may not be able to phone the police or even call on anyone but yourself for some help. I have made the decision not to become a statistic and to actively resist, with lethal force if needs be, all attempts to those who want to harm myself or my family.

      27 March 2014 at 12:37 pm
    19. Dries #

      @Garg Unzola: I’m sorry… you must be mistaking me for somebody that was actually trying to make a case against legal gun-ownership. I assure you I was most certainly not. And yes, my stance is very telling. I’m the one NOT victim-blaming a “legally” deceased 17-year old armed with a bag of Skittles.

      @Momma Cyndi: Ok, here we go…

      1. Both cases involves a shooting.
      2. In both cases, the shooters were paranoid white guys who required a firearm to feel safe.
      3. Both shooters were rubberstamped as “responsible” by applicable gun laws.
      4. Both guns used were perfectly legal.
      5. In both cases, the main person who could contradict the shooter’s testimony are, conveniently, dead.
      6. In both cases, the shooters have tried (or is trying) their damnest to shirk responsibility for their actions.
      7. In neither case did the victim initiate the chain of events that led to their death.

      27 March 2014 at 1:01 pm
    20. Anthony Caetano #

      Comrade Koos

      You say: “Nearly 3 000 (three thousand) people die from gunshot wounds in the USA each month. ”

      Whereas the FBI publishes total murders (by any cause) per YEAR since 1960 and here it is for the last few years:

      2008 16,465
      2009 15,399
      2010 14,722
      2011 14,661
      2012 14,827

      Which is the Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics site of the FBI.

      You sir are wrong.
      You sir are making up false statistics to suit yourself.

      27 March 2014 at 1:03 pm
    21. bewilderbeast #

      Gun owners who defend Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon reveal themselves for what they are. An armed man shot an unarmed kid after confronting him needlessly and they DEFEND him!!! You reveal yourself for the frauds you are. You parrot the American NRA’s rubbish. Like Dries I am unarmed, unfenced and involved. And like Mark I think it’s society (- and entitlement) that needs overhaul. A call for more guns indeed . . .

      27 March 2014 at 1:31 pm
    22. Gideon Joubert #

      @Bewilderedbeast: we base our statements on what the court ruling was. Which higher authority to you base your claim on?

      27 March 2014 at 1:42 pm
    23. Bertie #

      @Dries, clearly what you fail to realise in the coccoon you live in:
      An argument held in the US Supreme Court:
      “Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception.
      In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

      When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.”

      27 March 2014 at 1:44 pm
    24. Logical #

      If guns are the problem then explain this:

      Does this mean that anyone in possession of a knife or sharp implement must be a bad person? Chefs, tradesmen, handymen, electricians etc. Does this mean that we should all have to go through strict competency tests and background checks, have our wives/girlfriends & neighbours interviewed as to our character, install safes that are checked by SAPS…. (I could go on and on) …. all so that we can keep a knife in our kitchen, a screwdriver in our garage, a box cutter in our pocket, or a letter opener in our office? Oh, sorry you couldn’t do that it would need to stay in the safe until needed.

      In the States there has been a huge push to ban “Assault type rifles” as the one used in Sandy hook incident. We all heard about that incident but how many of you have heard about all the school attacks happening in China (no its not only an American sickness). Try reading this:
      22 Children stabbed at a primary school in Chenpeng Village.

      Both South Africa & The states have far higher incidents of death by knives & blunt objects than assault rifles.

      Please see next post…

      27 March 2014 at 2:48 pm
    25. Logical #

      So lets take this further… Next on the list is blunt objects…
      Who is going to volunteer to keep their baseball bat/cricket bat/crowbar in a safe? Should they be licenced also?

      Think its getting ridiculous now?

      nearly 14000 deaths on the road per annum in South Africa. If people who drive cars are held to the same standards as people who own/use firearms (legally) there would be no such thing as an accident. “oh I didn’t see you there” “he came out of nowhere” “I was distracted because I was talking to a friend” “I was texting/talking on my cellphone” Try any one of those on the range with a firearm!

      Yes people are tested to be competent with a car, do you have buy the car then apply for a licence for the car with a motivation as to why you need it/want it? Are their neighbours & girlfriends interviewed about their character? are the safeties drilled into them over and over again, while they drive is there someone monitoring them to see that they are doing so safely (like Range officers on the range)?

      Please see next post…

      27 March 2014 at 2:49 pm
    26. Logical #

      Even the law surrounding firearms is far stricter than cars. The law allows for presumptions to be made that allow for arrest where firearms are involved. This reverses the standard Presumed innocent until proven guilty and puts the onus on the person to prove they were not involved instead of the state to prove they were involved. Why is it like this for Firearms and not cars?

      We need to face the facts of life and understand humans. There are good people and there are bad. The bad will continually adapt their ways to achieve their goals, for some it is their way of life. As much time as you spend each day at work planning your business/problem solving etc, they are planning theirs. The difference is that their plan is to take your hard work for themselves and they will take your life without blinking an eye if it helps them achieve their goal (it might even be their goal). If they cant use a knife or a firearm they will use a blunt object or an explosive or a rock or wire…. the list goes on and on!

      If we stop people from being able to protect themselves all we are doing is limiting their constitutional right to life. The anti gun people will say “why do they need a firearm to do this?”. The answer is that they don’t, but who are you to say that I can not compete in the sport of shooting? Why do we need baseball bats or cricket bats or hockey sticks? Should we ban those too?

      Please see next post…

      27 March 2014 at 2:51 pm
    27. Logical #

      Firearms are not the problem, people are. Firearms are only a tool. Take one tool away and people will just find another. I welcome any person that thinks they can prove otherwise.

      So in the spirit of addressing the actual problem, which is people, I wish to paraphrase Sir Edmund Burke’s ideas: The only thing needed for evil to prevail is for good men to stand idle and do nothing.

      27 March 2014 at 2:52 pm
    28. Louwrens #

      @bewilderedbleat: so you’re on your back, with a guy sitting on your chest, pounding the living daylights out of your skull. In order to stop his attack on you, you have the option of (1) shooting him, or (2) asking him real nice to please stop because his hurting you…. take a moment to think what option you’ll choose. I know what my choice would be.

      If you have any doubt about the lethality of a blow to the head with a fist, please google “the knockout game”. Then go read these two blog posts:

      Again I refer to my first comment: I’m not trying to convince you (if I do, great, but I doubt I will) but I am grateful that you bring up an issue that I can disprove to you in a logical manner, and at the same time show the “non-gun people” (as opposed to the “anti-gun people”) that firearms ownership has a rightful place in civilized society. I’ll also again extend my invitation to those “non-gun people”: Come join us at the firing range closest to you. Let us show you the advantages, and the joys of owning firearms. Whilst the Firearms Control Act requires you as a prospective new firearms owner to jump through a few hoops, as law-abiding citizens we subject ourselves to the law, even if we don’t agree with it. There will always be someone te guide you through the processes of obtaining your competency and of buying and licensing…

      27 March 2014 at 3:18 pm
    29. Momma Cyndi #


      Tenuous links. The two cases are nothing even vaguely similar – unless you are implying that Zimmerman and Martin were lovers?

      The laws in America are very different to the ones here. To the best of my knowledge, Zimmerman had not need to have a firearm competency test, an interview with a police officer or proof of a safe before getting a gun. I also don’t think that being a ‘paranoid white guy’ is any different to being a ‘paranoid black guy’. The race card may well be your standard ace up the sleeve for a cheat win, but we have far too many black gun owners in South Africa for it to be anything other than laughable

      27 March 2014 at 3:46 pm
    30. Marc #

      @ Dries

      Gun control is an emotive issue as you have the anti-gun lobby playing on emotions and the pro-gun lobby arguing logic & incensed that somebody is trying to dictate to them how to live their lives.

      To the anti-gun lobby, I carry and I own a number of firearms for various reasons, I have for a good number of years, I pay my taxes, mind my business and enjoy my life. I don’t go “all postal” the moment I don’t get my way – this my wife can attest to. And she, to quote a friend, is a professional button pusher, in fact I consider myself a softy I cry at some movies and little puppies give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

      BUT I respect your right to live as you deem fit, respect mine.

      Gun ownership can be categorised as follows:
      Sports shorts
      Self Defence

      Take a guess which one of the above is NOT affected by gun control. If you can’t I’ll help (I’m nice like that you see) it’s the last, the criminal element, the laws and restrictions do not affect them. PERIOD

      Here is some food for thought the following countries imposed draconian laws and total prohibition on civilian firearm ownership:

      Nazi Germany – well that worked out good for 6 Million Jews
      Cambodia – yip old Pol Pot knew what to do
      The USSR – it is believed Stalin disarmed and killed 20 million + of his own people
      North Korea – well there is beacon of democracy if there ever was one.

      Yes I know is the extreme but you get my drift.

      BTW, why are you scared of…

      27 March 2014 at 3:46 pm
    31. zoo keeper #

      What’s with the requirement to be “responsible” before acquiring ownership of a thing?

      We do not require that home-owners prove they are responsible swimming pool keepers; we do not require that shoppers prove they are responsible cupboard operators before selling them thinners; we do not require that DIY enthusiasts prove they are responsible before selling them welding machines, saws, flammable gasses, pangas and so on; we do not require motorists to prove they are responsible car owners before selling them cars.

      Why is there a difference with firearms? Why is this not an entirely artificial statement/argument?

      Surely if you use a firearm negligently you are simply liable for the damages caused – just like negligent use of any of the other deadly items listed above?

      There is no need, nor any requirement for a person who owns a firearm to constantly defend themselves as “responsible”, or for controllers to make us believe that firearm owners must prove themselves to be responsible before acquiring ownership.

      I’ve said it before, the FCA is a dreadful piece of legislation. It is not enlightened or anything to be proud of.

      Any restriction placed on the ownership of weapons or carrying thereof must have proven, and proven beyond reasonable doubt, why it is absolutely necessary, and what mischief is being prevented that cannot possibly be prevented otherwise.

      Not one controller has said anything which comes close to proving gun control is necessary…

      27 March 2014 at 4:04 pm
    32. zoo keeper #

      The onus is not on firearm owners to prove why they should be allowed to own firearms of their choice.

      The onus rest squarely on the gun controllers to prove why there should be any restrictions at all.

      Prove it gun controllers. Prove it.

      27 March 2014 at 4:05 pm
    33. zoo keeper #

      @ Marc

      Those countries mentioned must be added to by the effects of gun bans in countries without brutal oppression.

      Republic of Ireland – a peaceful country, crime rate doubled in the 10 years after a de facto gun ban.

      Jamaica fared even worse.

      But what about SA? Well, in the 5-year period after the FCA house robberies are up 240%, business robberies up by 483%. Murder spiked above the rate of 2004 and leveled out. Rape continues to climb.

      South Africa has suffered badly since the introduction of the FCA. Unfortunately, some gun owners think this law is OK. It is not, on any level.

      But when the crime rationale is stripped away for being a proven lie, what are we left with? Gun controllers move on to claim suicides are easier with guns! Well, that’s not the message put out when the legislation is passed – see the preamble of the FCA. So that must be a lie too.

      What’s left, except to admit the conspiracy theorists are right – this is all about removing obstacles to political control.

      We all laughed when they said all our emails and phone calls were recorded. Then Edward Snowden showed up…

      27 March 2014 at 5:16 pm
    34. Comrade Koos #

      From Anthony Caetano to Comrade Koos – You say: “Nearly 3 000 (three thousand) people die from gunshot wounds in the USA each month. ”

      Whereas the FBI publishes total murders (by any cause) per YEAR since 1960 and here it is for the last few years.

      Read what I wrote before you quote statistics that are irrelevant to what I wrote.

      27 March 2014 at 5:55 pm
    35. Dries #

      @Logical: There’s absolutely nothing in your (voluminous) post that I really disagree with. However, in regards to your very last sentence… which of those two categories (“good” or “evil”) do you actually consider yourself to be?

      @Bertie: What utter silliness you spout. And the person you are paraphrasing should stop watching John Wayne movies. What type of “persuasion” do you prefer? People begging for their lives, perhaps? Of all the answers on here, yours are the only one that truly frightens me.

      @Marc: I have only seen the pro-gun lobby using emotional arguments, with very little of it being logical. To be fair, the anti-gun lobby isn’t much better at it either. Which is why I wash my hands off both.

      @Craig: I have to disagree with you… in the handling of a potentially deadly device (whether it be a gun, a motor vehicle, or a nuclear device), you are not simply responsible for yourself and your family; you are responsible for everyone around you. Do you understand the difference? I certainly hope so. If you feel that owning a firearm for self-defense (despite the fact that it can only successfully be used for that role in a very narrow range of likely situations), then so be it. I’m not trying to “make a case” against you owning a firearm. Own ten if you want… it’s not the number of firearms you own that matter. It’s the motivation that does.

      27 March 2014 at 11:50 pm
    36. Dries #

      @Louwrens: Oh stop your grandstanding – I’m not a political opponent. I’m not even part of any “anti-gun” group (as you put it). Your politicking is wasted on me. And of course fists are dangerous. Any weapon, properly used, is dangerous. But if people took your advice, the bars and discos of this country will be littered with dead bodies.

      27 March 2014 at 11:52 pm
    37. zoo keeper #


      If you start determining people’s choices by their motivations you’re deep in Thought Police territory. “Sorry, can’t buy that GTI, you want to drive over 120kph”. “Sorry, you can’t eat cake because you don’t need to.”

      In any event, the gun advocacy side actually has peer-reviewed studies supporting them. Facts and figures. The gun control side has nothing except argument based on faith and emotion. “This is common sense. Less guns means more crime and no-one is safe if someone carries a gun.”

      On the other hand, read “More Guns. Less Crime” – study by economist and initially pro-gun control John Lott. The there is “Guns and Crime. The English Experience” by Joyce Lee Malcolm, tracing 500 years of crime in the UK.

      Eye-opening stuff I promise.

      Have a read, or Google it and you’ll see that the gun advocacy side has real evidence of improved safety. On the gun control side, you’ll see emotion and issue-dodging, to cover for the fact that their policies have cost the lives of tens of thousands to violent crime, not to mention hundreds of thousands to the trauma of violent crime and rape, and dozens of millions to political murder.

      Read the facts, please? Then make your own, informed decision. Freedom of choice, that’s the key – something the controllers desperately want to outlaw.

      If that’s too much then just Google Kennesaw Georgia – the place which passed a law obliging every home to own a firearm. Yes, every single home. Guess…

      28 March 2014 at 11:15 am
    38. Gideon Joubert #

      @Dries: you are the one doing the grandstanding here. I would take my own advice if I were you.

      28 March 2014 at 11:15 am
    39. Gideon Joubert #

      On page one of this comments section I listed links to several incidents where citizens successfully defended their live by the use of firearms. These people, and many others who don’t even make it into the media, could likely have been dead and/or raped if they did not possess the capacity to project lethal force for self defence. It is irresponsible to suggest that this capacity should be removed from them.

      28 March 2014 at 12:45 pm
    40. zoo keeper #

      Comrade Koos

      Nice use of suicides to rig the stats. Suicide is an individual choice and unrelated to the issue of firearms.

      deduct firearm suicides and all firearm deaths are just over 1 000 per month, including murder, justifiable homicide and accident etc.

      Deduct gang-related murders from the remaining 1 000 per month (±80% – and which occur mostly in urban areas with the strictest gun laws like Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, New Orleans) and you’re down to about 200 per month non-suicide, and non-gang related homicides.

      So outside of urban gangs and suicide, that’s an annual rate of around 2 400 per year of deaths cause by gun shot. In a country the size of a continent with a population of approximately 315 000 000, and with legal gun ownership figures of way more than 250 000 000 it is a truly insignificant figure.

      Any other stats you’d like to debate?

      28 March 2014 at 12:51 pm
    41. zoo keeper #

      @ Gideon

      I accused gun control advocates of being sociopaths earlier – none have responded.

      They are aware you are removing the means of self-defense, thus forcing innocent people to be victims of violence. The crime figures are in, gun control leaves the law-abiding defenseless and at the mercy of the unlawful. Violent crime always surges after gun control and the concomitant crack-down on self-defense rights kicks in.

      Not one of the gun control advocates will deal with instances of self-defense. They refuse to.

      They refuse to acknowledge the massive deterrent effect of firearms, because it will simply destroy the entire gun control argument.

      Why do we (who can afford the service) put up bold posters on our walls advertising to the world “Protect by Armed Response”?

      Why do people who do not own firearms feel the need to advertize to the world that they are protected by firearms 24/7?

      If firearms were the useless and dangerous items claimed, surely we should advertize something else?

      Surely we should recoil in horror at the thought of advertizing that we pay people with guns to protect us.

      How can rational people shout for guns to be banned because they are unsafe, do all this shouting whilst hiding 24/7 behind guns to keep safe?

      Its nuts.

      C’mon gun controllers, prove me wrong.

      28 March 2014 at 2:23 pm
    42. @Dries:
      Perhaps I was mistaken, I understood that you were somehow equating Reeva’s situation with that of Trayvon Martin. Of course this is utter nonsense and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

      28 March 2014 at 6:37 pm
    43. Anyone for more gun control factoids? This page is still the best I’ve found:

      And despite writing mostly drivel, this is quite a good piece by Sam Harris:

      28 March 2014 at 6:40 pm
    44. Comrade Koos #


      “I accused gun control advocates of being sociopaths earlier – none have responded.”

      Peace-loving people that oppose violence and support gun control are not sociopaths. Men that murder their wives/girlfriends in fits if anger with guns are mentally unstable. Maybe that answers your question.



      28 March 2014 at 8:43 pm
    45. Gideon Joubert #

      @Dries: Gun owners ARE peace loving: nobody ever wants to be in a situation where they have to use lethal force. However, if you are in a life or death situation and you do not have the capacity to defend yourself, you will be the next rape or murder statistic. Food for thought maybe? You do live in SA I presume, so surely you have perused the crime statistics? Or do you simply believe that bad things only happen to other people and thus you are safe?

      29 March 2014 at 7:45 am
    46. Gideon Joubert #

      @ Comrade Koos: @Dries: Gun owners ARE peace loving: nobody ever wants to be in a situation where they have to use lethal force. However, if you are in a life or death situation and you do not have the capacity to defend yourself, you will be the next rape or murder statistic. Food for thought maybe? You do live in SA I presume, so surely you have perused the crime statistics? Or do you simply believe that bad things only happen to other people and thus you are safe?

      29 March 2014 at 7:46 am
    47. Comrade Koos #

      Research shows gun owners are four times more likely to be shot than those who do not own guns. I like to stick with research rather than propaganda by someone trying to promote gun ownership.

      29 March 2014 at 10:08 am
    48. Gideon Joubert #

      @Koos: Please quote the source of the research? That is a well debunked GFSA propaganda claim with no basis in truth. Completely and utterly false claim.

      29 March 2014 at 11:25 am
    49. zoo keeper #

      @ Comrade Koos.

      “Peace-loving people that oppose violence and support gun control are not sociopaths. Men that murder their wives/girlfriends in fits if anger with guns are mentally unstable. Maybe that answers your question.”

      So its about domestic violence then? What about men that murder their wives/girlfriends with knives/bats/bricks/fists?

      Since the FCA came into effect in 2004, in the next 5 years home invasions increased 240%. You are obviously happy with that. Business robberies increased 483%. You are obviously happy with that too. Murder, on a steep down trend, increased and then leveled out. More people have been murdered than would otherwise have been the case. Rape has continued like nothing before.

      You, the “peace-loving” person is happy that tens of thousands of your fellow citizens have suffered death and massive trauma. You are happy for them to suffer because you fear guns.

      You know your policies are killing and maiming people, yet you are happy to let that happen.

      You are a sociopath, no better than Mugabe or Pol Pot.

      Your last quote “4 x more likely to be shot” has been so conclusively debunked its been scattered to the corners of the galaxy. Its like claiming the world is flat. The second time the author, Kellerman, tried it he even hid his data.

      And even if true, please explain Kennesaw Georgia’s crime stats. I dare you Comrade, I double dare you.

      29 March 2014 at 11:27 am
    50. Gideon Joubert #

      @Koos: If you have no published statistics backing your claim, it is just your opinion and thus irrelevant. The rest of us have supplied plentiful statistics supporting our statements, so I conclude that you are just trolling for attention at this stage of the game.

      29 March 2014 at 11:29 am