Up in Arms | Carte Blanche | M-Net

[Johnatan56]

 

[EADC]

One thing things like says shows is how out of touch politician's are with everyday life in SA, its about ideology. How can you take guns out of law abiding citizens hands.

Me I will never own a gun but others who want it to protect themselves should have every right to do so provided they are competent.

 

[Johnatan56]

This makes me laugh so hard, a majority of guns in South Africa are issued for self-defense, it would be very strange if the stat were different.

The other thing is that quite a few of the guns that ended up with criminals were guns that were given to SAPS during the disarming post Apartheid. I remember my German teacher's husband had to go defend himself in court for a murder charge, for a gun he'd handed to SAPS to be destroyed 20 years previously.

My friend got into trouble because he properly destroyed it, then reported it as such to the police and then they tried to arrest him for possessing a firearm when they asked him to bring it for proof. Absolutely stupidity.

And I am mostly against this change because I know that any guns that are in circulation now that will be handed in will end up in gang member's hands not even days later.

 

[Dave]

but others who want it to protect themselves should have every right to do so provided they are competent.

But there is your problem, you only need to read forums to see the way some right wing religious nuts go on, how long before one of them walks into a school or black owned business and starts shooting people?

It puts the govt into a difficult position between the normal person just wanting to protect themself and the crazy who wants to do (as an example) “god’s work”* with his glock.

The old argument of illegal guns vs legal guns has merit here, but the govt is damned if it does institute stricter gun control and damned if it doesn’t.

*being the NGK pre-1994 idea of gods work

 

[EADC]

But there is your problem, you only need to read forums to see the way some right wing religious nuts go on, how long before one of them walks into a school or black owned business and starts shooting people?

It puts the govt into a difficult position between the normal person just wanting to protect themself and the crazy who wants to do (as an example) “god’s work”* with his glock.

The old argument of illegal guns vs legal guns has merit here, but the govt is damned if it does institute stricter gun control and damned if it doesn’t.

*being the NGK pre-1994 idea of gods work

You make a valid point, I am all for making sure that people who want guns can operate them safely and competently.

 

[Düber]

I will watch the Carte Blanche inset later so I am not commenting directly on it, but this is showing us how out of touch politicians are with what is actually happening in our country.

In the last four weeks I have had 5 incidents on our smallholding, ranging from fence cutters and people looking around to armed guys breaking in, stealing my sandblaster and lights and cameras. I have spent a small fortune on security and with each incident have done not only the repairs but upgrades and improvements.
We are very lucky to have armed response and they do get to us fairly quickly at around a average of 8 minutes but that is a long time in the heat of the moment.
At the same time as having all this happen I have to hear that the government is wanting to disarm me. The mind boggles.

Here is an excerpt from my comments letter for the public participation,

Seeing that the aim of the proposed amendments is to reduce the number of firearms in criminal hands, I wanted to do some sums to see if these proposals could work at reducing the number of illegal guns.

Finding accurate figures is not easy as you might appreciate, so I used these.

Number of illegal firearms in South Africa – 2.5m
(Gunpolicy.org (Ref 9) has an estimated figure of 500 000 to 4 000 000 illegal firearms.)

SAPS losses - 762 per year
((Ref 10 ) 4 357 / 6 years, to get an average)

SAPS recoveries – 7 468 per year (2019/2020 figures)
( (Ref 1) Firearms only, not counting ammunition, a reasonable average based on the graph)


Using these figures it would take until 2375 to get the illegal firearms down to around 100 000.

If hypothetically, the SAPS only lose half the number of firearms and recover 4 times as many firearms as they do now, in 2102 the number should be down to around 100 000.

Please note that no civilian and SADF lost firearms are being added in, nor any increases to the illegal firearms by other means( theft, trafficking, self manufacture etc.)

The chances of SAPS suddenly being able to collect all the illegal firearms in a short time frame would be extremely optimistic, to say the least.

After doing the sums it was clear to me that disarming legal law abiding firearm owners was not going to solve the problem.

Not allowing people to defend themselves in our country would be a huge mistake.
Not allowing sports people to participate fully in the sports they enjoy would be a huge mistake.
Not allowing collectors to pursue their hobby would be a huge mistake.

A quote from Gary A. Mauser in 2003 is pretty appropriate,

“Gun laws may not reduce violent crime but criminal violence causes gun laws—at least, well-publicized crimes do. The only winner in this drama is bureaucracy.
The rest of us lose liberty as well as safety. It is an illusion that further tinkering with the law will protect the public since no law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. There have always been criminals, and there have always been deranged people. Murder has been illegal for thousands of years: we need only remember the saga of Cain and Abel. The mass media find gun crimes more newsworthy but multiple civilian murders by arson have historically claimed more lives than incidents involving firearms.
The truth is we live in a dangerous world and the government cannot protect us, if for no other reason than the police cannot be everywhere. We must ultimately rely upon ourselves and it is only right we have the necessary tools to do so.”


The shortcomings, problems and deficiencies outlined in the SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (SEIAS) document are highly unlikely to be remedied with the proposed changes to the act.
The problems outlined lie with society itself and not with the firearm legislation.

The Central Firearms Registry (CFR) already has the tools at is disposal but needs serious help with the implementation of its mandate and increasing its efficiency.

The SAPS is sadly under resourced and unable to cope with the levels of crime and is failing to protect citizens across all demographics. The SAPS’s budget should be increased rather than lowered.( Ref 4)

We would all like illegal firearms out of the hands of criminals but some of the proposed amendments are drastic and have the potential to do more harm than good, I urge you to consider them carefully.

Whether it will ever be read let alone thought about is another question.

 

[dabean]

I will watch the Carte Blanche inset later so I am not commenting directly on it, but this is showing us how out of touch politicians are with what is actually happening in our country.

In the last four weeks I have had 5 incidents on our smallholding, ranging from fence cutters and people looking around to armed guys breaking in, stealing my sandblaster and lights and cameras. I have spent a small fortune on security and with each incident have done not only the repairs but upgrades and improvements.
We are very lucky to have armed response and they do get to us fairly quickly at around a average of 8 minutes but that is a long time in the heat of the moment.
At the same time as having all this happen I have to hear that the government is wanting to disarm me. The mind boggles.

Here is an excerpt from my comments letter for the public participation,




Whether it will ever be read let alone thought about is another question.

People see, notice and act.

Truth > fiction, no matter what they tell you.

 

[spiderz]

But there is your problem, you only need to read forums to see the way some right wing religious nuts go on, how long before one of them walks into a school or black owned business and starts shooting people?

Why aren't they shooting back?

 

[Paul Hjul]

But there is your problem, you only need to read forums to see the way some right wing religious nuts go on, how long before one of them walks into a school or black owned business and starts shooting people?

It puts the govt into a difficult position between the normal person just wanting to protect themself and the crazy who wants to do (as an example) “god’s work”* with his glock.

The old argument of illegal guns vs legal guns has merit here, but the govt is damned if it does institute stricter gun control and damned if it doesn’t.

*being the NGK pre-1994 idea of gods work

Not sure the NGK has changed its view of God pre 1994 and post 1994. Some pertinent theological shifts in the 1980s which caused further liquidation of the edifice of apartheid policy but that's well pre-1994.

A little bit more to the point though, mental competence and being fit and proper should be the focus of things. Bizarre administrative hoops don't really help and if anything a byzantine structure of gun control perversely keeps good people from acquiring firearms skills and ensures that nut jobs dominate the scene.

The idea of acquiring a firearm for self defense purposes as a legal predicate to obtain a licence is absurd and always has been. If I wish to obtain a code 10 drivers licence I can go and train up and secure one, nobody asks or cares what I want to drive a truck. If I meet the competency I can go trucking for no other reason than that I got a song from Not the 9 o clock News stuck in my head. Firearms are seldom effective in self defence and far more frequently viable as weapons in defence of others which is quite a different claim. If somebody says they want a firearm exclusively to protect themself they are either misinformed and niave or are lying but by framing a licensing paradigm around issuing firearm licences for a specific defined purpose creates this problem. I see no problem with courts being approached expeditiously to restrict an individuals firearm licence and to impound their weapons on the basis of public behaviour pointing to being unhinged.

 

[Dave]

Why aren't they shooting back?

Can primary school pupils get firearm licences under the present rules?

 

[OCP]

Can primary school pupils get firearm licences under the present rules?

Yes... provided they are are older than 18 ;-)

 

[SykomantiS]

Yes... provided they are are older than 18 ;-)

16, if you can prove extraordinary circumstances. (I think for a dedicated sport / hunting license - edit to add: it might be professional license and not just dedicated, I'm not too certain about this).

Anyhow. We are getting screwed, if not now then somewhere in the future when they simply do all this again and ignore public input / outcry.

Firearms are seldom effective in self defence and far more frequently viable as weapons in defence of others which is quite a different claim.

As far as my understanding goes, it my be technically different but the law does not distinguish between self defence and defence of a third party. You can use a firearm for either, and if it was lawful and necessary for the defence, then that's that.

 

[Düber]

Not sure the NGK has changed its view of God pre 1994 and post 1994. Some pertinent theological shifts in the 1980s which caused further liquidation of the edifice of apartheid policy but that's well pre-1994.

A little bit more to the point though, mental competence and being fit and proper should be the focus of things. Bizarre administrative hoops don't really help and if anything a byzantine structure of gun control perversely keeps good people from acquiring firearms skills and ensures that nut jobs dominate the scene.

The idea of acquiring a firearm for self defense purposes as a legal predicate to obtain a licence is absurd and always has been. If I wish to obtain a code 10 drivers licence I can go and train up and secure one, nobody asks or cares what I want to drive a truck. If I meet the competency I can go trucking for no other reason than that I got a song from Not the 9 o clock News stuck in my head. Firearms are seldom effective in self defence and far more frequently viable as weapons in defence of others which is quite a different claim. If somebody says they want a firearm exclusively to protect themself they are either misinformed and niave or are lying but by framing a licensing paradigm around issuing firearm licences for a specific defined purpose creates this problem. I see no problem with courts being approached expeditiously to restrict an individuals firearm licence and to impound their weapons on the basis of public behaviour pointing to being unhinged.

What you are saying makes a lot of sense, "licence the person, register the gun."

On the self defence part there is a world of difference between somebody that just bought a .38 special so that they keep in a safe, just for in case, after a few Saturday morning "lessons" and somebody that is practiced, keeps their firearm close to them and is aware of their surroundings and has a real need. There is also a world of difference between living in a remote rural area compared to a house in Alex compared to a townhouse in Morningside.
A "checklist" kind of law does not work well when there are such vast differences.
It is only once you have been shot at and had to use your firearm to keep yourself and your dad alive that you are thankful you have it.

The way the rules and laws are at the moment make provision and are supposed to enforce competency and make sure you are person that can be trusted with a firearm and to only use it when needed and for the right reasons.
Like most laws here the wheels fall off when it comes to the implementation and real life circumstances, the way the CFR and SAPS operate leave a lot to be desired.
The proposed amendments look like a cut/copy/paste from other countries with SA figures thrown in for some local content, the aims are noble but completely misguided and out of touch with the realities.

I don't for a moment support people building private arsenals and allowing inherently violent people,wife beaters etc. owning firearms but do believe that responsible, competent law abiding people should be able to.

It is a delicate balancing act.