EMPIRICAL evidence suggests that gun control is a "total failure" in curbing crime, the organisation Gun Owners of SA (Gosa) said today.

"It creates a community where only the government, which is then free to abuse its power as was the case in Apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany, and criminals, own firearms," said Gosa co-ordinator Charl van Wyk.

Responding to a submission by Institute for Security Studies researcher Guy Lamb at the first public hearing on proposed amendments to the Fire Arms Control Act, Van Wyk said gun control denies the public the "most effective means of protecting themselves".

"This Unisa study which was presented by Mr Guy Lamb is once again abused by means of misrepresentation of statistics and denial of historically proven facts to blame the legal firearm owner for the government’s inability to eradicate crime, and to simultaneously justify the disarmament of the public which is the common denominator of all oppressive regimes," he said.

According to Lamb’s submission murder committed with firearms had decreased by 50% in SA’s three largest cities since 2001 and this can be attributed to the success of the Fire Arms Control Act.

However, Van Wyk said the study conceals the fact that the Act is aimed at legal firearm owners despite statistics released by Parliament indicating that legal firearm owners are only responsible for 0,05% of crime, a figure which is statistically insignificant.

"It is strange that Mr Lamb failed to reveal the fact that the murder rate per 100 000 already showed a massive and constant decline since 1994 from 69,5% in that year to 47,8 in 2002 according to figures released by the Institute of Security Studies.

"The decline to which Lamb refers is only a continuation of this trend," said Van Wyk.

He said the only "successes" attributable to the Act was the bankruptcy of about 500 firearm dealers, an increase in unemployment, damage to the hunting industry and "the legalised theft of public property".

"Gosa appeals to the public to do everything within their power to retain their firearms and not to be discouraged by the unnecessary cost and trouble imposed on them by this Gestapo type legislation," he said.

Public submissions on two amendments to the Firearms Control Act continue. The amendments include the regulating the use of silencers and compelling gun owners to renew their licences every five years.

Business Day - 15 August 2006.

You South Africans had the bad fortune of getting saddled with an unjust, unworkable and senseless set of gunlaws. I wish you all the luck trying to get rid of them again - as difficult as this may be.
- mike

I have to be carefull what I say now....I'm a PH in SA, and weapons are a tools which I cannot do without. I do not think the new Act is such a bad thing. People like "hype", and this is what is it at its best.

There are a few things that bother, BUT in general, I am much for a more controled way of owning firearms. We had (still have) a huge problem with poachers, and I'm not talking about the black guys snaring animals. I'm talking white guys, who like to get pi.. on brandy and coke, take a spotlight and rifle, and kill anything that moves. There are MANY more examples I can bring to light, if this seems like a poor one.

No, with the new law, for hunters, you have to be member of a hunting club, pass a police competency test, and have yourself reviewed every five years. You can then own one rifel for hunting, and one firearm for self defence. You can get dedicated hunter status, which of course will mean study and exam and money, but then you can have more than one hunting rifle.

For the record, every PH in our outfit, got their licenses renewed. Personaly I had three rifles, a shotgun and a 9mm glock renewed.

For the serious hunter/gunowner this should not be a problem, there are things you need to do to get all in order, just go and do it man, and stop giving every one the idea that we are in the middle of gunowners hell.

charl@infinito-safaris.com

"Hitting back" is sort of a joke. Just one more gun law in SA and it will all be over. Where else do you think this is going?

Communism, socialism, and unjust gunlaws always go hand-in-hand. A few countries that accepted these ideologies have managed to unseat the socialists/communists, but I fear that most african countries will be in a back and forth position on these issues for centuries. Aesop's grasshoppers outnumber the worker ants.

Thank God, the 2nd amendment and the NRA here in the USA.

That's the truth.

quote:

I have to be carefull what I say now....I'm a PH in SA, and weapons are a tools which I cannot do without. I do not think the new Act is such a bad thing. People like "hype", and this is what is it at its best.

There are a few things that bother, BUT in general, I am much for a more controled way of owning firearms. We had (still have) a huge problem with poachers, and I'm not talking about the black guys snaring animals. I'm talking white guys, who like to get pi.. on brandy and coke, take a spotlight and rifle, and kill anything that moves. There are MANY more examples I can bring to light, if this seems like a poor one.

No, with the new law, for hunters, you have to be member of a hunting club, pass a police competency test, and have yourself reviewed every five years. You can then own one rifel for hunting, and one firearm for self defence. You can get dedicated hunter status, which of course will mean study and exam and money, but then you can have more than one hunting rifle.

For the record, every PH in our outfit, got their licenses renewed. Personaly I had three rifles, a shotgun and a 9mm glock renewed.

For the serious hunter/gunowner this should not be a problem, there are things you need to do to get all in order, just go and do it man, and stop giving every one the idea that we are in the middle of gunowners hell.

charl@infinito-safaris.com

Very true, Charl. I aggree we must not be complacent with our rights but I aggree its not as bad as people who aren't involved, make it seem. Years ago after high school, I worked in a gun shop. The vast minority of my clients were enthusiasts/hobbists
/fanatics/knowledgeable.

The vast majority were guys who wanted a handgun to boast about with their mates/chicks and were unsafe owners, period. Yes, people have a right to defend themsleves or own a firearm, but most buyers were a hazard and I for one was not happy sending them out into society with a firearm. I aggree that laws do hurt real enthusiasts, it is unfortunate but I hope it also cuts down on the guys with cheap .38 snubbies in their underwear drawer (and the amount of legally owned and irresponsibly kept guns that get stolen or 'lost').

Kayaker, I believe you may be more unworried about your situation than I would be in your shoes.
When THEY come to take everything you own, and come they will, you will have to give them what they demand. In the US, there are millions of gun owners who would willingly shoot it out with any gov't grab of anything. Its our 2nd amendment that keeps all other RIGHTS safe.

"When the Nazis arrested the Communists,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.
When they arrested the trade unionists,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist.
When they arrested the Jews, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Jew.
When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest."
Martin Niemöller

Whenever you believe that "this time it is different" or that "actually there is some good in this" or "well, you do not understand how things work in our country" I invite you to ponder if those thoughts were in the mind of those that never believed it could happen to them as they walked into a gas chamber. Or perhaps closer to home; that a government run by a despot could take the farm that had been in you family for 2, 3 maybe 5 generations and hand it over to a mob of howeling madmen without a thought as if you were a pox upon the land you loved.

Hi 155,
Wether that is true or not is opinion, and we are each entitled to hold out own, only time will tell...

My point is this, most hand guns I sold were to people who buy 100 rnds of ammo with it. They shoot 75 on the first 'novelty' range outing and keep 25 with their tighty whity gitch for years. Over the years they don't ever see their gun and they become quite unfamiliar with it. (now I am not talking about people like you or me, or others who shoot regularly - i.e. the minority of gun owners, we move in circles of people who shoot heaps, thus everyone we know is an active shooter, but my experience at least, leads me to believe definately otherwise).

I once was looking at guys llama .357, loaded with .38's. As he was 'packing it away' he AD'ed through his bed. He was pissed off and said, upon swinging the cyclinder open, "how the hell did that happen , look all 6 'bullets' are still in there!!!!!" He had that revolver for over 15 years, along with an FN Highpower 9mm, thank god that stayed in the safe that day, he had no idea how his two firearms worked.
Practical testing is the best way for us to go, and if that discourages people from buying guns, so be it. Belive me, I think it sucks that fanatics are 'hurt' in the process.

My point is that these owners (who yes, have a right to own arms in theory) are not exactly a deterent and more a hazrd to themselves and bystanders, let alone any criminal or someone coming to 'take everything from them'. In fact, if I was to rob someone like that it would be a bonus as I would get a free gun thrown into the deal with which to use at my will.

I feel that as enthusiasts we tend to think that all gun owners have our knowledge and skill.
Just today I was talking to a hunting friend of mine here in BC (where I am guiding for the summer). He just bought a .325WSM. He hunts about 2-5 head of big game every year and has done so for at least 10 years. He said he bought 3 boxes of shells and was shocked at the price, but luckily 3 boxes will do him for 3 years!

If the average gun owner(I don't mean serious hobbist, people who frequent this site etc) were engaged in a gun fight, I doubt they could even cock their handgun before it was wrestled from them, let alone use it effectively. In SA, we were a nation of shooters. Every male my age(31) and older shot not only in the military but also in high school/ cadet camps, so the stats should be in our favour, but from what I see, are not!
I believe these 'underpants draw' guns are more harm than good!

Once again, I am not referring to knowledgeable shooters, who, no matter how we like it, are the minority of the overall gun owners in my experience...

Sure, they could be trained to be militia and form 'citizen armies'and use their guns to prtect themselves and their cause, but in reality?

Kayaker, you are correct-- " Only time will tell". Best wishes and Good Luck.

quote:

Originally posted by infinito:
I have to be carefull what I say now....I'm a PH in SA, and weapons are a tools which I cannot do without. I do not think the new Act is such a bad thing. People like "hype", and this is what is it at its best.

There are a few things that bother, BUT in general, I am much for a more controled way of owning firearms. We had (still have) a huge problem with poachers, and I'm not talking about the black guys snaring animals. I'm talking white guys, who like to get pi.. on brandy and coke, take a spotlight and rifle, and kill anything that moves. There are MANY more examples I can bring to light, if this seems like a poor one.

No, with the new law, for hunters, you have to be member of a hunting club, pass a police competency test, and have yourself reviewed every five years. You can then own one rifel for hunting, and one firearm for self defence. You can get dedicated hunter status, which of course will mean study and exam and money, but then you can have more than one hunting rifle.

For the record, every PH in our outfit, got their licenses renewed. Personaly I had three rifles, a shotgun and a 9mm glock renewed.

For the serious hunter/gunowner this should not be a problem, there are things you need to do to get all in order, just go and do it man, and stop giving every one the idea that we are in the middle of gunowners hell.

charl@infinito-safaris.com

Youch, what a dangerous mindset!

What are you going to do when they make the standard so exacting that you cannot meet it? and infact maybe a limited elite outside of certain professions might have the skill sets to meet the government mandated standard.

Will it happen that they increase the cost so that only the well off can afford to spend the money and take the time off work for a competancy test and exam.

I see a world of problems headed your way as it has been shown time and time again that the anti-gun organizations, don't go after it wholesale, but incrementally, first the so called assault weapon, obviously unsuited for hunting or target shooting, since they were designed to kill (hyperbole by the uninformed), then you have repeaters and those awful sniper rifles (which we call hunting rifles) and handguns, who needs one to defend themselves, isn't that what the police are for? eventually they have so effectively split and attrited the gun owning populace that there is no effective group which can put up an effective resistance to the gun grab and there you are out in the cold.

AND they do it because they make it seem so reasonable and the gun owning populace at large, many of whom are only interested in thier particular small field, let it happen, because it seems so reasonable and they aren't going after MY gun, so it is okay.

Wake up, they want them all and if it takes a few decades, that is okay, they found a system that works and we are allowing them to get away with it.

There is a couple of issues one must look at in RSA.

We have a lot of violent crime. The firearms used in this attacks mainly came from Mozambique and other African countries, all illigal weapons, but a lot of the firearms was legal weapons that was stolen from there owners. In many instances it was due to poor safekeeping of the firearms.

I personally have seen people without safes, safes that was not mounted to a wall and people handing me a loaded rifle without knowing it was loaded. The particular person did not even had the know how to check that the weapon was safe before he handed it to me.

With the above in mind I fully agree that a person must have some training and his safe must be inspected. I do not have a problem with the control on firearms. Firearms are dangerous in the wrong hands and it must be regulated.

A competrancy test is as easy as you want it to be. It is a open book exam and you keep the book for future reference. It is basically a breakdown of all the important aspects of the law.

My concern with the current law is that we do not have enough competant people to administer the applications. It is not good enough for me to wait for 6 months for the SASLEC seta certificate, wait another 6 to 12 months for your competancy certificate from the police before you can apply for a new weapon. Now it will take a further 6 - 12 months to get an amswer from the Central Firearms dept. If you application is turned down it can take a further 2 years before it makes it to the appeal board. This process is what I call bad administration.

To apply for a new firearm you must motivate the use of it, again I do not have a problem with it, but then a kwowledgeable person must review your motivation. The SAPS expects from you to go into the balistics of the rifle compared to your current riffle(s) and prove to them that you need that rifle. If the person handling your application does not understand your motivation it is turned down with the remark "Not enough motivation"

My personal opinion is that they use this time delay to make gun owners unwilling to go through the process and thereby getting weapons out of circulation, exactly what the greenies want.

The whole act must be revised, I agree with controll but the process must be speeded up and a person belonging to a assosiation like SAGA, Phasa,SAHGCA, Chasa and many more organisations should not go through all this BS. If you passed the training and you belong to a organisation that is accredited, you should get you licence without fuss.

I started the process of getting a new rifle on my name on the 1st November 2005, my competancy is not even approved. Guns are my tools of trade, how must I earn a living without them. I might be lucky to be the proud owner of a custom 416R by the end of next year. Just not good enough for me

infinito, just for the record, the new act states that a non-dedicated hunter may have 3 (three) hunting rifles and one handgun.

I agree with you that the act is good in many instances, BUT unfortunately it is applicable to legal firearm owners only. The criminals are not bothered by it with their illegally owned firearms.
That's what should be addressed urgently.

quote:

We have a lot of violent crime. The firearms used in this attacks mainly came from Mozambique and other African countries, all illigal weapons, but a lot of the firearms was legal weapons that was stolen from there owners. In many instances it was due to poor safekeeping of the firearms.

This is classic. Blame crime on the innocent!

I am afriad you guys are in so much do-do and you don't even realize it. Good luck, but I rather have my guns than luck.

True what Jaco says,
It is good that owners do competancy tests (as in other systems, like Canada for example) and need to belong to an association, this will weed out those less fit to be armed who couldn't be bothered and therefore pose a hazard, not some armed vigilante mob who assert their rights, I don't buy that.

However, it is true , as Jaco says, to try and curb the excess, the really gun lovers are alos taking a hit, which sucks! I for one, am sure the system will be ironed out. Right now it is new, overloaded and teething. Lets review after 2008....

I don't see how the innocent are being blamed for illegal weapons used in crime, that come from outside out borders? SAPS and neighbouring authrorites have done 'swoops' in other SADC nations and netted a reasonable amount of illegal guns - fantastic! Yes, guns do get stolen from legal owners..and that is terrible!

It seems many from SA, while leary and a bit frustrated, are adjusting while those not involved love to spell the end??? Is it that bad, I think not. How is it that different from Canada (a little easier system, but the SA system was modeled on this), Aus, UK (way worse!) and a host of other 'gun law places' where folks still enjoy their sport?

I guess we all have our opinions!

Canada's competency test is a joke!

Go take a test under the auspices of an instructor (about 8 hours with a variable fee depending on the instructor) some basic gun handling and away you go with your certificate.

The test does nothing save make you spend alittle extra money and time to get your license, I can't begin to list the number of people who have went out and done the test and got thier PAL (posession Acquisition License) and purchased a rifle/shotgun/22/handgun and are just short of dangerous with said firearm and some bought it for the WOW factor or for the prestige or to show off.

A compentency test, does not, unlike intensive and maintained training, address the human factor.

If that was the case, then driving on the highways and biways would be a whole lot safer. The driver passed the written and road test, so obviously he/she must be competent............

"It is good that owners do competancy tests (as in other systems, like Canada for example) and need to belong to an association, this will weed out those less fit to be armed who couldn't be bothered and therefore pose a hazard, not some armed vigilante mob who assert their rights, I don't buy that."

The competency test does not weed out the undesirable or the unfit, since tests are made to be beaten, or they can acquire arms from less legal sources, which then makes the competency test moot, which is the fallacy of your arguement.

As far as the armed vigilante mob all I can say is....Yugoslavia, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Laos, Mozambique, Sudan.......etc if the populace is without the means to defend itself and the government does not have a list that allows them to show up at your door to confiscate said firearms, then you have another means to hold the government in check, without it, well history is rife with examples.

I on a regular basis (when living full time in Canada)had hundreds of firearms offered to me over the years, by people who foud them in trunks or attics or garages and not a single one of them were registered and some were even Prohibited class weapon (machine guns) and Restricted class (handguns and certain other weapons) an more than once I opened the storm door on the house and a found a gun case sitting between the doors, where it came from? who knows, some I kept others I found homes for, some went to museums others were destroyed, but all of them went thru the legal system first. But, if I had wanted to, those arms could have made it into the hands of the undesirable, careless, lawless element and do you think I would have inquired into how competent they were or just looked at the color of thier money?

Are people adjusting to the system in Canada? not really, those who want to keep thier firearms legally are jumping thru the hoops, but there is a larger number that just turned in thier guns and a further number who refused to paticipate and will deal with the ramifications if and when they are caught and from what I have heared they aren't looking to hard to find them.

I hope that you don't wake up one day to find what happened in Great Britain happens on your shore, but I won't hold my breath, same goes for Canada, unless something is done.

Pretty pathetic when a government gets to pick winners and losers in the legal gun ownership game.

It's a form of elitism to believe the basic right of self defense requires a certificate of compentency or whatever canard you what to call it.

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Any rules, tests or permits are just the beginning.....
Take a look at England, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Zimbabwe.

quote:

infinito: I do not think the new Act is such a bad thing....in general, I am much for a more controled way of owning firearms....with the new law, for hunters, you have to be member of a hunting club, pass a police competency test, and have yourself reviewed every five years. You can then own one rifle for hunting, and one firearm for self defence....For the serious hunter/gunowner this should not be a problem

Pathetic.

quote:

Thank God, the 2nd amendment and the NRA here in the USA.

The scary thing to me is that the amendment by itself should be enough. I think without the NRA and others, we would have already lost them.

The 2nd Amendment is like a patent. Without the oragnization, money, and lawyers to protect it, it is worthless.

Thank God for the NRA.

quote:

Originally posted by fla3006:

quote:

infinito: I do not think the new Act is such a bad thing....in general, I am much for a more controled way of owning firearms....with the new law, for hunters, you have to be member of a hunting club, pass a police competency test, and have yourself reviewed every five years. You can then own one rifle for hunting, and one firearm for self defence....For the serious hunter/gunowner this should not be a problem

Pathetic.

Exactly. Probably of the same mindset that a little redistribution of farmland is okay because of past injustices.

If this is what they believe, they have to be strongly against the system in place in the US. If we had the same laws here, there would be alot fewer PH's over there.

I had no idea that it was this bad in SA. The posts of the South Africans on this thread beggar belief. The two Safari Operators who posted speak like the most rabid of our political gun-ban thugs here in the US.

Foreign sportsmen in the habit of traveling to SA to hunt and who connect to other hunting destinations in Africa from there need to start looking for another place to hunt and another airport.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Excellent!
This has been the best discussion on gun control I've ever seen.
For our African friends here, please don't think I'm bashing you for your attitudes/views on gun control.
We have opposite views from several countries, from folks who are obviously not Bunny Huggers.
Like some of the other USA posters, I was surprised at our friends from Africas views. In America, those views would be considered Liberal, and totally unacceptable to Conservative folks.
Here's some examples quoted from different responses..

I am much for a more controlled way of owning firearms.

You have to be a member of a hunting club.

It also cuts down on the guys with cheap .38 snubbies in their underwear drawer.

Legally owned and irresponsibly kept guns that get stolen or "lost."

Firearms are dangerous in the wrong hands and it must be regulated.

You belong to a organization that is accredited, you should get your license without fuss.

Need to belong to an association, this will weed out the less fit to be armed who couldn't be bothered and therefore pose a hazard.

Some armed vigilante mob who assert their rights.

Most of those views are totally unacceptable in America, except for Bunny Huggers.
The question is, why are these gun restrictions Ok in Africa but not in the USA?
Could it be our Constitution?
As I stated above, I am in no way trying to start an arguement. I'm just courious about the different mind set.

Hi TJ,

We are only hearing form 3 or 4 folks here. If you sampled say 10 000 SA shooters and 10 000 US shooters, you may find more similar ground, perhaps.

For me, I see guns as a hobby, sport, passion or a tool. Other's may see them as an integral part of citizenry or nationalism. I don't, but I am only one person. I think as SA'ers we would all like to see an end to illegal guns (I am not saying gun laws will do this entirely or even significantly, so please everyone, don't have a hernia about this!).

We can argue many points in life based on opinion. For I may say I see no hassle with having one beer while I drive, many may be outraged if I meant this. Some say that owning guns with no training or know-how is every citizens right, many may disagree with this.
The same applies to cars/personal carbon footprint these days/power usage/water usage etc.

I, for one, appreciate your question and interest. It seems quite a few in SA accept this and move on, realizing all is not lost and get on with life. I aggree,as I said, we must be aware of our rights and our policy makers whims, as every citzen in every nation should.

We can still own guns easily, not as freely as the US, but not many places are as free as that ITO gun ownership.

I agree.
However, you must be on guard for the "Camels nose under the tent." The folks who don't want you to have guns are there, and they will be back with more regulations.

Frankly, those in the RSA who believe that restrictions are the way to go, are only deluding themselves. India, the country that I was born in and lived in for most of my life, introduced some of the most prohibitive gun laws in the world in 1984. Indians can own only three guns - a rifle, a shotgun and a handgun smaller than 32 calibre. And, in the 22 years since 1984, the UN estimates that something like 40 million illegal firearms have come into the country.

In some states the government has had to form village defence committees to arm common people so that they could fight off militants of various kinds but the main obstacle to people defending themselves in India still are the laws there. The socialist politicians who brought those laws in are the worst scum to have disgraced India. I would not hesitate to call politicians of their kind in the RSA or wherever else they are the same.

The US Constitution offers the greatest freedoms in the world of any constitution and it stands head and shoulders above all modern socialism derived constitutions which are not worth the paper they are printed on. Hopefully, South African gun owners would find a way to fight their politicians and win. If they don't, their situation would be no different from India's a few years from now - that of yet another socialist basket case.

quote:

Originally posted by infinito:
I have to be carefull what I say now....I'm a PH in SA, and weapons are a tools which I cannot do without. I do not think the new Act is such a bad thing. People like "hype", and this is what is it at its best.

For the serious hunter/gunowner this should not be a problem, there are things you need to do to get all in order, just go and do it man, and stop giving every one the idea that we are in the middle of gunowners hell.

charl@infinito-safaris.com

Charl,

You have obviously not waited for 6 months for your SETA certificate, 5 months for competency and 16 months for a decision from the central firearms registry, and then to have your application lost! and get a comment sorry sir you have to reapply which is another 2 years ???. All while the gunsmith is sitting with my R12 000 deposit. If I wanted a firearm to murder steal and hijack I would not spend R30 000 on a custom rifle.

Yes regulation is good, but have a system that works, a system that reduces illegal firearms not legal.

If you think it is all "hype" and as you suggest "there are things you need to do to get all in order, just go and do it man" you are living in a different RSA to me. I've done the things I need to do 27 months ago, my rifle is still at the gunsmith.

We are living in "gunowners hell"

I’m afraid that I do not share the “Government has good intentions†attitude of some South African posters on the subject of firearm control. I sincerely believe that the government has a long-term plan to totally disarm the citizens in this country, and, as noted, they are going about it bit by bit.

Now my question to all who wish to make some input: What do I, a Hunting Outfitter who needs to provide suitable firearms to clients, a Professional Hunter who has to have a selection of firearms as “back up’ for his plains game, wingshooting and Dangerous Game hunting clients, a serious hunter who believes that there is a ‘right’ tool for each job and one should not stretch or far exceed the limits, and above all a law-abiding citizen do? Vote against the present day government? You bet! But what else do I do?

Until I get better advice I’ll just remember which nations put severe political pressure on the previous government to hand over the country to the present terrorist organization. I use the word ‘nations’ to emphasize the fact that some of the readers of this post may have supported their government’s actions against the “Apartheid Regimeâ€. At the same time I know that very few of the readers of this posting will actually support the public-disarming intentions of the terrorist government in power in South Africa today. Besides remembering, and in fact bearing a grudge, I’ll in the meantime just try to get on with my life and, grudgingly, put up with the extra cost and inconvenience caused by the first steps in total disarming of the public. I will also continue to be involved in shooting and hunting clubs and the education of youngsters as well as adult beginners in safe handling of firearms and ethical hunting.

In good hunting.

Andrew McLaren.

There are 3 things of many that make America the Great country that is is.

One is the Second Amendment.

Another is than the Police are not controlled by the Federal government.

Another is that the military has no power in the CONUS over the People.

The right to keep and bear arms is god given all men. the theory that goverment rules make you safer is merly trading liberty for percived security

quote:

Originally posted by kayaker:
Hi TJ,

We are only hearing form 3 or 4 folks here. If you sampled say 10 000 SA shooters and 10 000 US shooters, you may find more similar ground, perhaps.

For me, I see guns as a hobby, sport, passion or a tool. Other's may see them as an integral part of citizenry or nationalism. I don't, but I am only one person. I think as SA'ers we would all like to see an end to illegal guns (I am not saying gun laws will do this entirely or even significantly, so please everyone, don't have a hernia about this!).

We can argue many points in life based on opinion. For I may say I see no hassle with having one beer while I drive, many may be outraged if I meant this. Some say that owning guns with no training or know-how is every citizens right, many may disagree with this.
The same applies to cars/personal carbon footprint these days/power usage/water usage etc.

I, for one, appreciate your question and interest. It seems quite a few in SA accept this and move on, realizing all is not lost and get on with life. I aggree,as I said, we must be aware of our rights and our policy makers whims, as every citzen in every nation should.

We can still own guns easily, not as freely as the US, but not many places are as free as that ITO gun ownership.

Dear Kayaker,

I am a lawyer originally from Pennsylvania, USA. I have owned firearms since age 13 and handguns since 1983. In 1983 I added a carry permit for concealed carry of a handgun.

That carry permit came in handy.

Also, the studies that I have read conclude that the cities and states in the USA like Pennsylvania with easily obtainable concealed carry permits have lower crime rates.

Where I think that your argument fails is the "right to bear arms" has to reside as a brake upon your government. Competency or lack thereof in handling a firearm by the citizen is irrelevant.

The 2nd amendment here in the USA does not exist in a vacuum. In some ways it does secure the other civil rights in our Constitution. Probably not daily, but certainly as a prophylactic measure when some in the government want to expand their authority in an unconstitutional manner. That's when it counts.

If you feel that the RSA government is sufficiently limited in its authority by you the citizen, then gun regulation should not bother you. But if you see excessive intrusion into your life by a government that likes to intrude, then scream your bloody head off, and back it up with power.

As an another example, though not government related, I worked in Jamaica with one of your bretheren, a Brit from RSA. He had an AK-47 scar on his leg from when he was a medic in the army.

He told me that some fellows came to take his dad's farm away from him in 1984-85. Milita guys I think. His dad's shotgun changed their minds.

Not just the government, right?

Sincerely,

Yalie

It seems to me that most pro-gun groups are always defensive about gun rights.That may be why the NRA is so sucessfull - they go on the offense often. Instead of putting your finger in the leaking dyke, build a bigger,stronger one.

Let the anti's scramble to keep John Q from buying a shoulder fired rocket launcher for the coming hunting season at wal-mart.That'll keep them busy and let you enjoy your old bolt rifle

Three quesitons from a 1997 poll of police officers in PA

Yes No

35.Did you swear an oath upon your honor to uphold the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of
Pennsylvania when you were hired as a police officer?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98.6 1.4

36.If a law were passed making it illegal for civilians to
possess semi-automatic, military looking firearms, would you
participate in dynamic entry, house to house searches to seize
these firearms if so ordered by a superior?. . . 58.1 41.9

37.If a law were passed making it illegal for civilians to
possess any type of firearm, would you participate in dynamic
entry, house to house searches to seize them if so ordered by
a superior? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53.0 47.0

450 no 2, that is 3 things. Of course, #3 didn't hold for Waco, Clinton, and Reno.

quote:

I for one, am sure the system will be ironed out. Right now it is new, overloaded and teething. Lets review after 2008....

kayaker - I'm sorry if this ruffles your feathers but, this is the kind of thinking that will result in more and more draconian attempts to "fix the problems" discovered when this piece of s, eh, legislation doesn't work either. The whole plan of the anti-gunners is, chip, chip, chip away at the seemingly benign legislative "issues" until no one can own a firearm. It's like putting a lobster in lukewarm water with the stove turned on high, before he discovers that he has met his end, it's too late to do anything about it.

Ask your Australian, New Zealand and British gun owners what happened to them and they live in "truly" democratic nations.

I don't own any assault type weapons, and I'm not totally convinced anyone in the general public of the US needs one either. However, I will stand with the craziest of the crazies on the pro-gun side because the anti-gun people are even crazier (not to suggest that all pro-gun people are crazy). Some of the anti's proposals would make my sporting arms illegal.

Almost 20 years ago while in college I predicted that a scoped centerfire bolt-action rifle would someday be referred to by the anti's as a "sniper rifle", saw an article last year where they were doing just that.

Caleb.
I hope you rethink your position. Since when does "need" have anything to do with owning a gun? Define an "Assault type weapon" for me please. Is it the color? Semi Auto? Military issued? Folding stock? Red dot scope?
I own several AR15s and a few SKS and AKs. I have shot caribou/deer with all of them.
Be careful, your falling into the gungrabbers trap.