Canal Walk bans guns

Skerminkel said:
Sadly, and as convoluted it may be, it actually does make sense. If the robbers are the only ones armed, the chances of a gun fight breaking out reduce. That way they walk in, take what they want and leave. No would-be James Bond trying to rescue the world armed with his 9mm and eight rounds.
Click to expand...

RE - would-be James Bond

It was not a "a would-be James Bond" but an ordinary churchgoer with a .38 who fired at a gang of terrorists that attacked St James Church with grenades and R4 rifles, killing eleven people.

Without his intervention, which wounded one attacker, there would have been a lot more casualties.
 
Wonder how well random body searches will go down with the regular customers?
 
Can a shopper carry a crossbow? I seem to recall a shop there that sold them.
 
marine1 said:
Bloody idiots I'm sure now all robberies will stop immediately ...........not
Click to expand...

I think it will help though...

It will be an early warning system. At the moment they only know the robbery is happening as they hit the store. With gun control at the door, they might not stop them gaining entry to the mall but they can alert the police/armed response right away.

These heists rely on the fact that they can get in and out fast before real response can get there.

Who knows perhaps making malls a gun free zone will actually make them better ?
 
Nerfherder said:
I think it will help though...

It will be an early warning system. At the moment they only know the robbery is happening as they hit the store. With gun control at the door, they might not stop them gaining entry to the mall but they can alert the police/armed response right away.

These heists rely on the fact that they can get in and out fast before real response can get there.

Who knows perhaps making malls a gun free zone will actually make them better ?
Click to expand...

Never going to work .
 
Nerfherder said:
Its been like that at Monte Casino since it opened.
Click to expand...

And I have had my firearm on my side every single time I go in there. "Wanding" people doesn't work 90% of the time, it is very unreliable. I've also always had at least two pocket knives with me. Physically searching people might be more reliable though, I guess.
 
Skerminkel said:
Sadly, and as convoluted it may be, it actually does make sense. If the robbers are the only ones armed, the chances of a gun fight breaking out reduce. That way they walk in, take what they want and leave. No would-be James Bond trying to rescue the world armed with his 9mm and eight rounds.
Click to expand...

Then the guys who transfer cash into and out of ATMs, shops and banks should also be unarmed. Then the criminals can also be unarmed or merely armed with the lowest caliber weapons.

If someone owns a weapon it does not mean that they're wanna be heroes. What this does is take away any chance of someone like this being able to defend their own life. A small caliber handgun is still better than nothing, even against an assault rifle.

Hopefully if these are gun free zones the criminals will not shoot anyone and all will be OK.
 
Space_Chief said:
If someone owns a weapon it does not mean that they're wanna be heroes. What this does is take away any chance of someone like this being able to defend their own life.
Click to expand...

^- That.
My job, as a husband (and soon to be father), is to maker that guys job of harming me or my family as hazardous as possible.
 
What's also worrisome is that instead of a robbery inside a jewellery store itself, now some criminals may draw at the entrances. And what's stopping them from putting a gun to guard's head and just waltzing to the jewellery store?

They'd better have some heavily armed guards and proper searches then. But knowing our levels of corruption and the rent-a-cops who don't want to get killed for a few Rands, I doubt this will be implemented well.
 
srothman said:
And I have had my firearm on my side every single time I go in there. "Wanding" people doesn't work 90% of the time, it is very unreliable. I've also always had at least two pocket knives with me. Physically searching people might be more reliable though, I guess.
Click to expand...

Body cavity searches OR those special "x-ray" machines they use in US airports. A connected company can even get the contract.
 
Would be understandable if they could provide examples of when law abiding citizens caused harm or potential harm to innocent or deserving individuals by mean of either using their own firearms, or allowing someone else to take possession of it and use it for wrong-doing, while on their premises.

Have legal firearm owners become a risk to others?

Are they guaranteeing that they will protect whomever is on their premises?
If they fail to, can they be held liable?
 
Seems like a pointless idea. I can't recall ever reading that law abiding licensed firearm owners were ever involved in, or escalated any of these robberies. What is the point of banning licensed firearm owners from carrying firearms if they aren't the source of the problem or in any way exacerbate the problem?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X