Gun Ownership

[JSchoeman]

It is already tough to get a license in SA. Nobody has been any safer since the new laws came into play, because legal firearm owners are not the cause of crime in SA. You will currently be refused a license if you have a criminal record.

That's exactly the problem with the anti-gun lobby - all their efforts are aimed at disarming law-abiding citizens. No amount of legislation will have an effect on criminals - they operate outside of the law in any case!

The nett effect of GFSA and the like is to disarm citizens and make them easy prey for criminals!

 

[j4sk]

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
I'm 100% for responsible gun ownership. Keep your weapon safe and know how to use it. Nail the hell out of irresponsible people who let their kids get hold of their gun.
A gun is a tool like anything else. Guns are not "evil", if a car runs someone down you blame the driver not the car.
The anti-gun people have this ridiculous idea that by banning guns or making it harder for people to get guns they will stop violent criminals.
However:
Criminals quite obviously don't work within the legal framework, they get their guns from where ever they can quite often from our police. Criminals are not registered gun owners.
Even if there were no guns in the world there are still plenty of other ways to kill people, criminals will just revert to murder weapons of the sharp and pointy variety.

I do have one question though, if the South African public was more heavily armed how do you think this would affect violent crime in this country, specifically hijacking and violent home invasions?
Would it reduce crime due to the much higher likelihood of the criminal coming off second best?
or
Would it make things worse? Would criminals become more reckless and violent?

 

[srothman]

I'll look for the article with the stats and post the link here, but it basically came down to the firearm sales in the US that went up, and crime went down.

I believe it is like you say. A bad guy with a gun walks into the bank and he can pretty much hold everyone hostage, because he has an advantage in the form of a gun. now, do you think that same bad guy is going to try his luck, knowing full well there may be 50 other people in there, all with guns? I doubt it.

An armed society is a polite society.

 

[srothman]

Here is the article with the source, copied from Gunsite.co.za:

Hi Natalie

Your "Google alerts" has no doubt picked up the thread title and you're here to take a look.

I just wanted to make you aware of the fact that the FBI have just released their preliminary crime states for the first six months of 2010.

Unbelievably (for the anti gun loonies) it shows a continued (previous stats here: http://www.gunsite.co.za/forums/show...hey-should-see. ) downward trend in crime despite the fact there has been a continued increase of firearm ownership in the USA.

They now have more guns and issued more concealed weapons permits then ever before.

Additionally the USA has seen record increases in gun sales during the last two years. With all these gun in private hands, the crime stats continue to drop.

According to the FBI, violent crime is down 6.2 percent over the same period in 2009, and homicide is down 7.1 percent. Further, robberies are down 10.7 percent, rapes down 6.2 percent, aggravated assaults down 3.9 percent, and burglaries dropped 1.4 percent.

So what it boils down to, is that the more guns , including automatic rifles, there are in civilian hands, the less violent crime there is.

Food for thought?

Regards Frank

The Latest Stats
Show a Continuing Decline in Crime

12/20/10
We’ve just released our first peek into crime in 2010—with a snapshot of the first six months of the year.
The early returns are encouraging. According to the Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January-June, 2010, the nation saw a 6.2 percent decrease in the number of reported violent crimes and a 2.8 percent decrease in the number of reported property crimes compared to data for the same time frame during 2009.
The report specifically covers the violent crimes of murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault…and the property crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. It also includes arson, which is considered a property crime but is tracked separately for this report.

Some of the preliminary findings:
•Reported incidents of violent crime as a whole decreased in all four regions of the country—falling 0.2 percent in the Northeast, 7.2 percent in the Midwest, 7.8 percent in the South, and 7.2 percent in the West.
•In the Northeast, reported incidents of murder were up 5.7 percent, forcible rapes were up 1.1 percent, and aggravated assaults were up 2.4 percent.
•Reported incidents of property crime as a whole declined in all four regions of the country—dropping 0.2 percent in the Northeast, 2.5 percent in the Midwest, 3.6 percent in the South, and 3.1 percent in the West.
•In the Northeast, however, reported incidents of burglary rose 3.9 percent.
•Population-wise, cities with 500,000 to 999,999 residents saw the greatest decline in reported violent crimes (8.3 percent) and in property crimes (4.8 percent).

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/december/crime_122010/crime_122010

Source: http://www.gunsite.co.za/forums/sho...now-More-firearms-less-crime!&highlight=crime

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

The funniest part is that Arson decreased the most "Put down the lighter son or imma bust a cap in yo ass!"

 

[srothman]

LOL! They probably traded those pistol-shaped lighters in for actual pistols.

 

[Geriatrix]

Arson and motor theft? Really? Are you sure that you're not just grasping at straws here? Correlation != causation.

Look I sincerely believe having a gun would make defending your family easier(if you are competent and responsible) but I've been hijacked and having a gun would have made no difference in my situation. In fact the guys would probably have shot me then and there.

Having a gun for self defense in home invasions might be a little more practical. If it's quickly accessible and left in conditions 1,2 or maybe even 3. Which is not advisable. I don't know, I'm split on this one.

 

[rorz0r]

My problem is lets say I'm home at night sleeping etc and someone breaks in etc. What am I going to do without a gun? Try hit an armed robber with the closest heaviest thing?

 

[srothman]

Arson and motor theft? Really? Are you sure that you're not just grasping at straws here? Correlation != causation.

I don't make the facts, I just share them.

Look I sincerely believe having a gun would make defending your family easier(if you are competent and responsible) but I've been hijacked and having a gun would have made no difference in my situation. In fact the guys would probably have shot me then and there.

I think this is one of the biggest mindsets to adopt. Just because you are a legal firearm owner, doesn't mean you HAVE to act on everything. Consider this analogy, albeit very primative.

You can either drive within the speed limit (not use your legally owned firearm), or you can drive faster than the speed limit (use your legally owned firearm in a justified manner).
You need to take your wife/child/friend to the hospital.

Scenario 1) They have a small cut on their hand. Does this require you to drive faster than the speed limit? No. It is not life threatening.
Scenario 2) they have a wooden peg sticking out of their chest and losing blood rapidly. Does this require you to drive faster than the speed limit. Of course.

And the only difference is how you assessed the situation. If someone hijacks me, chances are I will give them my car and all valuables, because that is the way in which you can get everything over and done with using the least amount of force. At the end of the day a gun escalates the situation. I will be the first to admit it. That is why you need to be very sure that when you do draw your firearm that you are acting reasonably.

I know I sound like a broken record, but again, this is where training comes in. Chances of the average guy hijacker having proper firearm and close quarters combat training is pretty much slim. Besides, most incidents can be avoided without even having to draw your firearm by simply practicing proper situational awareness. Running away = first prize.

Having a gun for self defense in home invasions might be a little more practical. If it's quickly accessible and left in conditions 1,2 or maybe even 3. Which is not advisable. I don't know, I'm split on this one.

Honestly, no more or less practical than having one for protecting your life when you travel, go out for dinner with your loved ones, etc. Let's be honest, at home is not the only place where you may encounter an incident.

As for how you store your firearm, this will vary from one firearms owner to the next. Personally I carry +1, i.e. a round chambered. None of my firearms have safeties or hammers (Glock and Smith & Wesson), and thus it's a matter of point and click. Obviously the "conditions" don't really apply to striker-fired pistols, but it is most like condition 1, i.e. chambered, cocked, safety off. Again, this comes down to personal preference and level of skill

 

[Geriatrix]

I don't make the facts, I just share them.

I meant that increased firearm owner ship doesn't necessarily mean decreased crime if you look at those stats. Buuuut, what we could look at is places like Switzerland where forced conscription militia necessitates that everyone in the population is armed and ready. But then again Switzerland is very culturally and economically homogenous so there might be other factors at play.

I know I sound like a broken record, but again, this is where training comes in. Chances of the average guy hijacker having proper firearm and close quarters combat training is pretty much slim. Besides, most incidents can be avoided without even having to draw your firearm by simply practicing proper situational awareness. Running away = first prize.

I agree, that's why I think everyone should go for firearm training.

None of my firearms have safeties or hammers (Glock and Smith & Wesson), and thus it's a matter of point and click.

I was wondering about that(still learning ). So how do you de-cock and make a Glock or S&W safe? Or do you just remove the cartridge from the chamber? I wouldn't want to have the firearm hot and ready to go at all times.

 

[srothman]

Exactly like you say. I remove the source of ammo, i.e. the magazine, and then rack the slide to expell the chambered cartridge. I takes a bit getting used to, I admit, but once you have the hang of it, it is extremely efficient. As for the Glocks and the Smith & Wessons, they have several internal safeties that rpevent the firearm to discharge unless the trigger is actually pulled, and even then it needs to be properly pulled by a human hand, i.e. several areas of the trigger needs to be touched for it to actually be pressed all the way back and discharge the shot. In my opinion no less safe than a firearm with an external safety.

 

[Nocturnity]

Just a quick question on firearm storage. Doesn't the law require you to store your weapon in a locked safe? How does this work at night when you hear someone outside your bedroom door? Surely you won't have sufficient time to get the weapon out of the safe and ready?

 

[Geriatrix]

Just a quick question on firearm storage. Doesn't the law require you to store your weapon in a locked safe? How does this work at night when you hear someone outside your bedroom door? Surely you won't have sufficient time to get the weapon out of the safe and ready?

It needs to be locked away when you don't use it. So what I would do is keep the key in the safe at night and keep your bedroom door locked. You should be able to hear when **** goes down outside and quickly unlock your safe.

 

[Mila]

Just a quick question on firearm storage. Doesn't the law require you to store your weapon in a locked safe? How does this work at night when you hear someone outside your bedroom door? Surely you won't have sufficient time to get the weapon out of the safe and ready?

Get a Bow.
You do not need to register it or keep it underlock and key.. but you have to hit the first time.

 

[srothman]

The interesting thing is this. Nowhere in the Firearms Control Act does it specify how a firearm should be stored.

Section 83 of the act merely states the following:

Storage and transport of firearms and ammunition

83. Firearms and ammunition must be stored and transported in the prescribed
manner.

Source: http://acts.co.za/firearms_control_act_2000.htm

Nowhere in the Act is any such manner prescribed.

Now, common sense should dictate, and yes, lock it up when it is not under your direct control. In the case of a self defence firearm, by all means have it in your bedside drawer, or wherever you can have quick and SAFE access to it, without having to worry about junior tippy toeing into your bedroom while you are asleep and shooting you in the head.

This is part of a much bigger picture, to be honest, and I am glad you touched on it already, i.e. for example having your doors locked to give you sufficient time to properly wake up and gather your thoughts. Homes/households should have a defense in depth. not only is this for your own well being, i.e. will keep you safer, it will also help you defend you action in the unfortunate even that you DO need to use your firearm.

Don't oil the noisy front gate, for example. You WANT to hear when someone opens the gate. Have a security barrier/gate betwen your living and you sleep areas of your house. for the more extremists, have audio and video recording in your house. Not only will this help in positively identifying badguys, it will again aid in your defence. albeit not always admissable in a court of law, it could prevent charges being made against you in the first place. This way you can tell Mr. Police man:

"I did the following:

I told him to please take everything he wanted and leave, as I have already alerted the security company. He started to approach me, and I again warned him that if he comes through the security gate, I will defend myself by any means possible. He started breaking down the gate. I again warned him that I will fire at him, because I will regard his actions as a personal threat to my life and that of my family. BANG".

...and you will be able to prove it.

As long as you can prove that you had other measures in place, and that using a firearm to protect you and your family was the absolute last resort.

 

[Geriatrix]

Get a Bow.
You do not need to register it or keep it underlock and key.. but you have to hit the first time.

Yeah and if there are 4 guys? You can Legolas the first one but unless you have a battle dwarf and a couple of hobbits at your side those orcs will just take you out.

 

[JSchoeman]

Yeah and if there are 4 guys? You can Legolas the first one but unless you have a battle dwarf and a couple of hobbits at your side those orcs will just take you out.

Hahahaha! Well put dear sir!

srothman makes a lot of sense and has clearly thought this through.

As to those statistics sure, it is not really possible to correlate an increase in gun-ownership with a decrease in arson and car-theft etc., but that is exactly the point.

The anti-gun lobby always claims that increased gun-ownership results in an increase in crime/murder/death by firearm (intentional or accidental) but they cannot prove that through statistics either.

The stats quoted above does however disprove their claim that increased gun-ownership equals an increase in crime.

 

[Palimino]

If we disarm this country the bad dudes will have no fear to do whatever they want to steal, rape and kill us. You don't have to own a gun, but the very fact that others do gives you some minor level of protection because at least the bad guy will fear that you may have a weapon.

The ‘bad dudes’ genius plan to amalgamate the Metro police with the SAPS bears the grubby fingerprints of the government’s mission to centralise all potential threats to their hegemony. The ability of the country to defend itself is also being compromised. Other plans to remove any possible threat which gives you some minor level of protection (because at least the bad guy will fear that you may have a weapon) include:

#1 The commando’s have been disbanded.

SAns will never be allowed to return to anything remotely resembling a khaki clad group of men with white skin and guns. The image is one the AWB cultivated and the word commando has an instant association with the word ‘Boer’. This is a pity because they had the infrastructure (ambulances, hospitals, etc.), the command structure and a large, disciplined body of men who could be activated at a moments notice. They would have been useful for natural catastrophes (climate change), bush fires, floods, earth quakes, etc. They didn’t wimp-out easily.

#2 The navy has been rendered ineffectual.

#3 The air-force has been rendered ineffectual.

#4 The army has been rendered useless and has provided a patronage haven for supporters.

#5 There are ongoing attempts to disarm the population.

#6 Restrictive legislation has been put into place to prevent the population from importing weaponry (to protect themselves from criminals).

#7 Any half-way effective police unit has been disbanded like child-abuse, rape etc. units and the Scorpions (of course).

#8 The ongoing attempt to centralise the metro police with the SAPS.

#9 School shooting teams have been disbanded.

I am especially narked about #9. One of my sons got his school colours for musketry (shooting) in grade 8. He was in the last cohort of students before the school shooting team was disbanded (he didn’t wear khaki incidentally – school uniform). His colours were quite a rarity because the means of getting them didn’t exist any longer. He traded on this for the rest of his school career.

Note: In SA, many all-boys high schools had shooting teams. They competed with one another.

And who would teach gun competency? MK and APLA retreads? My big toe knows more about gun competency than they ever will. So do most SA male citizens who did military service.

Be a mite nervous.

 

[Budza]

The human centipede will be tame compared to what's in store for that fscker

Anyway, if the badguys knew something like this awaited them, there'd either be

a) much less crime, as they wouldn't want to risk it OR
b) more violent crime, where when they come for you, they come with guns blazing.

The gunfree nuts would have you believe the latter, the progun nuts the former.

I'd rather have a gun.

Just in case.

 

[Budza]

I am especially narked about #9. One of my sons got his school colours for musketry (shooting) in grade 8. He was in the last cohort of students before the school shooting team was disbanded (he didn’t wear khaki incidentally – school uniform). His colours were quite a rarity because the means of getting them didn’t exist any longer. He traded on this for the rest of his school career.

Remember reading this, almost word for word in another gun thread.

Sad though. Marksmanship is a good discipline/skill.