Guns in South Africa.

[arnisador]

[h=1]South African girl of seven 'shoots friend dead'[/h]

South Africa has tight gun ownership regulations but many people still possess firearms.

The debate over gun ownership in South Africa is highly emotive, and sometimes takes racial overtones in a country where divisions between black and white people still run deep, says BBC South Africa analyst Farouk Chothia.


The pro-gun lobby argues that people should be well-armed because of high levels of crime, but critics say this merely escalates the violence.

This is a place with a much greater violence problem than the U.S.--the gun homicide rate is just over 5 times greater than here--that is also having a gun control debate.

As to dealing with the murder of one child by another:

The alleged killer's grandfather has been charged with failure to safeguard a firearm, police added.
[...]
Her grandfather had apparently taken the weapon out of his gun safe on Friday after an attempted robbery, and forgot to put it back, local media reports say.

This is one of the main things I want here--if someone is injured because you failed to secure your weapon, then you should be charged with just that: Failing to maintain control over your own loaded firearm.

 

[Grenadier]

South African girl of seven 'shoots friend dead'

This is a place with a much greater violence problem than the U.S.--the gun homicide rate is just over 5 times greater than here--

And yet, South Africa's firearms ownership rate is less than 20% that of the United States' rate. It's not lawful firearms ownership that's the problem.

that is also having a gun control debate.

In the end, the lawful ownership of firearms plays no role in firearms violence in a country. The above figure certainly shows this.

It's a country's culture that is going to determine what kind of murder rates you'll get. Stricter laws that target lawful owners will not change this for the better.

Furthermore, this does not look like a murder to me. It looks like an accidental death (which are an insignificant amount compared to many other causes).

This is one of the main things I want here--if someone is injured because you failed to secure your weapon, then you should be charged with just that: Failing to maintain control over your own loaded firearm.

There is no one size fits all legislation that will work.

What if you have your firearms securely stored in a locked and bolted down safe, yet a dedicated thief simply forklifts the entire safe away, and steals the contents inside? Should you still be held responsible?

What if someone hits a police officer with his car, and then steals his firearm? Should he be held responsible while he's mending in the hospital from several broken bones, while the perp uses his firearm to commit crimes?

In the end, punishing law-abiding firearms owners isn't going to make any noticeable headway, regarding crimes.

Should this apply to everyone, such as in this case as well?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/1...i-vehicle-in-north-carolina/?intcmp=obnetwork

http://www.wccbcharlotte.com/story/guns-body-armor-stolen-from-fbi-vehicle-20130819

What do you propose should happen to the FBI agents if any of their equipment that got stolen is used in a crime?

 

[arnisador]

What if you have your firearms securely stored in a locked and bolted down safe, yet a dedicated thief simply forklifts the entire safe away, and steals the contents inside? Should you still be held responsible?

No--you did secure those weapons. We have plenty of cases of accidental shootings by kids in this country b/c of loaded guns found in purses, cars, living rooms. If you secure it and someone has to break something to get to it, you're safe.

 

[Grenadier]

No--you did secure those weapons. We have plenty of cases of accidental shootings by kids in this country b/c of loaded guns found in purses, cars, living rooms. If you secure it and someone has to break something to get to it, you're safe.

I must dispute the claim of having plenty of cases of accidental shootings by kids. Accidental shootings are already a very insignificant number, when it comes to the death of children.

In this thread, I pointed out the NCHS report from 2009, which shows that the number is so small, that enacting such punishments for accidental shootings, wouldn't make any real difference at all.

Considering that the population has increased by two-fold, and the accidental death total has decreased by 80% in a matter of eight decades, accidental firearms deaths aren't a significant problem compared to other causes.

While it may sound callous of me to say that, the numbers don't lie. Enacting more severe restrictions and punishments on law-abiding folks isn't going to help things.

 

[arnisador]

I must dispute the claim of having plenty of cases of accidental shootings by kids.

Ballpark of 100/year--I forget the exact numbers. Jarts (lawn darts) were banned after, I think, 3 deaths; tamper-evident packaging for OTC medicines was introduced after one poisoning incident affecting several customers. We make laws to address less frequent incidents all the time. How many Amber Alerts are about children truly in danger, rather than false positives or custodial disputes where violence toward the children is not a factor? Murder by explosive isn't very common but good luck buying dynamite without a special permit. How many injured football players lead the orgs. for high schools to change rules/equipment? There are enough deaths (plus injuries) to justify addressing it, at least by the standards used for other situations resulting in deaths and injury.

By the way...passing a law is inexpensive. That you feel it's rare is no argument at all to not address it. Accidental shootings have taken more lives per year in the U.S. in the past decade than terrorism; include 9/11 and the numbers are still comparable (esp. if you take deaths plus injuries as the measure). Given the low expense of passing a law, and the fact that it need only be prosecuted when a case occurs (you need not proactively search out violators), what really is the problem with this?

But that's not all that's covered under failure to secure a weapon. The OR mall shooter took a rifle from a neighbor's house by walking into the unlocked house and picking it up from where he always saw it when he visited. This covers a fair amount of cases too--the taking of an unsecured firearm from a cohabitant or neighbor and using it.

 

[Big Don]

The OR mall shooter took a rifle from a neighbor's house by walking into the unlocked house and picking it up from where he always saw it when he visited. This covers a fair amount of cases too--the taking of an unsecured firearm from a cohabitant or neighbor and using it.

How exactly does the fact that criminals commit crimes mean my rights should be taken away?

 

[ballen0351]

Ballpark of 100/year--I forget the exact numbers. Jarts (lawn darts) were banned after, I think, 3 deaths; tamper-evident packaging for OTC medicines was introduced after one poisoning incident affecting several customers. We make laws to address less frequent incidents all the time. How many Amber Alerts are about children truly in danger, rather than false positives or custodial disputes where violence toward the children is not a factor? Murder by explosive isn't very common but good luck buying dynamite without a special permit. How many injured football players lead the orgs. for high schools to change rules/equipment? There are enough deaths (plus injuries) to justify addressing it, at least by the standards used for other situations resulting in deaths and injury.

By the way...passing a law is inexpensive. That you feel it's rare is no argument at all to not address it. Accidental shootings have taken more lives per year in the U.S. in the past decade than terrorism; include 9/11 and the numbers are still comparable (esp. if you take deaths plus injuries as the measure). Given the low expense of passing a law, and the fact that it need only be prosecuted when a case occurs (you need not proactively search out violators), what really is the problem with this?

But that's not all that's covered under failure to secure a weapon. The OR mall shooter took a rifle from a neighbor's house by walking into the unlocked house and picking it up from where he always saw it when he visited. This covers a fair amount of cases too--the taking of an unsecured firearm from a cohabitant or neighbor and using it.

How do we check for compliance? If the only reason is to punish after the fact how will it prevent anything?

 

[billc]

If a gun is in my house...it is secure, wether I lock my front door or not. If someone doesn't come into my house and steal it...it was secured. If a child in my family accidentally shoots themselves with one of our weapons we will have paid a higher price for our negligence than you could place on us with any law...You have plenty of accidental deaths by kids in cars, and from binge drinking. From your lawn Jarts example...first...I don't support banning them...second, if all it takes is from 1-3 deaths to make a product too dangerous for the public then flashlights need to be banned since a World War 2 Vet was just beaten to death with one...and coffee cups, since a Japanese woman killed her husband with one.

Lawn Jarts are only for recreational purposes...unless you intend to commit murder, while guns serve recreational purposes...and allow people to save their lives from deadly threats. As Thomas Sowell always points out there is a cost...and a benefit with firearms and the benefit far out weighs the cost. Life cannot be made fool proof...no matter how much you attempt to ban or penalize behavior.

 

[Big Don]

This is a place with a much greater violence problem than the U.S.--the gun homicide rate is just over 5 times greater than here--

As there are 300+ Million Americans and only 48 million South Africans, their criminals are MUCH worse than ours.

 

[arnisador]

How do we check for compliance? If the only reason is to punish after the fact how will it prevent anything?

We don't check for compliance with homicide--we just punish people after the fact. How is this different? The fear of being sent to jail is a deterrent.

 

[arnisador]

As there are 300+ Million Americans and only 48 million South Africans, their criminals are MUCH worse than ours.

That was accounted for when I used the rate, not number, of homicides.

 

[ballen0351]

We don't check for compliance with homicide--we just punish people after the fact. How is this different? The fear of being sent to jail is a deterrent.

Yeah it works so well too.
Why do people wear seatbelts? Not to save lives but so they don't get tickets. Without an enforcement aspect the law is punitive not corrective. If your reason for the law is to correct behavior it won't work. If its strictly punitive that's fine some laws are just punitive like homicide. If my kid killed himself accidentally with my gun do you think I'd give a crap about being punished for leaving the gun unsecured? I'd punish myself far more than the law ever could.

 

[arnisador]

If my kid killed himself accidentally with my gun do you think I'd give a crap about being punished for leaving the gun unsecured? I'd punish myself far more than the law ever could.

Where else in the judicial system do we use that reasoning? What if your kid accidentally shot a neighbor's kid with one of your firearms--no punishment for the gun-owner there either?

 

[ballen0351]

Where else in the judicial system do we use that reasoning?

Didnt say it was reasonable I said I dont care about your law at that point.

What if your kid accidentally shot a neighbor's kid with one of your firearms--no punishment for the gun-owner there either?

Depends on how the kid got the gun

Either way when it comes to accidents your law wont help since nobody plans for or expects accidents to happen to them

 

[arnisador]

Either way when it comes to accidents your law wont help since nobody plans for or expects accidents to happen to them

But that is precisely why a law does help. (Try buying Jarts this weekend.) Of course, a public ed. campaign is essential--that brings peer pressure to bear on people and that's where the biggest gains are seen.

 

[ballen0351]

But that is precisely why a law does help. (Try buying Jarts this weekend.) Of course, a public ed. campaign is essential--that brings peer pressure to bear on people and that's where the biggest gains are seen.

Jarts are banned guns are not. You cant enforce mandatory gun locks. We have mandatory gun locks here. Every gun is sold with a lock by law. We can't check for compliance in a home until its too late. You want a punitive law that's fine just don't expect much change in the stats. Texting while driving is more dangerous then my unlocked gun we banned it and can enforce compliance and did a huge education campaign but I can still stop 10 people a night if I wanted to. I'm actually typing this right now driving home from my class

 

[billc]

I'm actually typing this right now driving home from my class

I am going to have to make an Internet citizen's arrest...Please pull into the nearest police station and consider ourself arrested....