Gun Control Alliance(RSA) - advocate immediate and total disarmament of the general public, believing we will all be safe when only the State and criminals are armed.
This is not our field of activity, and we have no official stance regarding firearms.
We do suggest to our members that before deciding either way, should they choose to involve themselves at all, and of course not in our name, that as with all such emotional topics, they avoid subjectivity and objectively look at the situation around them.
One needs to ponder the impact on crime rates, and attitude of government towards the population, when especially the small, the weak, the ill, the disabled, the elderly, most women (and quite a few men), the poor, those living in isolated areas and those in high risk occupations are in addition to being a naturally high risk portion of the population, legally disarmed and helpless.
Naturally this would also mean an end to the armed response services.
What would the impact be if the armed response companies did not exist?
Who would make the cash collections, deliveries and transfers?
Who would guard the banks, the factories, the shopping centres, the shopping centres, the airports?
What will the impact on crime be if the police must now also enforce these laws, and take the place of the armed response companies?
Who will pay the taxes required?
GenocideWatch believe our farmers are in a position where they will soon reach a stage where they qualify as victims of genocide.
Are farmers to be disarmed. and if so what would the impact on labourers and tenants be?
Since the farmers would not be able to protect themselves against anyone on their land, they may decide to expel everyone from living on the land, or simply close down.
We feed most of Africa south of the Equator, around 112 million people. What will happen to them, and us if the farmers decide to simply stop commercial farming, and only farm enough to feed themselves?
What is being said :
GCA say that if attacked, one must phone the police, who will save you, or else you must just accept whatever the criminals choose do to you.
The SAPS say they are not responsible for the safety of any particular individual, but for the collective safety of the community as a whole.
Jesus says in Luke 22:36 " He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy him one"
Sigmund Freud said that a fear of weapons is a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity.
Benjamin Franklin said :
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
If you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you."
The history of the 20th century globally shows (see our section on communism) that more unarmed people have been killed by their own governments than by enemy armies or criminals.
The crime statistics in countries that have disarmed their populations such as the UK and Australia show an immediate and increasing amount of violence against the population by criminals.
The decision as to being able to defend oneself or not must be made by each individual.
People are free not to buy firearms, and since criminals are not affected by laws, they will not be influenced regardless of what the law says. Since we cannot enforce our present laws, it follows we will not be able to enforce future laws either.
A study of the crimes prevented and lives saved by firearms would seem to be in order, as well as a referendum on the right to bear arms. In addition consideration would need to be made to
having that right being clearly included in the Constitution.
The people must decide, taking a holistic, rational and fully informed approach. Our and future generations will bear the consequences.
Sites and studies from the UK showing how, just like in Australia and every other country, as predicted, violent crime has skyrocketed (in the case of the UK by over 40%), immediately following the banning of private firearm ownership:
