The regulations in the USA and New Zealand - were far too slack - about that I agree. You could buy a firearm via mail order, and never even show up in person at their police stations to license a gun in New Zealand.
So yes there is space in some countries for reform in law. NZ has tightened their laws, and the USA is about to do the same.
But lets get back to RSA - The one good thing that came out of the new law, is the vetting, and the requirement for a competency and proficiency before you may own a firearm. With only 9 civilian firearms per 100 of the population, the anti gun political lobby against legal firearm ownership is a storm in a tea cup in SA, and its funded/sponsored by foreign nationals. In my opinion its anti Constitutional and there are a number of Acts that protect minority groups and equity that can be thrown at that lobby group in legal action. You see, legal gun owners are also citizens with Constitutional rights.
The right to self defence is protected in SA, the right to life and not to be tortured is also - for citizens to choose a tool for self defence, and legally own it should not be interfered with, by political lobby groups - which all have their own motives. Once you are deemed fit by the state to own a firearm legally - the legal asset is protected as private property under the SA Constitution. All of this I've mentioned before.
In SA there is space for more improvement in getting rid of ambiguity in the legislation, and ridding it of the parts that have proven over 18 years to be ineffective and not manageable. The political capture of the police system also needs to be dealt with, and that is a priority - There are police employees that are part of the organized crime situation in SA, and they are part of the illegal gun challenge RSA has. So yes there is space for reform in SA as well.
Anyway - I have stated what I believe is reasonable, and not everyone is going to agree with my opinion - and I'm ok with that, just like I am ok with it that many people choose not to own firearms. Its their right to associate with what they want to, provided it doesn't encroach on the freedom to rights and equality of other groups. Also a Constitutional right in RSA, which we cannot just walk over in this context .
Its fine if you associate with legal gun ownership - its fine if you dont. There's no reason to fixate on what what other people dont want to associate with. I dont associate with irresponsible gun ownership, and nobody that I know - who owns a firearm legally in SA - does either.
I dont believe banning legal civilian firearms, where there is reasonable regulation in place is the answer to the REAL problem.
The discussion was about gun-free nations being safer than those that aren't
These are the no-issue states of the world....where civilians may not own firearms legally.
The countries where ONLY the state owns guns (interesting that) - there is no such thing as a gun-free nation anywhere in the world. I suppose one could always opt to emigrate to any of these if legal guns in civilian hands are REALLY the issue, at least in these countries you wont ever get murdered by a citizen who owns a gun legally, but you may be murdered by other means, or you may get shot by the state - if thats what you mean by feeling safer or being safer - so be it.
Singapore has a murder rate of 0.32 per 100 000 people , one of the lowest murder rates in the world , Japan's murder rate is 0.28 per 100 000 of the population also, the 7th lowest murder rate in the world - both nations - ALLOW legal civilian gun ownership.
Japan is only trumped by Isle Of Man,San Marino,Nauru,Monaco,Liechtenstein and Andorra which have lower murder rates. Source : UN International Homicide Statistics database.
Legal civilian guns are NOT the problem.