Talk:Firearms regulation in South Africa

Pro-gun rant?
This article is nothing but a pro-gun rant and has no place in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.42.209 (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagged the article to be checked for its neutrality. This can hardly be controversial as the bulk of the article in its present form appears to have been written by a supporter of the partisan organisation Gun Owners of South Africa. Sentences like "The authorities have been indifferent to submissions by pro-gun groups..." and claims that research of UNISA that opposes the view of pro-gun groups are "unsubstantiated" says it all. Particulary biased is the section on the "negative impact" partly consisting of a quoted statement from Gun Owners of South Africa.

I delete the whole section on "negative impact" as it is both extremely partisan and badly written. I hope anyone with a knowledge on the different views of gun politics in South Africa will edit the main section to make it more balanced.

Kjetor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjetor (talk • contribs) 11:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What absolute rubbish! Kjetor you sound like one of those GunFree freaks. If you knew anything at all about the subject matter and/or were an honest participant in this debate you certainly wouldn't raise challenges to factual statements as you have done. Re the 'consultation with affected parties' issue (as is guaranteed under South Africa's Constitution) the original poster is spot on the money. THERE WAS NO EFFECTIVE CONSULTATION with the 2.5 million most directly affected parties.

WHY should claims that are not sunstantiated in detail not valid? You evidence the same fault you are complaining about.

If you feel the 'negative impact' section was biaised, by all means amend it, don't cut it out so the rest of us can't see it. You 'banners' are what is wrong with society today: Zero thought process, just ban everything you don't agree with. Sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.121.34 (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an amazingly biased article, should either be completely rewritten from a neutral point of view or removed until a more representitive article can be written. 196.209.232.222 (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Add a link to the Battle of Blood River
The article currently reads,

"Most recently this was shown when pro-gun groups lobbied for an amendment  to remove the requirement of relicensing guns which are already licensed, and were instead surprised with an amendment that had little effect other than to require the licensing of muzzle loading firearms."

Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to people who are unfamiliar with the history of South Africa, and specifically, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless a brief sentence or mention is added which includes a link to The Battle of Blood River. Invmog (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What is this article about???
I was looking for current and former legislation of guns in South-Africa, however, this article isn't exactly about that. --91.32.105.3 (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This article seems to be mis-named
Just a comment. This article seems to be about Gun LAWS in South Africa... not gun politics in South Africa. They are two different topics. Lightbreather (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is just one very brief and completely unsourced section that mentions two lobbying organisations, the rest is all about regulation and legislation - which I will now remove, then I will move the article to the correct descriptive title. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Gun control template
Per this discussion on the template talk page, I am removing the Gun politics by country template from this article, and this article from the template, because the article is not about politics. Scolaire (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)