Clamping down on lawful gun owners does not solve South Africa’s violent crime problem

Current state efforts to tackle violent crimes in South Africa have demonstrably fallen short because they focus on restricting the “tools” of violence rather than deterring the human intent that drives it.

This is the argument presented by the Safe Citizen advocacy group following the government’s recent revival of the controversial Firearms Control Amendment Bill (FCAB).

The revival has reignited a fierce debate in South Africa that pits the government’s push for tighter gun control against citizens’ need for self-protection in a country plagued by violent crime.

According to the proposed legislation, the aim is to strengthen laws on firearms control and effectively enforce them in order to reduce violent crimes and deaths from firearms.

However, the lack of public trust in the police service to effectively fight crime has generated a perception that it is necessary to possess a personal firearm for protection, especially in a country plagued by violent crime.

At the centre of the debate is a proposal to remove self-defence as a valid reason for owning a firearm.

The FCAB, currently before NEDLAC, also proposes shorter licence validity periods, stricter ammunition limits, tighter rules for collectors and sport shooters, and expanded discretionary powers for the Police Minister.

In a formal policy submission delivered to the Presidency, authored by director and founder Jonathan Deal, the group has called for a fundamental “reframing” of South Africa’s approach to public safety. 

The submission, which has also been delivered to the Minister of Police and the Portfolio Committee on Police, argues for an evidence-based framework designed to strengthen state capacity and improve outcomes within existing constitutional structures.

The central thesis of the Safe Citizen framework is that criminal violence is driven by intent, not by the lawful availability of specific tools. 

Safe Citizen argues that imposing restrictions on law-abiding citizens is ineffective in controlling those intent on breaking the law. 

Instead, the group contends that such measures actually diminish a person’s ability to defend themselves before the arrival of law enforcement, thereby increasing their vulnerability.

Deal notes that individuals motivated by criminal gain, ideological extremism, or psychopathic impulses reliably adapt to restrictions by circumventing laws or substituting alternative methods capable of mass harm.

To illustrate this “substitution effect,” the document cites the 2016 Nice truck attack, where an offender used a 19-tonne vehicle to kill 86 people under strict European firearm controls, and the recent surge in mass knife attacks in China. 

Safe Citizen’s proposal

Safe Citizen proposes a transition from “symbolic” or compliance-focused measures to a targeted, intelligence-led intervention strategy. 

This framework rests on five primary pillars:

• Targeted Enforcement:

Rather than dispersing resources broadly, Deal said that the state should concentrate on repeat and high-harm offenders and criminal networks responsible for a disproportionate share of violence.

• Disrupting Illicit Supply:

The submission highlights institutional failures, noting that between 2020 and 2025, approximately 3,400 to 4,124 police firearms were lost or stolen.

The group calls for joint border task forces and rigorous armoury audits to choke illegal flows at the source.

• Intelligence and Venue Hardening:

According to the group, effective prevention requires identifying emerging threats before they translate into action.

The document explicitly criticises proposed regulations that would prohibit armed private security at high-risk venues, arguing this “softens” environments and removes a lawful deterrent.

• Counter-Radicalisation:

Safe Citizen advocates for “upstream” intervention, such as Countering Violent Extremism programs that provide off-ramps for individuals showing signs of ideological escalation.

• School-Based Prevention:

A significant portion of the proposal focuses on implementing Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and Social and Emotional Learning in the public school system.

These programs are designed to help youth manage triggers and impulsivity before harmful behaviour patterns harden.

Lawful defensive capacity is an asset

The submission argues that lawful, trained defensive capacity is a community asset, particularly in fast-moving attacks. 

Safe Citizen points to “Defensive Gun Use” as a mechanism that can truncate attacks in seconds, often without a shot being fired, simply by causing an assailant to disengage.

The group cautions that disarming vetted citizens creates a “timing gap” where victims are left defenceless while waiting for police intervention. 

Instead, they propose a system that strengthens responsible ownership through streamlined licensing and consistent training standards.

Interventions

Addressing the high rates of gender-based violence and suicide in South Africa, Safe Citizen proposes a “precision reform” similar to Extreme Risk Protection Orders.

Unlike broad disarmament, this would be a judicially supervised, temporary mechanism to remove firearms only when specific, articulable facts demonstrate an imminent risk of harm to self or others.

Safe Citizen emphasises that such interventions must include strong due-process protections, ensuring that restrictions are time-limited and subject to mandatory review. 

Deal said that this approach seeks to close the gap between domestic violence findings and firearm possession without resorting to “collective punishment” of the law-abiding public.