Take for example what I have written previously about e-tolling in Gauteng. My main point of concern is that e-tolling was introduced due to a shortfall of money. I believe the shortfall was the result of mismanagement and now we, the taxpayer, must once again foot the bill.
The same goes for the latest increase in income tax. Once again, there is a growing shortfall from taxes. The government quite simply needs more money, so it will look to us for it. My problem here is also rather simple. No matter how much you raise taxes, if people mismanage or steal money, there will never be enough. Perhaps the government would be better off holding elected officials to account, rather than placing the problem onto our account.
Bill me for services received, I do not have a problem with this. But when I see rampant spending, wanton abuse of state funds and clear fraud, please do not come knocking on my door for more cash. Go to those who used the funds inappropriately and get the money back. Or, at the very least, impose harsh sentences upon those found guilty so that we, the tax-payers, will have some hope. We may well begin to believe that corruption is not tolerated.
But as it stands, I think the people of this country are of the opinion that corruption is acceptable. Just so long as you are not caught. And when the money runs out, don’t worry, we will simply add a fuel levy and raise income tax.
I do not think this is particularly fair to the taxpayers of South Africa.
And it is along these same lines that I once again wade, albeit warily, into the firearms debate.
Government is proposing new changes to the Firearms Control Act (FCA), with the aim of reducing the number of (legal) firearms in South Africa. A noble idea, to be sure, except for one minor problem.
The FCA and its rules only apply to those who own legal firearms. Those who possess illegal firearms do not care about what is written in the FCA. So, pray tell, how will tightening the FCA have any impact upon those with illegal firearms? In short, there will be no impact. Only those law-abiding firearm owners will be affected.
It is a well-known fact that large numbers of firearms have gone missing from the SAPS. Just this past weekend, I received a phone call from a friend. His mother received a phone call from the SAPS. Apparently a firearm registered to his mother had been used in a crime.
There was just one minor problem with this whole scenario. You see, my friend’s mother had voluntarily handed in her firearm some six years ago. She handed in the firearm to the SAPS for destruction. She received all the correct paperwork from the SAPS, stating that the firearm would be destroyed.
Now, six years later, the firearm was used in a crime. The firearm was left in the safe-keeping of the SAPS with the instruction to be destroyed. So how did it come to be that the firearm was subsequently used in a crime after the firearm was handed in? The answer to this riddle is pretty simple. Someone took the firearm, scheduled to be destroyed, and gave it to a criminal. So the SAPS will have to investigate its own officers, and procedures, to get to the bottom of this.
Of bigger concern is that people will now blame the firearm owner. I don’t understand this. The owner handed the firearm in to the police. The police lost track of the weapon. So how will tightening the FCA help if the SAPS cannot even destroy the firearms voluntarily handed in?
Of course this does not apply to all officers in all police stations. But the question must still be asked. Why must law-abiding residents be punished because of criminals? Tightening the laws regarding firearm ownership will only impact upon legal owners. But if criminals are getting weapons from the SAPS, well, we are in big trouble.
It could well end up that every single firearm gets given to the SAPS. Imagine the field day criminals will have – the pick of great stock and no residents who are armed.
But that aside, I have another issue here. Your choice to be armed or unarmed is personal preference. I want to focus on the sport of shooting.
Just like rugby, cricket, tennis or hockey, you need the correct equipment. You also need to practise. Using another person’s firearm for competition shooting would be like AB de Villiers going in to bat using someone else’s cricket bat. Yes, he could do the job, but he would not be as effective.
Let us not forget that shooting is also a recognised Olympic sport. Is it really fair to deny people the right to take part in a sport because some people do not agree with, or understand it? Personally, I do not like tennis. I think it is silly. But that is my opinion and I have no right to impose this opinion onto anyone else.
Some will now claim we have few medals from shooting professionally on the international stage. That does not matter, because not every rugby player will become a Springbok. So why expect the same from every shooter?
Banning the firearm because of criminals is counter-productive. Have any of those ‘gun-free’ signs at some shopping centres prevented armed robberies? Of course not. The criminals do not care.
Banning the firearm because some people do bad things with them is also pretty pointless. It would be the same as banning the car because some people drive drunk and kill innocent people.
