The question is, should Shopping Malls permit legal, licenced firearm owners to carry their weapons with them when in the mall?
Well, let's be reasonable and start by flipping that around. Why shouldn't they?
I'm struggling to find the rationale in the argument really. Certainly we'd all love to live in a society where firearms aren't necessary and only a competent functional police service has them - but that's not the case in South Africa now is it?
The reality of life and crime in SA is that hundreds of thousands of citizens are legally armed for the purpose of defending themselves and their loved ones.
Sure, I understand that shopping malls aren't (generally speaking) dangerous places, but we all have to travel from somewhere and go somewhere afterwards. That's the simplicity. By disarming people at the mall, you're depriving them of their defensive abilities to and from the mall. Not a good idea.
Then there's the question of competency. If the Central Firearms Registry has decreed that you're competent to carry a concealed firearm, then who are mall management to override this and effectively declare en large that firearm owners are not competent.
The very same malls, will invite into their premises a cash in transit guard toting an LM5. Really? a weapon that can fire a round that would be lethal up to 350m - what in heck is he going to do if someone attacks him in the mall? He can't reasonably use that weapon and he probably won't have sufficient training to transit to a sidearm which is more practical.
I struggle to find a rational explanation for the Malls way of thinking - except of course, that they don't want someone becoming a "hero" in the mall should a robbery occur. Fair comment there, I do accept that plenty of firearm owners would be tempted to weigh in during an armed robbery - however the responsible ones would err on the side of caution - but there's no way to know which is which now is there.
In argument of this point however, the CFR has declared that licenced firearm holders are responsible and understand that the use of their weapons is effectively limited to "direct defence of life". SO that nullifies that argument already - unless the malls proffer to be more clued up than CFR?
I truly do understand the Malls knee-jerk reaction and that they're trying to win a public relations war. I also accept that they will gladly offend the firearm owner community as it's smaller than the community of those who don't.
I would also point out to the malls however, that firearms aren't "cheap" by any means. A good weapon can cost well upwards of R 8000 and regular practice and training don't come cheap when 9mm is R4 off the shelf per round.
At the end of the day it's a simple decision really. Malls need to decide to either embrace their patrons - all of them - or ostracize them in favor of PR.
The answer is ridiculously simple. The law provides for CONCEALED carry. That means in a holster, out of view (don't put temptation in a criminals path).
So, if a legally licenced person is welcomed into a mall and security happen to catch a flash of a weapon - then they're right to ask the person to leave because they're being irresponsible and not complying with the law in terms of licenced cary.
That way, the malls welcome firearm owners as they should, and irresponsible firearm owners are singled out and asked to leave. A clean and simple win-win situation on all sides including the PR front.