Site Menu
Questions posted in the media asking whether Reeva could have had a better chance at living a long and healthy life, spells one notion – naivety. This is asking whether criminality would find its end if stricter laws were implemented. And with the upcoming legislation restricting the use of guns, the same question applies: are guns laws supposed to protect society, when it results in leaving them defenceless?
Oscar reported that the killing of his girlfriend were by accident, as she was mistaken for an intruder. Something that is not impossible in a country drowned in crime. Would the shooting of a rapist, murderer or child-abuser been less frowned upon, had it truly been an armed robber? Many other report alleged that the shooting of Reeva was purposeful, driven by a volatile nature in a fit of rage. Might this be the case, then Reeva would have found her death, regardless of whether Oscar had a gun or not. Gun laws do not prevent abuse. Guns laws do not prevent rape.
And guns laws definitely would not have kept Reeva alive. The fact that Oscar, either by accident or on purpose, killed Reeva, had nothing to do with the fact that Oscar was in possession of a gun. The act could have been committed by a knife or baseball bat. The question that should rather be asked is; what if Reeva had a gun? She could have protected herself against a mad man. Reeva might have been alive today.