Julius Malema’s discharge of a firearm at a political rally and the recent road rage shooting in Johannesburg are not isolated incidents. They are signals. One crossed a legal boundary. The other ended in death, writes Stanley Maphosa.
It takes seconds for a moment to change. A celebration. A disagreement. A decision. Add a firearm, and what should have passed could become a permanent loss.
South Africa has once again been confronted with two incidents that seem very different, yet reveal the same troubling pattern.
The first is the sentencing of Julius Malema for discharging a firearm at a political rally in Mdantsane in the Eastern Cape, one of the country’s gun-violence hotspots. Thousands were present. No one died. But a crime was committed, a sentence imposed, and the matter is now on appeal, as provided for in law. The second is the fatal road rage shooting last weekend in Emmarentia, Johannesburg. A dispute escalated. Two firearms were involved. One person was killed, another injured. Two children in the car lost their father before their eyes. It is a heartbreaking tragedy that could have been avoided.
These two incidents are different in context. One took place in celebration. The other in anger. But both point to a shift we can no longer ignore. Guns are increasingly being used as tools of assertion rather than protection.
When a firearm enters a moment
In both cases, what could have remained non-violent became dangerous because a firearm entered the situation. At the rally, the gun signalled power and celebration. On the road, it became an instrument of control in a moment of conflict. Different emotions. Same mechanism. The presence of a firearm changed the outcome. This is not about comparing incidents. It is about recognising a pattern.
READ | SA’s gun violence crisis: Over 30 lives lost daily as firearm murders surge
Gun violence in South Africa is often framed as a problem of organised crime. That is only part of the picture. In Gauteng in the third quarter of 2025/2026, it was reported that 200 out of 1 277 firearm-related murders, about 16 percent, were linked to misunderstandings, road rage and social arguments. These are everyday situations. Moments of frustration and poor judgement. Without a firearm, most would pass. However, with a firearm, they become fatal. This is why the argument that “it is not guns, it is people” falls short because it is people with guns.
Responsibility revealed under pressure
There is a widely held belief that licensed gun owners are inherently responsible. Responsibility is not defined by ownership but revealed in behaviour. Discharging a firearm in a crowded public gathering is not responsible use. Neither is using a firearm in a road dispute. For members of the public, the distinction between a legal and an illegal firearm is irrelevant in that moment. There is no time to check as what remains is loss. A father, a son, an uncle taken by a gun. The outcome is the same.
READ | Shooter claims self-defence as crowd mourns dad killed in alleged road rage incident
In Emmarentia, the loss extends beyond the life taken. Two children witnessed their father being shot. That moment does not end there. Gun violence leaves trauma. It is quiet, often invisible, but deeply enduring. It shapes how children grow, how families cope, and how communities experience public safety. It also places pressure on the health system. Emergency care, hospital beds, and health workers are stretched by injuries that should never have occurred.
At the same time, the system meant to regulate firearms is under strain. Since 2022, firearm licence renewals have dropped by 74 percent, from more than 213 000 to less than 56 000.This is not administrative. It is a breakdown in oversight or widespread misreading of a 2022 Constitutional Court ruling on property rights.
Renewal exists to reassess whether a person remains fit to own a firearm and whether that firearm is properly controlled. When renewal collapses, accountability collapses. At the same time, record-keeping challenges mean firearms cannot always be reliably tracked, increasing the risk of diversion into criminal use.
What must change?
The response must be practical and shared. Government and SAPS must fix the Central Firearms Registry, restore licence renewal compliance, and ensure accountability at police station level. The justice system must continue to apply the law consistently. Communities must challenge the normalisation of firearms.
Silence or inaction when misuse is known allows harm to continue. Firearm ownership itself must change. The idea that ownership equals responsibility does not hold when tested against real incidents. Many firearms are acquired in response to fear, yet they often create a false sense of control. In moments of anger or stress, they escalate harm.
These incidents are not isolated. They are signals. One crossed a legal boundary. The other ended in death. Both were preventable. South Africa must confront a simple truth. When a firearm enters the moment, everything changes. What should have remained temporary becomes permanent. And too often, that permanence is measured in lives lost, families broken, and trauma carried for a lifetime.
- Dr Stanley Maphosa is the executive director of Gun Free South Africa and senior research fellow at the University of Johannesburg: Institute for Pan African Thought and Conversation (IPATC)
Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.
