9 March 2026
The statistics don’t begin to convey the damage done by guns, say the authors. Gun violence should be seen as a public health emergency, they say. Archive photo: Ashraf Hendricks
Every day in South Africa, 30 people are shot dead. Another 43 are shot and survive. That is more than one person shot every 20 minutes, around the clock, every single day of the year.
Those numbers are staggering, but they don’t begin to convey the cascade of harm that extends beyond the bodies that take the bullets.
Consider this experience of Professor Sithombo Maqungo, head of orthopaedic trauma at Groote Schuur Hospital. A grandmother admitted with a fractured hip is scheduled for urgent surgery on Friday morning. As she is being prepped for theatre, a gunshot victim is rushed in, bleeding out. He dies, but the grandmother’s surgery is postponed as the weekend’s trauma cases overwhelm the unit. By Monday, her condition has deteriorated — blood clots, pressure sores, pneumonia. She dies. Her death certificate will not record “gunshot wound” as the cause. But she is, without question, a victim of gun violence.
This is the ripple effect of gun violence. One shooting does not claim one life. It consumes blood supplies, monopolises theatre time, depletes Intensive Care Unit beds, exhausts healthcare teams, and drives skilled professionals — paramedics, nurses, surgeons — out of a system that can no longer support them.
South Africa’s healthcare system is treating gun violence, it is not preventing it. And that distinction matters enormously.
South Africa’s homicide rate is six times the global average, and guns are the dominant weapon in murder, attempted murder and aggravated robbery. Gun- related murders rose from 31% of all murders in 2020 to 44% by 2025. In several provinces, more people are shot than die on the roads, and in the Western Cape metropole, gunshots are the leading cause of spinal cord injury.
Young men are the primary victims and perpetrators of gun violence, but women are increasingly killed with guns. After declining, following the Firearms Control Act of 2000, gun-related femicide has surged — rising 84% between 2017 and 2020/21. By 2020/21, firearms accounted for more than one-third of all femicides, the highest proportion recorded.
Failures in firearm oversight and the growth in licensed guns have contributed to this reversal.
South Africa’s own evidence shows that regulation works. When the Act was properly enforced between 2000 and 2010 — guided by a five-pillar strategy that tightened regulations and reduced the availability of firearms — gun deaths halved, from 34 people shot dead daily to 18, while a woman died at the hands of an intimate partner every eight hours rather than every six hours because fewer women were shot and killed.
As oversight weakened through under-resourcing, corruption and policy drift, deaths rose again.
Today, licence applications are 66% higher than in 2016, with a record 166,603 new applications in 2024/25 alone — expanding the pool of legally held guns that leak into criminal hands or are used to commit crimes.
A common misconception is that tightening firearm laws is pointless because most crime guns are unlicensed. But illegal guns do not appear from nowhere: virtually every firearm in criminal circulation was once legally manufactured and legally owned before it was lost, stolen, or sold into the illegal market. In South Africa, civilians are by far the biggest source of this leakage. Over the past 20 years, civilians have lost or had stolen an average of seven guns for every one lost or stolen by the police, according to South African Police Service annual reports. In 2024/25 alone, civilians reported the loss or theft of 7,895 firearms — 22 a day — and this is almost certainly an underestimate, since some owners do not report losses for fear of being charged with negligence (police reported the loss/ theft of 572 service guns in this time).
Legal guns are also used directly to commit crimes, particularly in domestic violence, where murder-suicides involving licensed firearms are well documented.
Controlling legal gun ownership is not separate from addressing gun crime — it is the primary mechanism for doing so.
A key question in response to South Africa’s gun violence crisis is why gun violence remains outside the core public health frameworks — and what would change if it were treated as the preventable health crisis it is.
A public health approach treats guns the way we treat other products that harm health — like alcohol and tobacco — moving the response upstream from treating wounds to preventing them by tightening controls over availability.
It would give healthcare workers, overwhelmed by the relentless flood of trauma, the ability to recognise that gunshot wounds are not inevitable but a preventable crisis dependent on political will and policy intervention.
It would create concrete opportunities for the health system to play a proactive role in prevention — screening for firearm access during domestic violence consultations to support gun removal from high-risk situations; linking young gunshot victims in surgical wards with gang exit programmes; using admission and forensic pathology data to identify violence hotspots and inform targeted policing.
It would make the true costs of gun violence visible to policymakers and the public — revealing how much is spent managing a preventable crisis on limited resources and overstretched facilities that could instead go towards primary healthcare, cancer treatment, or diabetes care. And crucially, it grounds the debate in evidence rather than ideology — vital in a post-truth world where beliefs, opinions, and hearsay are routinely presented as fact.
This approach would also recognise that firearms are a product sold for profit that harms people’s health. Just as taxes on alcohol and tobacco reflect their social costs and reduce consumption, firearms, ammunition and shooting activities should be subject to equivalent measures. This would generate revenue that could fund the very health services overwhelmed by the consequences of gun violence.
This sharpens the policy response too. South Africa’s Firearms Control Amendment Bill, currently at Nedlac, proposes strengthening limits on who can own firearms, the type and number of firearms and ammunition rounds that can be held, and for which purposes.
Treating gun violence as a public health crisis strengthens the case for these reforms: it positions the Bill not as a security measure but as a health measure, demanding the same urgent political commitment we would expect for any leading cause of preventable death and injury.
None of this can happen in isolation. South Africa needs international frameworks, evidence, and solidarity — and that is where the World Health Organisation (WHO) comes in.
On 10 February 2026, the Global Coalition for WHO Action on Gun Violence launched with more than 100 organisations across 40 countries, including a range of South African organisations spanning healthcare, child and women’s rights, legal advocacy, violence prevention, and research. The coalition’s formation was accompanied by a stark finding: not one of the World Health Assembly’s 3,200-plus adopted resolutions explicitly mentions firearms.
This is a profound gap. The WHO sets global standards that shape national health policy across 194 member states. When it fails to treat gun violence as a health priority, countries like South Africa are left without the international frameworks, evidence, and technical guidance they need to act.
The WHO has done this before, with other contested, politically sensitive issues — tobacco, HIV/AIDS, alcohol, violence against women — each time moving them from marginal concerns into mainstream public health priorities with measurable results. A resolution on road safety catalysed legislative reform in more than 100 countries. The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control contributed to lasting reductions in global tobacco use. The same is possible for gun violence.
The coalition is calling on the WHO to take ten key actions, including strengthening guidance on gun-related healthcare and supporting countries to use health systems as sites of gun violence prevention. South Africa — with some of the highest rates of gun violence in the world and a documented track record of evidence-based intervention — is uniquely placed not just to support this coalition, but to lead it by sponsoring a World Health Assembly resolution on firearm violence.
Our health professionals are close to breaking point. The surgeon who cannot cope with the relentless toll and resigns — leaving already stretched colleagues even more depleted. The paramedics who quit working in a war zone they never enlisted in. The medical students who leave the profession early, unable to bear the accumulated trauma of what they witness.
Gun violence is not inevitable. It is preventable. Treating it as a public health crisis is the only rational response to the evidence we already have.
Claire Taylor is from Gun Free South Africa, and Dean Peacock is from the Global Coalition for WHO Action. Views expressed are not necessarily those of GroundUp.
This is part of a series on gun violence. Previous article: I was shot in the head in 1986. I’m still paying the price
