>>>>>>In this country, it is still legal to own a gun and to use it on anyone who breaks in to your home.
>>>>
>>>>Actually it's legal to defend yourself in many jurisdictions, though laws about storing firearms can create technical difficulties. Luckily juries usually "get it."
>>>>
>>>>Not that it's a good way to live- armed to the teeth and ready to repel invaders. Sounds like the worst days in Johannesburg that caused much of the middle class to head abroad.
>>>
>>>Oh, brother!!! :)
>>
>>John's South Africa example is no exaggeration.
>>
>>A few years back I got to know an emigree who was working as an accountant with a client. She previously lived in a nice suburb of Cape Town with her husband and teenage kids. The homes in the area were all fortified and had an internal strong or safe room (I forget the exact term). Every home in the neighborhood also paid a monthly fee for heavily armed security that would randomly patrol the streets in jeeps.
>>
>>That was fine except the bad guys would post spotters with cell phones who would call their crews as soon as the patrols went by and were out of sight. The crew would pick a house and go in guns blazing.
>>
>>The deal was the households would have to call for help, then hold out until a security patrol could make it back. As part of that she and all her family members were comfortable with their AK-47s and got regular practice.
>>
>>Kinda gives you pause... a kindly, 50-something motherly accountant with her AK...
>
>
>Al, this story does not reflect the truth accurately and portrays an unfair picture. Let me give some added info:
>
>"Fortified" homes - the word makes it sound like you live in a fort but that is not true. Most or many suburban houses have a wall around them because many homes have dogs. These are normally prefab concrete walls about 5 or 6 feet. This also provides privacy for the home owners when they use their gardens or swimming pools. Some houses will have electric fencing on top of that wall which stops the casual wall-hopper from taking a chance.
>
>Most homes do not have an internal security room - I have never come across a home with one. But if you own a firearm then you must have a secured gun safe; nothing unusual about that. Gun collectors might have a gun room if they have many guns (I know only one person who has this). Totally paranoid people might have a safe-room / bolt-hole but I have never met someone with that.
>
>Certain suburban areas have taken to converting to access controlled areas where visitors are either signed into the area by a private security person or the car is photographed as it drives through. Access controlled areas are applied for by the residents of the area in a community type arrangement. Access controlled status is not given if the area is required for traffic that cannot be re-routed easily elsewhere. Such access controlled areas are quite common in many parts of the world including the US.
>
>These areas are patrolled by security people but they are not what I would call "heavily armed". At best, and I mean really at best, a few of them would carry a pistol. Most have nothing more than a torch, baton, and walkie-talkie device. Their parent company security firm will have additional personnel with licenses to carry pistols.
>
>They patrol the area, if at all, in little cars, on bicycle, or on foot. They are not driving around in armoured vehicles ready for the zombie apocalypse.
>
>Most of these "guards" are poorly trained employees. They are essentially for show and walk around in uniforms with "scary" badges. The truth is they are not soldiers, they are not trained police force, they are not trained security forces. They are people who can call the office and ask for assistance. That assistance can be in the form of a more highly trained number of security people with proper weapons but this probably comprises 10% of the security companies total work-force - the rest being just run-of-the-mill employees walking around in a uniform. By the way, the giant American company ADP is the biggest employer and provider of these services.
>
>The monthly fee for this service is about ZAR500 or US$50. This service will include that they will come to your house if your house alarm goes off and search the grounds for you. They can also meet you at your house late at night if you feel unsafe. And they will come to your house if you press a "panic" button because you think there is an intruder or other problem.
>
>This security service is useful for people who either don't want to own their own weapons or don't feel comfortable with using such weapons in the face of a break-in or similar danger. The truth is that most people have no clue about self-defence.
>
>The apart about AK-47 is totally unbelievable. You are not able to buy any kind of automatic rifle or assault weapon unless you have a special license and for the vast majority this license is unobtainable. You can get one possibly if you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt your gun-collector status. Possibly a security firm can get licenses for some of their staff if they can again prove that such weapons are needed for high security purposes such as armoured vehicle / cash-in-transit purposes. A home security firm is not going to get a license for this calibre of weapon because the intended purpose does not warrant that. For you and me this is not obtainable at all. You might be allowed to fire someone's AK-47 at a gun range under supervision but that's about as close as you are going to get to "having one".
>
>Most break-ins to private residences are not attackers "going in guns blazing". The most common form of house break in is that the attackers wait for you to open the gate on returning home and then run in behind you, gun or knife at your face, and then the shit happens. People get smacked around, sometimes much worse.
>
>You may not shoot an intruder or any other attacker unless you can show / prove that you were in very serious or mortal danger. If you shoot someone then immediately the police will open a case against you. If you kill the intruder a murder docket is opened. If you cannot prove you were in a life threatening danger then you can end up in jail. The onus will be on you to show that using your firearm was your last and only resort. If the prosecution can show that you could have just run away, or some other course of action besides shooting, then you are in a whole world of trouble (see Oscar Pistorius). Owning a gun in South Africa is serious business and the gun laws are enforced. Security firms cannot simply enter a house “guns blazing” – they would all go to jail for reckless endangerment, maybe much worse charges, and the security firm would be prosecuted as well.
>
>Many houses, especially in the Cape province, have no high walls, or no electric fence on top of the walls, or no armed security service. This is much more a Johannesburg phenomenon. I know several people living in the Cape and they have no security service, no alarms in their house, no weapons, no access controlled area.
>
>It should also be kept in mind that private security firms now employ 10x as many people as the police force of South Africa. Therefore this has become very big business and there is a lot of money being made for the security firm owners. Plus the government gets a free ride; they get employment, they get wage taxes, company profit taxes, the pressure is reduced on the public service police force, and the services are used mainly by the more affluent (all races). All round it is in the interest of the security business and the government to promote fear, to promote the idea of imminent danger, in order to keep this business steaming ahead.
>
>What I have written above is not to diminish a real crime problem in South Africa. There is, without doubt, a very serious crime problem. The main problem is that the crime can be of a very violent nature. It’s not just give me your money but often becomes give me your money, I’ll rape you for fun, and shoot the dog as well. There is a cruelty which can be truly terrible. We have been exposed to very serious crime, friends and family affected - terrible things have happened.
>
>But …
>
>Having said that let me also say this: 10+ million tourists visit South Africa every year(!) and they all go home having had a great time, seen a great country, beautiful nature, great people (of all races). The Brazil World Cup has had to employ 5x the security forces that South Africa did in 2010. The SA world cup saw 1 million additional tourists visit the country and there were no serious criminal offences recorded at all. People living in Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban, etc. work there, go out at night, enjoy movies, parties, social events, school events, sporting events, and by and large they all go home at night without incident. The crime, like in any country, is a numbers game. The percentages are higher than many other countries but not higher than all other countries. In a relatively recent list of the 50 most dangerous cities in the world Johannesburg ranks 50th. You will be surprised how many cities are worse off – Baltimore, St. Louis, Detroit, and New Orleans on a murder-rate basis (i.e. as a percent of population) are more dangerous than Johannesburg …
>
>http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world-2012-10?op=1

Thanks for the current update. I should have pointed out it was probably 10 - 12 years ago now that I was told that story, and she had been in Canada a few years at the time. Nonetheless the security situation they faced at that time was the reason her family left. She isn't the type to exaggerate or make things up. While I may have misremembered some parts, the tale she told was very vivid and stuck in my mind.