Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

The town of Kennesaw in Georgia passed a law years ago that all home owners are required to own a firearm. There are of course exceptions, such as religious, if a person is mentally ill or has a criminal conviction.

http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets

by Chuck Baldwin

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.

There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.

Criminals are not stupid, they will not attack anyone they know to be armed. Would you?

I'm not getting into the pro gun anti gun debate, but statistics in the US alone points to "More guns = less crime. That's fact.



Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets

by Chuck Baldwin

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.

There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.

Its exactly the same story around the world.

Interesting, I have never heard this before. I assume the people in this city got proper training and education to handle weapons (including the safety and storage of them). Weapons don't kill, the people holding them do. I have from time to time been thinking about the legal access to firearms, we cannot do much about the illegal market. What do you think if a "new" gun owner when (s)he is buying a gun, they need to have a chat with a psychologist first to see if they are in a mental stage to have a gun. It isn't complete water proof, but better than nothing. Just a thought

Originally Posted by George

Stop people from getting guns from another State. If the problem was actually guns, the States with lax gun Laws would have a higher crime rate.
70% of Detroits murders go unsolved. Now here is the real problem, poor or ineffective policing, with politicians trying to take the easy way out by banning guns, ect instead of vigerious prosecution & incerceration. Throw in broken familys, no father figure to show guidance, "It's societys fault, not the person, ect.
Movies & video games. Saw a story about a guy who as a young teen had watched "The Godfather" & was impressed, & lacking guidance on behaviour from a nonpresent Dad, he adopted what he saw. When a guy insulted his sister, he pumped bullets into the guy, just like in the movie. Schools are/were teaching a "Moral relativism" that let children decide what actions were right & wrong w/o the teachers stepping in to correct mistakes, just another part of the problem.

I see what your saying. I am not for or against gun laws, just attacking the example you stated of the Israeli's and BritainAfrica's statistics as they are incorrect.

I am still not convinced that more firearms out there = less violent crimes. Sure it may work in some instances and BritainAfrica's latest post was quite interesting, but I just don't see it completely.

There is only one real way to prove either one correct and that is by going with solutions to it: by arming the whole country or disarming and then fortifying the borders.

I agree that society do have a problem especially since these latest generations seem to be born with no father figure and completely questionable idols. The question is can today's society really agree on the solutions necessary to advert this?


BritinAfrica:

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets

by Chuck Baldwin

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.

There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.

Its exactly the same story around the world.

Last figures I have received, the US has 17,000 murders a year and dropping, South Africa has 27,000 plus (some have inferred that it is actually twice that number as they are government figures) and climbing.

This statistic is interesting, but remember statistics are made to gather support for a side. Just like your statistics proves firearm prevent crimes, there will be some that states it causes more crime.

I am not going to debate this statistic though. To clear it one more time: I am not for or against gun rights. I don't see enough evidence to sway me either way, especially considering the places I have seen.

I believe if we were able to reduce poverty to acceptable levels and increase education, then every U.S citizen can be armed and it will not increase crime rates. I agree that it isn't the guns itself, I just believe it makes it easier.

The question is very simple, the answer is very complicated.

We can rule out violent games and movies. Millions play and watch them and only once in awhile someone goes berserk.

The arming of civilians seems to be a good move at first, and many will feel much safer. The problem comes afterwards when something happens. You must convince the judge that you didn't murder someone but that it was self defense.
Many years ago the Belgian female champion in a martial arts discipline kicked a burglar down the stairs and called the police. The burglar was free to go and she had to go to the police station. There she was told that the burglar only entered her home unauthorised, he didn't steal anything nor did he attack her while she took justice in her own hands and hurt him pretty bad.
(in Belgium you are not allowed to defend your property)

I think it is better to severely restrict the ownership of weapons IF the police force get stronger and better armed.

These arguments come hand in hand with the insane statistics of murder by firearms in the US. I don't believe that everyone carrying a firearm is the answer and you guys are living proof of the folly of that train of though, all a firearm can do is raise the stakes and get people dead.
In a home invasion every citizen has the right to defend themselves- no doubt.
But what does it say about a society where citizens carry handguns out and about with 17 bullets in the magazine? Thats not self defense. Its extreme paranoia and collateral damage.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

Interesting, I have never heard this before. I assume the people in this city got proper training and education to handle weapons (including the safety and storage of them). Weapons don't kill, the people holding them do. I have from time to time been thinking about the legal access to firearms, we cannot do much about the illegal market. What do you think if a "new" gun owner when (s)he is buying a gun, they need to have a chat with a psychologist first to see if they are in a mental stage to have a gun. It isn't complete water proof, but better than nothing. Just a thought

Maybe, Such as the notion that law enforcement agencies and organizations nationwide should become more noteworthy of what goes on on social media.

From recent shootings like the Arizonia incident, to the Columbine massacre, both cases where the shooters showed deep signs of either distress or disturbance via social media, or other social outlets.

Today it seems someone who is on the verge of an outburst seems to hint at the seeds of a deadly occurance in some form of social circle.

However there are counter points to this theory, can be seen in how one of the Columbine gunmen participated in a youth correctional program designed to reduce the possiblity of outlashing behavior, prio to disaster that followed in 1999. In which cases he showed complete signs of conforming to the requirements to complete the program, and despite this still engaged in the infamous attack on April 20th.

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

There is only one real way to prove either one correct and that is by going with solutions to it: by arming the whole country or disarming and then fortifying the borders.

Talking domestic criminals, though there is a big problem with crimes by illegals.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Many years ago the Belgian female champion in a martial arts discipline kicked a burglar down the stairs and called the police. The burglar was free to go and she had to go to the police station. There she was told that the burglar only entered her home unauthorised, he didn't steal anything nor did he attack her while she took justice in her own hands and hurt him pretty bad.
(in Belgium you are not allowed to defend your property)

I think it is better to severely restrict the ownership of weapons IF the police force get stronger and better armed.

Originally Posted by headwards

In a home invasion every citizen has the right to defend themselves- no doubt.
But what does it say about a society where citizens carry handguns out and about with 17 bullets in the magazine? Thats not self defense. Its extreme paranoia and collateral damage.

There are States, especially in the Liberal Northeast, that require residents to flee their own home. It should be noted that Police are mainly a reactive force, coming to find out who murdered you rather than preventing it. For most criminals Police are a deterent on the same level as the Laws they break.

Originally Posted by headwards

These arguments come hand in hand with the insane statistics of murder by firearms in the US. I don't believe that everyone carrying a firearm is the answer and you guys are living proof of the folly of that train of though, all a firearm can do is raise the stakes and get people dead.
In a home invasion every citizen has the right to defend themselves- no doubt.
But what does it say about a society where citizens carry handguns out and about with 17 bullets in the magazine? Thats not self defense. Its extreme paranoia and collateral damage.

Mate as much as I agree with you I have to say you are wasting your time.

I once used the same argument as yourself and smirked at all the dodgy statistics dredged up by both sides and the more often they had shooting spree's the more adamant my arguments became but then it dawned on me, Americans rate guns higher than lives and nothing on earth is going to change that so now rather than join these discussions I just let them scroll off the front page an into history after all if they are happy with their death toll and I don't have to live in a society that emulates them what do I care how many of each other they kill.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets

by Chuck Baldwin

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

How many firearms related murders does a town of 5,000 normally have?

I live in a town of 8,000 and we have had no firearms related murders in living memory (well a cop shot a guy wielding a golf club) and we have restricted weapons laws, does this mean restrictions work better than none (which is the opposite argument to what you are pushing) but I have a population 25% larger than your sample so I must be right.

The reality is that guns are not the problem but they have become the solution to many Americans problems, New Zealand has one of the highest firearms ownership rates in the world yet we are much happier beating the crap out of each other than shooting each other and when you can explain why that is you will have the answer to the problem.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I live in a town of 8,000 and we have had no firearms related murders in living memory (well a cop shot a guy wielding a golf club) and we have restricted weapons laws, does this mean restrictions work better than none (which is the opposite argument to what you are pushing)

What is your homicide rate? Not firearm homicides, all homicides.

Originally Posted by MontyB

but I have a population 25% larger than your sample so I must be right.

Must be right? My friend if the close examination of Congressional legistration during my lifetime says anything, is that if you wish to "win" an argument then you are doomed to run a marathon you cannot finish.

As long as there are two opinions, nobody is ever going to be right.

You do not need to "win", just prove the oppisition wrong then walk out so they are left with their disproven opinion and are unable to respond.

Originally Posted by MontyB

The reality is that guns are not the problem but they have become the solution to many Americans problems, New Zealand has one of the highest firearms ownership rates in the world yet we are much happier beating the crap out of each other than shooting each other and when you can explain why that is you will have the answer to the problem.

Guns are played in movies with latex wearing sex icons, they are plastered as "cool" , and sexy additions to any action hero. Virtual firearms are avaible for misuse for any young child in America who parents cannot read a parental warning label for the latest video game.

Then this type of homicidal sprees may just be in fact a side effect of what we idolize.

Hell, firearms these days seem to be potrayed in many ways like cigarettes, cool sexy masculine, the only thing seperating them from cigarettes are that they lack the nicotine.


What I am stabbing at , is maybe homicidal maniacs do things the "Amerucan" way, and go to town the same way they grew up watching on tv.

Acts of domestic terrorism, have, and do reach higher casualty rates without firearms, in countries with and without heavy firearm regulations.

So if the argument is that firearms are necessary for homicidal sprees by mentally disorderly people is invalid.

American cultural influence upon impressionable young people today, including those who are mentally ailing seems to be a much more potent culprit.

[quote=Yossarian;623037]What is your homicide rate? Not firearm homicides, all homicides.{/quote]

In all honesty I couldn't tell you, it is not very high perhaps 5 in 20 years maybe less.

Must be right? My friend if the close examination of Congressional legistration during my lifetime says anything, is that if you wish to "win" an argument then you are doomed to run a marathon you cannot finish.

As long as there are two opinions, nobody is ever going to be right.

You do not need to "win", just prove the oppisition wrong then walk out so they are left with their disproven opinion and are unable to respond.

I was being somewhat factitious, it was a counter to the argument that forcing people to own firearms must work if a city of 5000 only has 3 murders in 10 years then surely a town of 8000 with less murders must prove that firearms controls is a better option.

It was the use of dodgy logic to disprove equally dodgy logic.

Guns are played in movies with latex wearing sex icons, they are plastered as "cool" , and sexy additions to any action hero. Virtual firearms are avaible for misuse for any young child in America who parents cannot read a parental warning label for the latest video game.

Then this type of homicidal sprees may just be in fact a side effect of what we idolize.

Hell, firearms these days seem to be potrayed in many ways like cigarettes, cool sexy masculine, the only thing seperating them from cigarettes are that they lack the nicotine.


What I am stabbing at , is maybe homicidal maniacs do things the "Amerucan" way, and go to town the same way they grew up watching on tv.

I don't agree, New Zealand has a high rate of firearms ownership and we get the same movies, video games etc. and we have the same poor standard of parenting yet we don't in general go nuts with guns.

I personally think the problem is one of immediate availability, here we are required to secure weapons at all times when not in use, if you are caught on the streets with one in firing condition or without valid reason you will lose it and a sizable chunk of cash so we don't drive around with gun racks or firearms strapped to ourselves therefore if we get into a fight it is more than likely going to be a fist fight (because few people if any go home to get a gun and most of those that do cool down before they get back).

Basically I think it comes down to what you have with you at the time, if I have issues and the best weapon I have at hand is a fist or a baseball bat then that is what I will use, if it is a firearm then that is what I will use and Americans seem to have more firearms at hand than most others.