FINALLY!!!! a good decision

here ya go Tom.

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia Crime Rate Plummets

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.

Now surely if what you say is true and that gun ownership increases the danger and level of violence in the event of a crime, then surely the most dangerous place in the WORLD would be Kennesaw GA.

here ya go again.

In March 1982, responding to the passage of a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois, and the fawning media coverage that accompanied it, the city council of Kennesaw, Georgia, decided to make a statement of its own. With exceptions duly made for convicted felons, the disabled, and those with religious objections, the council passed (unanimously) an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun.

Twelve years after it began, Kennesaw's experiment in crime control does not present itself as an easy way to arrest the killing in America's streets. It does, however, suggest where the problem doesn't lie. As Mayor Stephenson told a national gun rally in Kennesaw a few years back, "We're the town that proves more guns doesn't have to mean more crime."

the above is quoted out of a web page...now its more like 15 years.

the above website lists both the national crime rates along with those of Kennesaw's...

Looks to me that gun ownership detours crime in Kennesaw why wouldn't it some where else????

Find the number of incidents where a gun in the home caused injury or death, and find the number of homes with a gun in them. I'm betting the number of incidents is less than 1% of the number of homes with guns. I've made the claim twice. If you wish to disagree, I encourage you to find proof. I can tell you for a fact that in this county, that "1%" guess is high, its probably lower. If you were to go with number of guns owned by private citizens (legally) compared to number of incidents, the percentage would be even lower.

It certainly is. Its a small town when: You've worked on the vehicles of the two local police Chiefs, taken the civil service exam with one of them, gone to church at the same place the Sheriff goes, and have a direct line to the comm center, a County Commissioner, and one of the police Cheifs. What that all means is, my name actually means something when a Representitive comes to town.

By the way, my Representitive to Harrisburg, who is pro Second Amendment, is a Democrat.

Not exactly. I don't go to the extremes you do but I also don't think guns should be left out anywhere in a house especially if kids are in the house.

You said "but creating gun control laws". Tell me how you can create gun control laws without having any new laws?

Our taxes are already too high. The problem is our government has always been extremely wasteful and inefficient at all levels with just about anything they do.

Just proves I was lucky. Others confronted in that crime spree were shot without provocation. I suppose it depended on how high they were at the time.

I now live in a heavily wooded rural setting perceived to be "safe". My "friends" are always close and the dogs alert. I have developed considerable self defense skills with firearms as part of my job since my last encounter at home. At my age, I have less to lose then some young thug and will quite willing take as many of them as possible with me if confronted in my home. All they have to do is leave me alone and no harm done to anyone. I don't dwell on the problem, but I remain aware of my surroundings and refuse to be a willing victim. I think I have that right.

Lugnut

Thanks Marsha Brady LOL I had a site link that listed all the the laws for all states but couldn't find it. It was extremely useful to me when I drove from AZ to NY a few years ago.

It was a federal law that came in to play with "assult rifles." How could having a "unified" nation wide standard hand gun ownership and carrying laws be harmful, be unconstitutional or anything else but useful to many people?

You are correct Tom, they wouldn't know, FYI she does, Remington 12ga loaded with 16 shot. I was using your statement above about how only an idiot or some one desperate would target an occupied house. You did not say they would only go for unarmmed occupied houses or armed un-occupied houses, just re-read what YOU said, and don't pull a Snojob and back out of it. My point was very simple, How do "you" know if a house is occupied or not unless you are casing it? You don't, SO how can you say that only an idiot or some one desperate would target a house were some one was home.

You think? When is the last time you have had to deal with a meth head feening for a fix? When is the last time that you had the misforetuen of living next to a meth house because your landlord is a slum lord and does not verifiy "who" is renting too? So you are saying based off your vast (lack of) knowledge that a dope head feening for his next fix would not and could not do something desperate and/or stupid to the "wrong" house? Get a clue and go spend some time where this shit happens. Hell go visit me and I would be more then happy to have some one put you up in Fry town, Meth heaven for Sierra Vista, AZ and you might learn something.

I am very real with my examples Tom. Per your start to this exchange between you and I, it is not a discussion as to wether a gun is had or not had, it is about how any one criminal other then some one that is an idiot or desperate would not target a house that is occupied.

You're DAMN right if someone breaks into my house I am going to shoot them!! Why the f*ck would you feel other wise? You're right, it is not up to me to prove "he" was armed and that my life or that of my family was in danger. It is up to the "state pros" to prove that my life and/or that of my families WASN"T.

Let see, a thug breaks a window or door to get into my house, weapon in hand. I am in bed, pistol very near by (with in arms reach from laying in bed) and loaded as it always is, you HONESTLY think that I can not reach my pistol and be at ready to protect me and my family? You honestly think that I would not be awoken by noises and such around my house that are out of the norm? Damn man, are you that dense?

BTW, unlike a gun toting "thug" I am tried to engage a target and shoot for a kill. I am trained to do so under pressure, under extreme circumstances, and do it calmly and effectively. A feening dope head and/or your "common" thug most likely will not be able to do the same, so who do you think will come out alive if it came to it?

Central registries are the first step to future confiscation.

lol! I put mine under the doormat so I can find it easy.

Why? Make the person applying for the permit pay the class and range fees (just like it works now in all states that issue CCW's and have a training requirement). Once you have the training and certification, why the need to keep paying for every subsequent purchase?

That maybe a good idea to help cut down on gun related accidents but thats about it. Won't do a thing for gun related crimes.

Nope, it won't - because criminals don't worry about silly little gun laws.

See, here's the crux of the problem here: unless firearms are banished from the planet, the criminal element will have weapons to use against their victims. And if you can't completely eliminate the problem, then the next best thing is to level the playing field a little more.

Want a real-world example? Japan bans all civilians from owning firearms, except for hunters. Ammunition is very tightly controlled, and handguns are absolutely banned. Therefore, there shouldn't be any gun violence, right? Then why was the mayor of Nagasaki shot and killed yesterday, by a civilian, with a handgun? Didn't he know that handgun was illegal for him to have? Oh yeah, he didn't care - SINCE HE WAS ABOUT TO COMMIT MURDER.

Using the logic that banning guns will prevent gun crime, one could argue that had they painted a big 'No Parking' zone in front of the Murrah building, Timothy McVeigh wouldn't have blown it up.

Bad example. Gun crimes per capita are FAR lower in Japan than the USA.

I do not need to add anything to the above ! I do not belong to the NRA, I have not hunted in 15 years, so I am no gun nut...But I think if one checks crime rates you will find that States that allow "carring" the crime rate is a hell of a lot less..

I Wish at least one Professor at VT was carring... Just an old mans opinion...

Bob G.

Key word here was ANY. meaning that IF they are BANNED there will be NO gun violence. his example holds true. they are banned and there was gun violence. thus banning guns are not the answer, never has been, never will be.

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" -U.S. Constitution, 2nd amendment

Name any regulation for any crime of any kind that has 100% success? Does that mean we should just make everything legal because no regulation stops anything 100%?

Hmm...thats the solution!! Make everything legal then there will be no crime at all!

Oookay, so what good is a piece of metal with ammunition in it if the holder doesn't know squat about it? Or the safe handling that should be exercised when using it so the holder again, doesn't shoot themselves or someone who doesn't deserve shooting? And if they can't shoot the thing, why have it? What I am stating simply, is that they should KNOW how to use it the most effective way. Then they can blast the shit out of the bad folks that they may encounter thru life. And they should pay for a mandatory course up front, else said course will not be attended.