I saw the Harvard thread, and thought I'd give the other side of the argument. This town in Georgia mandated that all heads of household own both a gun and amnunition and immediately saw an 89% drop in crime (according to some) While the exact figure is open to debate, what's not is that crime fell and the city did not become a shooting gallary.Kennesaw has the nickname of "Gun Town, USA" due to a city ordinance passed in 1982 [Sec 34-1a] that requires every head of household to maintain a firearm with ammunition. It was passed partly in response to a 1981 handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois. Kennesaw's law was amended in 1983 to exempt those who conscientiously object to owning a firearm, convicted felons, those who cannot afford a firearm, and those with a mental or physical disability that would prevent them from owning a firearm. It mentions no penalty for its violation. According to the Kennesaw Historical Society, no one has ever been charged under the law.

Criminologist and gun-control critic Gary Kleck attributes a drop of 89% in the residential burglary rate to the law (Kleck, 1991), and Kennesaw is often cited by advocates of gun ownership as evidence that gun ownership deters crime (see, for instance, this 2004 sheet of talking points from the Gun Owners Foundation). Other criminologists dispute the 89% figure, using the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting data, and find instead a small, statistically insignificant increase in burglaries after the law was passed (McDowall, Wiersema and Loftin, 1989; McDowall, Lizotte and Wiersema, 1991).

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.

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.

Even the police seem to approve of the law:
"When the law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime ... and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then," said police Lt. Craig Graydon. "We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.
And here's a quote that really says it all:
"People in Europe feel they need to be protected by the government. People in the U.S. feel they need to be protected from the government," said Jones, the owner of a .357-caliber Magnum.
So, for comparison, what if you went the opposite route and banned guns?
By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000. This was not what some predicted.So ban guns, and crime goes up. Big surprise. We all saw how effective "gun free zones" are in Virginia the other day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/04/18/southern_us_town_proud_of_its_mandatory_gun_law/

This town in Georgia mandated that all heads of household own both a gun and amnunition and immediately saw an 89% drop in crime

excellent let's expand and give every country in the world nukes :)

excellent let's expand and give every country in the world nukes :)
I'm sure that were it not for nukes, the US an USSR would not have farted around with a "cold war". They would have fought an all out hot war that might have devastated the planet even without nukes.

I'm sure that were it not for nukes, the US an USSR would not have farted around with a "cold war". They would have fought an all out hot war that might have devastated the planet even without nukes.

So you agree that giving nukes to all countries including North korea, Iran, africa and who ever you care to name would be a good ID that will stop most if not all border insidents :bugeye:

So you agree that giving nukes to all countries including North korea, Iran, africa and who ever you care to name would be a good ID that will stop most if not all border insidents

Umm... Africa's not a country.

Now compare the 1 result of low crime to canadian cities without firearms. I wonder how many canadian cities without firearms have similar track records. More than 1?

Umm... Africa's not a country.

I was once asked by an American, if the country I lived in, South Africa, was in Australia.

Now compare the 1 result of low crime to canadian cities without firearms. I wonder how many canadian cities without firearms have similar track records. More than 1?Unfair comparison. The demographics are not the same. We'd need to compare a Canadian city that allows guns to one that doesn't. Or, compare the same city before and after gun control. I'd google that, but it's bed time.

I'm sure the point of the thread was that for every statistic one can find that says "banning gun ownership reduces crime", one can also find a perfectly legitimate counter-example.

Maybe you should also brush up on your cold war history as well. Cold war "border disputes" as you call them still occured in Vietnam, Korea, Central America, Afghanistan, Iran, ... Giving everyone nukes only means that the consequences for using nukes is greater. It doesn't do anything to prevent war.

I was once asked by an American, if the country I lived in, South Africa, was in Australia.

And if that person was using a geopolitical argument to make his case, say that the proliferation of nuclear weapons during the cold war compared to gun ownership in America, would you believe him?

Umm... Africa's not a country
No it isn't is it. However the region is rather now for the concept of today , with little regard for tomorow. That is BTW next to the enviromental conditions either the number 1 or number 2 reason for africa's poverty. Fine their are some countries like south africa and perhaps even Marroco and dare I say Egypt that fall A little out of this generalisation enough to mention them. But handing out guns to everybody could be considerd as a bad ID by some

No it isn't is it. However the region is rather now for the concept of today , with little regard for tomorow. That is BTW next to the enviromental conditions either the number 1 or number 2 reason for africa's poverty. Fine their are some countries like south africa and perhaps even Marroco and dare I say Egypt that fall A little out of this generalisation enough to mention them. But handing out guns to everybody could be considerd as a bad ID by some

Not proofreading your posts is also a...bad ID

But handing out guns to everybody could be considerd as a bad ID by some

And a good idea to others. The Swiss don't seem to have a problem with it...

I still don't see where you've made a valid point.

No it isn't is it. However the region is rather now for the concept of today , with little regard for tomorow. That is BTW next to the enviromental conditions either the number 1 or number 2 reason for africa's poverty. Fine their are some countries like south africa and perhaps even Marroco and dare I say Egypt that fall A little out of this generalisation enough to mention them. But handing out guns to everybody could be considerd as a bad ID by some

South Africa is its own country. K . thanks. The only problem is that since we are not a poor country, we have the rest of Africa jumping over the border to steal stuff.

Botswana has a stronger economy than South Africa (their Pula (their currency) is stronger than our Rand).

Madagascar, Namibia and several other African countries are also doing very well. The rest suck.

maybe. I didn't want it to sound particulairy racistic but what works in some places might not work in other places. In this case I believe it would have a opposide effect on most places

On the situation with gun control. I come from Africa.. we _need_ guns, but that said, no civilian needs a fully automatic fire arm. They should limit urban firearms to revolvers, and allow non-urban areas, bolt-action rifles or something like that.

Pistols or other semi-automatic weapons should be allowed to the police.

I come from Africa.. we _need_ guns, but that said, no civilian needs a fully automatic fire arm. They should limit urban firearms to revolvers, and allow non-urban areas, bolt-action rifles or something like that.

And no one NEEDS a car that goes faster than 70 mph. But people like to have fast cars, because they like to drive them. A person buys an automatic gun because they like to shoot it. What's the difference?

maybe. I didn't want it to sound particulairy racistic but what works in some places might not work in other places. In this case I believe it would have a opposide effect on most places

Ive stopped been as politically correct as I have been for the last 10 years. I dont care, our current government blames just about everything on the minorities here. Even their own corruption... I dont know if you know the story about the boy that cried wolf... but there are only so many times you can play the race card before its starts getting weak.

A person buys an automatic gun because they like to shoot it. What's the difference?In both cases accidents can happen but be real. One is made special for killing like the other is made for transportation. And how often do you see someone get killed by a gun on the tv (or movie) in comparison with someone being driving over

Ive stopped been as politically correct as I have been for the last 10 years. I dont care, our current government blames just about everything on the minorities here. Even their own corruption... I dont know if you know the story about the boy that cried wolf... but there are only so many times you can play the race card before its starts getting weak.

But isn't your president black? The same guy who suggested holistic medication for AIDS/HIV and who raped a girl during his election campaign?

And how often do you see someone get killed by a gun on the tv (or movie) in comparison with someone being driving over

And you're using movies to set policy? What a joke. Just because you don't hear about people dying in automobile accidents doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-usa.htm

Look at the statistics. More people are killed by cars in the USA than guns.

africa's believe in mumbo jumbo is also a problem but not really relevant to the thread. Yust like to say that because I somewhat give the first "racist" but true answer

And no one NEEDS a car that goes faster than 70 mph. But people like to have fast cars, because they like to drive them. A person buys an automatic gun because they like to shoot it. What's the difference?

If you don't know the difference I don't think you are responsible enough to handle a firearm.

A) Revolver is good for close range defence
b) A fully automatic firearm is an offence weapon. There should be no reason for you to kill large groups of people. Do you bears attack in packs or something?

In South Africa 52 people die every day in attacks. A large amount of those attacks are ye olde AK-47 (thanks russia!). Your analogy is a little off. Its nice to have a fast car, but you are comparing the wrong things. The analogy would be more correct if you were comparing a car to a tank rather than a car to a fast car.

I also hope you can understand the difference between the speed of a vechile and that fire rate of a firearm.

More people are killed by cars in the USA than guns.
... yes but they are... acceptable their accident killings are generally not (or not in our view of accidents)

africa's believe in mumbo jumbo is also a problem but not really relevant to the thread. Yust like to say that because I somewhat give the first "racist" but true answer

Everyone believes in mambo jumbo.. .have a look at your Mormons in Utah. Enough said.

And you're using movies to set policy? What a joke. Just because you don't hear about people dying in automobile accidents doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-usa.htm

Look at the statistics. More people are killed by cars in the USA than guns.

Thats a dumb stat. More people own cars.

If you don't know the difference I don't think you are responsible enough to handle a firearm.

And I think that you are in no way qualified to make this statement.

A) Revolver is good for close range defence
b) A fully automatic firearm is an offence weapon. There should be no reason for you to kill large groups of people. Do you bears attack in packs or something?

No---they were both made for the same reason. There's no distinction between "made for offence" and "made for defence". They were made for shooting. A pistol at short ranges, and an automatic weapon at intermediate distances.

Your analogy is a little off. Its nice to have a fast car, but you are comparing the wrong things. The analogy would be more correct if you were comparing a car to a tank rather than a car to a fast car.

Why is it off? A person buys an assault rifle to shoot, as they buy a fast car to drive. Both can be used safely and unsafely, and both can cause fatalities if used unsafely.

Thats a dumb stat. More people own cars.

If you are interested in per capita stats, then I invite you to find your own references.

If you are interested in per capita stats, then I invite you to find your own references.

In south africa we have a phrase for people like you... ja nee. Directly translated it means.. yes/no.. but it looses a lot in the translation.

PS, I was brought up on a farm, and worked for several years on Inkwenkwezi (a game farm) where I had to deal with the big 5. I am a qualified PH (Professional Hunter), and with my FGASA qualifications, I have SKS 3 for dealing with dangerous animals. I know firearms.

And no, you would not use a full automatic firearm for intermediate range. Once you put a firearm over to afrikaans (automatic) it becomes very inaccurate.

Everyone believes in mambo jumbo.. .have a look at your Mormons in Utah. Enough said.
Mormos are a bid crazy but at least the stay to them selfs most of the time for the weirder stuff.
Annyway raping young women to cure HIV and all that aother stuff. Makes that some countries in the region actually have a goverment plan to spread out HIV. They might not now it themself but they have by their own stupidity.

Mormos are a bid crazy but at least the stay to them selfs most of the time for the weirder stuff.
Annyway raping young women to cure HIV and all that aother stuff. Makes that some countries in the region actually have a goverment plan to spread out HIV. They might not now it themself but they have by their own stupidity.

Since your comments are correct I cant respond to them. Our rural people are as dumb as most rural folk everywhere. They rape more than young woman.. they rape babies.. like gang rape 6 month old babies *gets sick at the idea*, and today I learnt two more people got hacked to death for being witches.

Its sick. But on the flipside, this ignorance can be traced to Apartheid. The afrikaaner created an education system designed to keep the bantu stupid.

In south africa we have a phrase for people like you... ja nee. Directly translated it means.. yes/no.. but it looses a lot in the translation.

I don't exactly know what this means, but if you want to make a point then make one.

PS, I was brought up on a farm, and worked for several years on Inkwenkwezi (a game farm) where I had to deal with the big 5. I am a qualified PH (Professional Hunter), and with my FGASA qualifications, I have SKS 3 for dealing with dangerous animals. I know firearms.

And I've been hunting deer in south Texas all my life and own several guns myself. This doesn't have a bearing on the conversation, though.

And no, you would not use a full automatic firearm for intermediate range. Once you put a firearm over to afrikaans (automatic) it becomes very inaccurate.

Yet that's their principal use in the military.

This isn't really going anywhere...

A point of definition: Automatic in fire arms means a gun that when you pull the trigger and hold it back fires all of the ammunition in the magazine or clip, the guns that most of you are talking about are Semi-Automatic, you have to pull the trigger each time that you want the gun to fire, Machineguns, automatics, are generally unavailable to civilian, Illegal machineguns are available any were, Semi Auto are legally available to any none criminal or court ordered mentally comitted individual, in America and their rate of fire is not much faster that any other fire arm if you want to hit a target, I can fire a bolt action, or a lever action, as fast as a semi-automatic if I want to hit a point target, with out aiming I can fire a semi-auto as fast as a machine gun, but I won't hit a thing, recoil is the main factor in the speed in which you can hit your target, and with more recoil the recovery time to bring your sights back on target gets longer because the gun is pulled farther off target, In the military the only times that I ever fired in full auto was from vehicles, my personnel weapons I always use in semi-auto, because I could hit what I aimed at faster and more reliably and acquire targets faster.

w1z4rd.

A little off the subject, but as PH what is your opinion of the 375 H&H magnum? I have one and am considering a hunt in Africa, I can put 3 round into a Coke can in about 3 seconds, at 100meters, would this serve me well on Cape Buffalo?

w1z4rd.

A little off the subject, but as PH what is your opinion of the 375 H&H magnum? I have one and am considering a hunt in Africa, I can put 3 round into a Coke can in about 3 seconds, at 100meters, would this serve me well on Cape Buffalo?

the kind of game you would need that gun for is more than likely illegal to hunt.

and i would SERIOUSLY doubt that at 100 meters, you can achieve that kind of accuracy with a hand cannon.

or is this more of your self aggrandizing bs?

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/13000/375-Magnum---13213.jpg
the recoil on this gun alone would prevent you from what you claimed above.

for that matter, is it a rifle, or a revolver?
i realize the gun can come in more than one variety.

Just ask a criminal who they fear more, a citizen with a gun or the police.

An armed society is a polite society.

- N

The Devil Inside, just shows how much you really know about guns.

and i would SERIOUSLY doubt that at 100 meters, you can achieve that kind of accuracy with a hand cannon.

The 375 H&H mag. is a rifle, fired from the shoulder, it shoots a 300grain bullet at 2700 ft. per second, and delivers 4500ftp of energy to the target, and with practice this is achievable, if your going to have fire arms in your possession you should learn how to use them proficiently.

ps: and that is considered a medium bore in African Hunting circles, the calibers and thump go up from there.

Powerful handguns are good protection against wild animals. They're less bulky and weigh less than rifles.

Powerful handguns are good protection against wild animals.
actually television are even better protection against wild animals. No offence but I live in a area with more then 350 people km² local wild life are pidgeons, etc.
I believe that we reached a time where we don't have to shoot wild animals for protection. Besides if I would ever go hunting then I would consider using something like a bow. At least then there is some competition

w1z4rd.

A little off the subject, but as PH what is your opinion of the 375 H&H magnum? I have one and am considering a hunt in Africa, I can put 3 round into a Coke can in about 3 seconds, at 100meters, would this serve me well on Cape Buffalo?

That should be fine. Remember our buffalo is very very aggressive, but .375 is fine if you can shoot. A lot of the guys I know hunt our buffalo with .308 (7.62) rifles and that is fine (but they spent time in Angola... and know how to shoot. I haven't shot a buffalo yet (too expensive).

You wouldn't want to get closer than 100m to one of our buffalo. They have this habit of killing the hunters.

I would suggest coming to South Africa to shoot your animal. That is where the Cape Buffalo is from, and if you are looking around for a decent place to shoot, let me know and I can ask the game farms around me for decent pricing. Also dont forget, our hunting season is in June/July and thats our winter (though the habitat you will be in will most likely feel like your summer)

For other people reading this thread... dont feel sorry for the buffalo... I promise you it can take care of itself (Ive seen a herd of them maul a lion pride before)

I wonder how it would be to shoot it with a anti tank missile :) ...yeah with camera footache and slow motion.

Buffalo Roam: I was reading up on your rifle (personally I only trust german engineering.. my dad only trusts english)... does the round after leaving the chamber and the barrel, start to 'tumble' after 100 yards?

w1z4rd,

Buffalo Roam: I was reading up on your rifle (personally I only trust german engineering.. my dad only trusts english)... does the round after leaving the chamber and the barrel, start to 'tumble' after 100 yards?

No the rifle is bore with a 1 in 10 twist and the bullet do not tumble, If they did the rifle would go back to the manufacturer to be corrected.

I find it funny that so many who post their thought on firearms, don't know what the hell they are talking about.

I thought it was Illegal to use anything less than .375 for hunting dangerous game.

ps: that is one of the reasons I would like to take Natya, he fights back, and their are enough of him that I wouldn't be hurting the herd.

I haven't shot a buffalo yet (too expensive).
How much?

Now compare the 1 result of low crime to canadian cities without firearms. I wonder how many canadian cities without firearms have similar track records. More than 1?

Thats unfair comparison, compare Fairfax, VA and Washington D.C. in the U.S., in Fairfax guns are legal and in DC they're illegal...can you guess which one has the much higher crime rate?

I thought it was Illegal to use anything less than .375 for hunting dangerous game.

It is. The guys were in Angola... during the war. Theyre different folk.

ps: that is one of the reasons I would like to take Natya, he fights back, and their are enough of him that I wouldn't be hurting the herd.

Yeah. Most of my time at Inkwenkewzi was spent taking client out on bush trips . I think you chaps like to call it safari. I grew up on a farm, so kinda grew up with firearms around me. Bushbuck biltong is the best :D

How much?

Around $9000, though you could most likely get it much cheaper. If I remember correctly I think we paid R30 000 (Rands) for a male and 50 000 for a female, though I might have got those prices mixed around. We bought ours to introduce back into the area. Not for hunting.

w1z4rd

“ Originally Posted by Buffalo Roam
I thought it was Illegal to use anything less than .375 for hunting dangerous game. ”

It is. The guys were in Angola... during the war. Theyre different folk.


Ya and they were proabily using full autos.

Here's an illuminating story on the benefits of gun free zones:
I live in northern New England, which has a very low crime rate, in part because it has a high rate of gun ownership. We do have the occasional murder, however. A few years back, a couple of alienated loser teens from a small Vermont town decided they were going to kill somebody, steal his ATM cards, and go to Australia. So they went to a remote house in the woods a couple of towns away, knocked on the door, and said their car had broken down. The guy thought their story smelled funny so he picked up his Glock and told 'em to get lost. So they concocted a better story, and pretended to be students doing an environmental survey. Unfortunately, the next old coot in the woods was sick of environmentalists and chased 'em away. Eventually they figured they could spend months knocking on doors in rural Vermont and New Hampshire and seeing nothing for their pains but cranky guys in plaid leveling both barrels through the screen door. So even these idiots worked it out: Where's the nearest place around here where you're most likely to encounter gullible defenseless types who have foresworn all means of resistance? Answer: Dartmouth College. So they drove over the Connecticut River, rang the doorbell, and brutally murdered a couple of well-meaning liberal professors. Two depraved misfits of crushing stupidity (to judge from their diaries) had nevertheless identified precisely the easiest murder victims in the twin-state area. To promote vulnerability as a moral virtue is not merely foolish. Like the new Yale props department policy, it signals to everyone that you're not in the real world. http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/351710,CST-EDT-STEYN22.article