Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 49

Thread: Mandatory Gun Ownership causes 89% drop in crime

  1. #1
    Mourning in America madanthonywayne's Avatar
    Posts
    12,406

    Mandatory Gun Ownership causes 89% drop in crime

    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/eur...atory_gun_law/

  2. #2
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    3,238
    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

  3. #3
    Mourning in America madanthonywayne's Avatar
    Posts
    12,406
    Quote Originally Posted by orcot View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    3,238
    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

  5. #5
    Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love BenTheMan's Avatar
    Posts
    8,966
    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.

  6. #6
    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?

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by BenTheMan View Post
    Umm... Africa's not a country.
    I was once asked by an American, if the country I lived in, South Africa, was in Australia.

  8. #8
    Mourning in America madanthonywayne's Avatar
    Posts
    12,406
    Quote Originally Posted by w1z4rd View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love BenTheMan's Avatar
    Posts
    8,966
    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.

  10. #10
    Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love BenTheMan's Avatar
    Posts
    8,966
    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?

  11. #11
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    3,238
    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

  12. #12
    Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love BenTheMan's Avatar
    Posts
    8,966
    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

  13. #13
    Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love BenTheMan's Avatar
    Posts
    8,966
    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.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by orcot View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    3,238
    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

  16. #16
    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.

  17. #17
    Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love BenTheMan's Avatar
    Posts
    8,966
    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?

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by orcot View Post
    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.

  19. #19
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    3,238
    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

  20. #20
    Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love BenTheMan's Avatar
    Posts
    8,966
    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?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •