25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'

Would removing guns from civilian society solve our violent crime problem?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 11.1%

  • No

    Votes: 22 81.5%

  • Unsure

    Votes: 2 7.4%
  • Total voters
    27
P

Paul_S

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
5,929
Reaction score
1,829
To all those backward reasoning anti-gun hippies who would prefer it if only the criminals have firearms :

As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

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.
Click to expand...

Full article here : http://wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

Zero fatal shootings and a much lower rate of crime than national average.
Yeah let's outlaw guns so that only the outlaws have guns ... :rolleyes:
 
Can you find me one person here who said they "would prefer it if only the criminals have firearms"?

EDIT - not to detract from the interesting stats.
 
bwana said:
Can you find me one person here who said they "would prefer it if only the criminals have firearms"?

EDIT - not to detract from the interesting stats.
Click to expand...

No but that's exactly what will happen if they get their way.

Personally I'd love to live in a 100% gun free society but I'm not going to be so short sighted as to support the firearm banning brigade. The more armed citizens we have the more criminals are going to think about the risk of losing their own lives.
 
worldnetdaily... enough said.

Here's a quick line up of their other headlines:
Nuclear terror: How likely is it?
25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'
Killer mimicked scenes from film
Have your say on tragedy
Fed wiring Social Security payments to illegals?
Newspaper says Wren Cross university chief 'unfit'
Sheehan won't quit when Bush leaves office
Gideons battling 2nd round of charges
You can reach out to persecuted Christians
'No abortions, no exceptions,' in sight
Police force abortions on Christian women
Abbas: BBC reporter still alive
Leading homosexual blog attacks Farah's Christianity

Commentary

Open letter to 'environmental journalists'
- By Joseph Farah
Evil, not ill
- By Ilana Mercer
Shooting at the truth
- By Melanie Morgan
Too much tolerance
- By Pat Buchanan
Our founders: 'Environmental imperialists'?
- By Doug Phillips
The Ginsburg worldview
- By David Limbaugh
Compromise on child killing?
- By Brian Rohrbough
The 1st victory for life since Roe
- By Anita Staver
Click to expand...


edit: As I've said many times before, you really need to look at statistics quoted carefully. It looks pretty impressive that this town managed to reduce it's crime rate by around 50%... except that the whole of the USA seemed to do it at the same time without forcing guns on everyone.

The other stat, that no-one has been involved in a fatal shooting is probably just the law of averages. The nationwide average for murder in the USA is around 0.1 per 1000 people. Given that most violent crime is urban, and that a town of 5000 (or 20,000) is not exactly urban the chances are good that none of these events would take place in Kennesaw. Also missing from the article is data on exactly how many fatal shootings took place in the 25 years before the residents were all armed.

edit again: (forgot the source) http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm
 
Last edited:
Paul_S said:
No but that's exactly what will happen if they get their way.

Personally I'd love to live in a 100% gun free society but I'm not going to be so short sighted as to support the firearm banning brigade. The more armed citizens we have the more criminals are going to think about the risk of losing their own lives.
Click to expand...
True - firearms are a bell that cant realistically be un-rung but I think many of us would settle for a society where people dont feel they need to be armed to go get a loaf of bread. I have a permit but fortunately I live in an area where I rarely feel the need to carry - should that change I'm sure departing for fairer lands would soon follow, I've got a family after all and the idea of teaching my children how to shoot for reasons other than recreational dont appeal to me.

On the other hand when I'm in the states I've never felt the desire to carry a firearm. Hopefully, after time, the police here will get their act together and the desire to be armed - even though the people should retain the right to do so - will wane. That would be a viable solution.
 
arf9999 said:
worldnetdaily... enough said.

Here's a quick line up of their other headlines:
Click to expand...

And that has what exactly to do with the stats in the article?
Oh wait I get it ... you just don't like the facts and so will resort to trying to discredit the source as an escape goat.
I guess if the news doesn't come from SABC you won't accept it.
 
bwana said:
I have a permit but fortunately I live in an area where I rarely feel the need to carry - should that change I'm sure departing for fairer lands would soon follow, I've got a family after all and the idea of teaching my children how to shoot for reasons other than recreational dont appeal to me.
Click to expand...

Yeah but things overseas aren't looking much better anymore.
Currently it may be better crime wise in other countries but the trends aren't looking good and in a few years they could be in the same boat as SA.
 
The perfect world: the freedom to have as many guns as you want, and safety enough never to have to use them against another living being. Sigh. Even if there was no crime, I'd still have a gun, simply because shooting is so much fun. :)

However, the example of Kennesaw is missed because it is a complete non-story. The media by and large aren't interested in safe areas, and they definitely aren't interested in anything pro-gun. After the latest mass shooting it was the media that went into a frenzy, accusing politicians of not having the political will to support gun control. Why is it that the media are so violently opposed? Surely they can't all lack independent and logical thought.
 
Paul_S said:
And that has what exactly to do with the stats in the article?
Oh wait I get it ... you just don't like the facts and so will resort to trying to discredit the source as an escape goat.
I guess if the news doesn't come from SABC you won't accept it.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand my point. WND is not exactly an unbiased source, being a mouthpiece of the christian conservative right. I'm saying that if all the data is opened to scrutiny, I think that you'll find that it isn't as clear cut as the article makes out. Please see my edits above in relation to the stats...

Oh, and I don't trust anybody that quotes statistics that don't stand up to scrutiny... least of all our national broadcaster. It is just more obvious from sources that have an obvious agenda (like WND, and the SABC I spose:))
 
arf9999 said:
I'm saying that if all the data is opened to scrutiny, I think that you'll find that it isn't as clear cut as the article makes out. Please see my edits above in relation to the stats...
Click to expand...

You made some good points - the stats can definitely be seen from two different sides.
As you say - it would be interesting to see the shooting fatalities before the law was passed.

However there still seem to be some unarguable things :
1. More guns didn't cause an increase in fatal shootings in domestic conflict.
2. Even if the firearm homicide rate didn't drop, it sure didn't increase with the introduction of thousands of more firearms.

I don't own a gun and have never even fired a real firearm (unless you call a .22 rifle a firearm - more like a pellet gun :p ) but I'd sure feel a lot safer in public if fellow, law abiding citizens around me are armed and the pawpaw hits the fan.
 
arf9999 said:
edit: As I've said many times before, you really need to look at statistics quoted carefully. It looks pretty impressive that this town managed to reduce it's crime rate by around 50%... except that the whole of the USA seemed to do it at the same time without forcing guns on everyone.
Click to expand...

Not true.
1981 national average of deaths through firearms :
30,708 deaths with a population of 275,854,116 = 11.13 deaths per 100,000 people

2004 national average of deaths through firearms :
29,569 deaths with a population of 293,656,842 = 10.07 deaths per 100,000 people

11.13 vs 10.07 is a drop but it's a long shot from 50%

Also missing from the article is data on exactly how many fatal shootings took place in the 25 years before the residents were all armed.
Click to expand...

That stat I unfortunately cannot find. :(

What is interesting is that in the first year that the ordinance was in effect in Kennesaw, the number of violent crimes reported declined by 74 percent, according to Chief of Police Robert Ruble, and violent crime decreased by another 45 percent in the second year after residents were required to maintain a firearm.
Those are massive decreases and they've stayed far below the national average ever since.

One can argue that it's a rural town and all that but the criminal activity definitely plummeted after the ordinance was put into effect.
 
In Switzerland, every male citizen is issued a firearm as part of their mandatory militairy service which they keep for life, if I'm not mistaken, and Switzerland also has very low murder rates at least as far as murder through the use of a firearm is concerned.

I think the theory goes something like this : If *everyone* is armed, it's very risky to attempt to use violence to rob them; it's far less risky to try and be quiet, rob a house while the people aren't home, and so forth.

If few people have firearms, as a criminal it's an advantage to have one yourself. If everyone has firearms, at best you're levelling the playing field, and at worst you're just taking stupid risks.
 
Xarog said:
In Switzerland, every male citizen is issued a firearm as part of their mandatory militairy service which they keep for life, if I'm not mistaken, and Switzerland also has very low murder rates at least as far as murder through the use of a firearm is concerned.
Click to expand...
To play devil's advocate for a minute their rate of murders with firearms is five times that of the UK which has much stricter firearms regulations.
 
Paul_S said:
Not true.
1981 national average of deaths through firearms :
30,708 deaths with a population of 275,854,116 = 11.13 deaths per 100,000 people

2004 national average of deaths through firearms :
29,569 deaths with a population of 293,656,842 = 10.07 deaths per 100,000 people

11.13 vs 10.07 is a drop but it's a long shot from 50%



That stat I unfortunately cannot find. :(

What is interesting is that in the first year that the ordinance was in effect in Kennesaw, the number of violent crimes reported declined by 74 percent, according to Chief of Police Robert Ruble, and violent crime decreased by another 45 percent in the second year after residents were required to maintain a firearm.
Those are massive decreases and they've stayed far below the national average ever since.

One can argue that it's a rural town and all that but the criminal activity definitely plummeted after the ordinance was put into effect.
Click to expand...
Hi Paul,

I agree with you that the average rate of death through firearms in the US has not changed significantly, but that particular statistic was never mentioned in the article. The article mentioned the overall crime rate in the town, and compared it to the national average. In order to measure the effectiveness of the ordinance, we would need to compare the rate of gun related crime in the town in the years before the ordinance with that in the years following. Also, ideally the comparison should not be limited to a single year - in such a small town, a single incident (or a single particularly successful crime fighting campaign by the police) would probably skew the statistics quite considerably - so a five or ten-year comparison would provide a good comparison.

Please note that I don't necessarily disagree that mandatory gun ownership reduces crime in small towns, but the data provided doesn't conclusively prove this.
 
Last edited:
If only a few students at the Virginia tech were armed, the shooter would have been eliminated much faster.

Many lives could have been saved - but law abiding students were not allowed to defend themselves effectively against a criminal.
 
kaspaas said:
If only a few students at the Virginia tech were armed, the shooter would have been eliminated much faster.

Many lives could have been saved - but law abiding students were not allowed to defend themselves effectively against a criminal.
Click to expand...
Having a sworn and armed security officer would be just as effective as having "a few [armed] students".

The majority of the killing would have been avoided had the university acted more responsibility after the initial shooting. That was the failing of the day and not the prohibition of armed students.
 
alanf85 said:
Arf9999 would much rather you use a biased liberal news source since they obviously don't have an agenda ;)

:D

Interesting read Paul S.

Thanks
Click to expand...
ho hum...liberal this... blah...blah... liberal that.. blah...

Read the post you stupid little troll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X