25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'

[PILMAN]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=55288

 

25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'

Crime rate plummeted after law required firearms for residents

Kennesaw, Ga., City Hall

 

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.

 

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.

 

In a column titled "Gun Town USA," Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts. The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as "the brave little city … soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world." Phil Donahue invited the mayor on his show.

 

Reuters, the European news service, today revisited the Kennesaw controversy following the Virginia Tech Massacre.

 

Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: "When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area." Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta.

 

The Reuters story went on to report: "Since the Virginia Tech shootings, some conservative U.S. talk show hosts have rejected attempts to link the massacre to the availability of guns, arguing that had students been allowed to carry weapons on campus someone might have been able to shoot the killer."

 

Virginia Tech, like many of the nation's schools and college campuses, is a so-called "gun-free zone," which Second Amendment supporters say invites gun violence – especially from disturbed individuals seeking to kill as many victims as possible.

 

Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 and wounded another 15 before turning his gun on himself.

[DarkLite]

Can't say that I'm suprised.

 

I certainly wouldn't want to try and mug someone if I knew they were packing a pistol somewhere.

[onesidedsquare]

could we get a comparison on Morton Grove, Ill crime/pop to Kennesaw, Ga.'s crime/population

[GuzziHero]

Kennesaw: show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000

 

Morton Grove: Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

 

---

Cut and pasted from the OPs post...

[Connery]

tl;dr

 

o lawd is dat sum guns?

[onesidedsquare]

Kennesaw: show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000

 

Morton Grove: Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

 

---

Cut and pasted from the OPs post...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

i can't read yet :-P

its monday morning....5 days from any airsofting :-\

[Crazy_Harry]

yay! its official! gun ownership reduces crime! Lets move this to a heavily populated urban area with slums and high rates of grinding poverty, unemployment, and minimal education or opportunities for advancement!

 

*watches as city tears itself apart*

 

well, that didn't seem to work...

[GuzziHero]

It aint working in Aston...

[alpha54]

yay! its official! gun ownership reduces crime! Lets move this to a heavily populated urban area with slums and high rates of grinding poverty, unemployment, and minimal education or opportunities for advancement!

 

*watches as city tears itself apart*

 

well, that didn't seem to work...

Couldn't have said it better!

Of course private gun ownership works well in some situations, but I can't believe some people still feel that arming everybody is going to make the world a better place...

[Sale]

I think the point is not to prove that arming everyone would work everywhere. Surely Pilman is not suggesting that?

 

With powerful people and organizations running total bans for all firearms, already in effect in quite a lot of countries, I think it's only fair to point out that there's a small town in the US, where everyone has a gun, yet the crime rate is low and the amount of shooting fatalies, in a time scale of a quarter century, is a round zero. (Phew, what a long sentence.)

 

Examples like Kennesaw should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that guns don't cause problems. A gun does not turn an average person into a hostile one. It may be dangerous to have readily violent people having access to guns, but normal people are not like that. The problems are elsewhere, in the socio-economic structure of the society, and countless other places. Of course it's not "media-sexy" for a politican to lobby to increase funds towards social welfare, mental health institutes and so on.

 

-Sale

[PILMAN]

yay! its official! gun ownership reduces crime! Lets move this to a heavily populated urban area with slums and high rates of grinding poverty, unemployment, and minimal education or opportunities for advancement!

 

*watches as city tears itself apart*

 

well, that didn't seem to work...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Most citys tend to have very strict gun control laws however, look at Chicago, L.A and Washington DC.

 

Surely I don't think people should be forced to arm themselves but they should have the option if they want to. In many cases, a armed society actually benefits folks who may not necessarily want to be armed because it creates a risk factor for criminals not knowing who is armed.

 

While Kennesaw does require it's population to be armed, it doesn't strictly enforce it.

 

Sure, some areas lax gun laws may not reduce crime at all nor would gun control. I'm simply pointing out that the firearm is not to blame, when it comes to guns, people use their emotions over logic and seem to think a gun turns someone into a serial killer the second they pick it up. Kennesaw is evidence that it isn't some cowboy shootout fantasy that many predicted it would be.

[Crazy_Harry]

and the reason why the cities tend to have strict gun laws?

 

because of all the reasons I listed above- crime, particularly violent crime, will always be a part of the average capitalist city due to the demographics and the nature of the socio-economic situation. Hence its great for towns with small populations to have lax gun laws, becasue violent crime is so rare in such environments, whereas in a densely packed urban sprawl, lax gun laws are ordinarily pretty bad ideas.

 

and Choice is all well and good, apart from the usual regretable human habit of picking the wrong option. I'd have no problem with gun ownership if I believed everyone is as sensible and intelligent as me. Unfortunately, every time I see an SUV on the road, I'm reminded that that simply isn't the case.

[mcnuggets]

I don't think you're going to get statistically significant results with such a small sample size. The population of Kennesaw ranged only between 5,242 and 28,189 between 1981 and 2005. A small town by any means. Not only that but the drop in crime conincided with a national drop in crime throughout the 1990's. So who knows if the ordinance actually caused the drop in crime or if it just appears that way.

[PILMAN]

and the reason why the cities tend to have strict gun laws?

 

because of all the reasons I listed above- crime, particularly violent crime, will always be a part of the average capitalist city due to the demographics and the nature of the socio-economic situation. Hence its great for towns with small populations to have lax gun laws, becasue violent crime is so rare in such environments, whereas in a densely packed urban sprawl, lax gun laws are ordinarily pretty bad ideas.

 

and Choice is all well and good, apart from the usual regretable human habit of picking the wrong option. I'd have no problem with gun ownership if I believed everyone is as sensible and intelligent as me. Unfortunately, every time I see an SUV on the road, I'm reminded that that simply isn't the case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How so? The majority of the crimes in citys aren't be law abiding middle class familys, the majority are ex felons, criminals, rapists, murderers, gang members, illegal immigrants, drug dealers, etc. The preferred tools for the job are pistols/handguns and they are normally stolen or smuggled illegally. The strict gun control laws haven't reduced murder, it's just created victims out of the law abiding citizens that live there. I don't see any criminals registering their firearms or abiding by a handgun ban in the city of Chicago.

 

Most criminals hope to get away with their crimes, the fact Chicago is disarmed and one cannot conceal legally leaves the criminal 99.9 percent confident they can get away with their crimes safely without the worrys of consequences.

[mcnuggets]

Allowing people to own guns in such a densely populated area may increase crimes of passion even amongst normally law abiding citizens. There's less of a chance of these crimes happening in more rural areas because there's simply less contact between strangers (or people in general) throughout the day. By restricting gun ownership in urban areas, especially concealed and easily accessed handguns, we minimize crimes of passion.

[PILMAN]

Allowing people to own guns in such a densely populated area may increase crimes of passion even amongst normally law abiding citizens.  There's less of a chance of these crimes happening in more rural areas because there's simply less contact between strangers (or people in general) throughout the day.  By restricting gun ownership in urban areas, especially concealed and easily accessed handguns, we minimize crimes of passion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And what are the statistics for these so called "crimes of passion"? It seems to me the anti gunners are engaging in what is called "projection." They are projecting their own psychological and personal hang-ups upon others. Just because they believe that they themselves are unable to be trusted with dangerous tools, doesn't mean the same for others.

 

Picking up a gun doesn't magically turn someone into a killer or give them thoughts of killing others. If folks were truely that sick, do you really think they would need a firearm to commit a crime of passion?

[mcnuggets]

Picking up a gun doesn't magically turn someone into a killer or give them thoughts of killing others.

 

Oh no, not by any means. Most gun owners that I've met are perfectually sane and nice people. But when barriers to having access to deadly tools are reduced and when a city liberalizes where these tools can be carried a situation that may have normally ended in a fist fight or a shouting match would end in a fatal shooting. It allows hot heads to be much more hot than they could be without guns.

 

I don't have any statistics, no. But I'd say what I'm saying is common sense. Give people access to deadly weapons and when those people start to act irrationally, as everyone does at times, more people will start dying.

 

*I completely agree with what you're saying BTW. I'm generally pro-gun. I'm just playing devil's advocate*

[Sledge]

Except someone's just given you proof that doesn't happen.

 

[PILMAN]

Oh no, not by any means.  Most gun owners that I've met are perfectually sane and nice people.  But when barriers to having access to deadly tools are reduced and when a city liberalizes where these tools can be carried a situation that may have normally ended in a fist fight or a shouting match would end in a fatal shooting.  It allows hot heads to be much more hot than they could be without guns. 

 

I don't have any statistics, no.  But I'd say what I'm saying is common sense.  Give people access to deadly weapons and when those people start to act irrational, as everyone does at times, more people will start dying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Anyone can act irrational, however nothings going to prevent someone from breaking the law.

 

Take in account gun free zones. How many shootings have we had at a NRA convention or a gun show? The majority of killing sprees happen in gun free zones. As a law abiding citizen who conceals, I must abide by these signs that list "No weapons allowed on this premesis". I don't want to lose my license so I stay where i'm required to by law. That doesn't mean I don't disagree with it. Nothing is going to stop a criminal from illegally concealing and going into a gun free zone to shoot up the place.

 

Those who use weapons out of passion or because they lost their temper probably can't be trusted with a knife or a car either, after all whats stopping someone in a bad mood from having road rage and running over a few pedestrians because he lost a game of counterstrike?

 

Sure office shootings happen no doubt. People do lose their cool and have used guns in horrible ways, that doesn't justify making victims of these people. Guns will always exist so why not allow the folks who actually are qualified to conceal to take their guns to work or to school (college)? Obviously the state trusts them enough to issue them a concealment permit, why restrict them due to gun free zones? Did one ever stop to think that these laws only exist to create a false sense of security?

[mcnuggets]

Except someone's just given you proof that doesn't happen.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd say the results aren't statistically significant to matter. Plus we need to look at how the dip in crime coincided with the dip in national crime. There are other factors that are affecting that dip that we aren't taking into consideration.

[alpha54]

Of course I don't think simply giving someone a gun is going to turn them into a killer - that's ridiculous! However, mcnuggets has a very valid point.

 

Personally, I plan to purchase a hand gun once I am old enough, but strictly for shooting at the range. I wouldn't dream of carrying it on me.

 

I just think using the extremely small town of Kennesaw as a "pro-gun" example is flawed, because it does not have much bearing on the situation in most densely-populated, urban areas.

[PILMAN]

Of course I don't think simply giving someone a gun is going to turn them into a killer - that's ridiculous! However, mcnuggets has a very valid point.

 

Personally, I plan to purchase a hand gun once I am old enough, but strictly for shooting at the range. I wouldn't dream of carrying it on me.

 

I just think using the extremely small town of Kennesaw as a "pro-gun" example is flawed, because it does not have much bearing on the situation in most densely-populated, urban areas.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And that is your choice, if you don't want to carry then that is fine. Do you feel unsafe carrying a firearm on you? Do you feel there is no need? What is the purpose if you mind me asking?

 

I simply find carrying a gun equivalent to buckling my seatbelt before turning on my car, I don't expect to get into a accident, it's just there in the event that I do and it may or may not save my life but it definitely increases my odds of survival.

 

Regarding Kennesaw, the population has increased quite a bit, do you feel if the population were closer to 100,000 and everyone were armed that crime would truely rise to a large degree?

[Crazy_Harry]

its really got nothing much to do with populatrion, more demographics and socio-economics. Its really no accident that the most dangerous cities in the US are also the ones with huge slums, no social mobility on the lower end of the demographic scale, terrible living conditions and outrageously underfunded education and social projects.

 

All these, plus a number of others, will fuel crime, particularly violent crime and, as such, in a country where guns are very readily available, gun crime.

 

as I've said before, guns don't kill poeple, socio-economics kill people.

[Sale]

Pilman, I wouldn't be so quick to refer to the psychological side. It ticks people off to have their personality analyzed over the internet. Even more so when it hits home.

 

mcnuggets: Devil's advocate aye? Keep up the good work. Just a thought, for an opponent in this discussion you sound too rational. Oh well, it's Arnie's. We won't have to wait long for ill-educated bigots to show up.

 

-Sale

[Yeager]

How about we just get this over with and arm the bears?