What is Digg?505 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -58/+433FOR THE RECORD (and to prevent preemptive digg-downs): I support the right to bear arms.
--
I want to see the statistics for ACCIDENTAL shootings and deaths, and compare them between the two towns.
After I see those statistics, I want to see demographic statistics, specifically related to levels of education, employment, and average family income that surely contribute to the crime disparity in these two towns.
After I see that, I want to see the crime statistics that are not related to weapons, like burglary, rape, assault, etc.
If you cannot provide these things, then this is just ignorant propaganda.
--
FOR THE RECORD: I support the right to bear arms. - psg188, on 10/12/2007, -64/+283I agree that every household should have a gun. People say it causes more accidents but if your trained in proper use it is used as a deterrent for violence. Just think, VT could have had only 2 deaths instead of 32. The Killer would shoot his first victim and a bystander would have blown Cho away.
Some people argue that if we had stricter gun control this wouldn't have happened. Thats crap, It may not make immediate sense but its the same with nuclear weapons. The more countries (with sane leaders) that have them, the less major wars we will see. Hey, at least they stopped WW3. - HNIC, on 10/12/2007, -24/+207>I would hope not everyone had a gun
RTFA and you'll find out! It was only required for each head of the household. - danep, on 10/12/2007, -40/+176*sigh*... If I had a nickel for every time I said it... repeat after me people
Correlation does not imply causation. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+131You can’t ban guns to make everything better!
Remember what happened on the Simpsons Tree House of Horror episode? They banned guns, and all the villains came back from the dead and killed everyone because they were defenseless.
Don’t let the Zombies win, America!!! - mikeneilson, on 10/12/2007, -14/+104@danep (and others):
...and if i had a nickel for everytime i said this:
the fact that correlation does not imply causation does not mean that all research showing correlation should be dismissed with one little trendy phrase that you keep in your pocket for the times that correlation is shown between something you like (less crime) and something you don't like (more guns). correlation might not always equal causation, but correlation and causation also happen to go hand-in-hand a lot of the time, too. maybe this is one of those times, maybe it isnt. i'm not saying either way here, but don't go dismissing research blindly with that phrase, it is just as dangerous as assuming that correlation DOES imply causation. - ubuntuedgy, on 10/12/2007, -17/+103Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates on the planet and every home has a MACHINE GUN!
http://politics.netscape.com/story/2007/04/17/self-defense-in-switzerland - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -50/+122Kennesaw is a suburb of Atlanta. The reason for the reduced crime rate is more than likely because everyone travels outside of Kennesaw to do anything (crime included). It's not that they're afraid that everyone else has guns, it's that it's a boring place to live. There is nothing there. It is literally one huge strip mall, complete with hundreds of McMansions and suburban wielding soccer moms going to and from Target and Olive Garden. Most young people (young as in 20's and below..which is usually the demographic that would commit crimes like this) move out as quickly as possible. The kids that do live there focus on drag racing up and down Barett Parkway (the main road) in the souped up Hondas their parents bought them.
The cops are also ridiculously overbearing, almost as bad as Cobb County. That can be a good or bad thing I guess depending on who you are, or how you look at things. This is probably one of the most important reasons for the drop in crime. Unlike Atlanta cops, who tend to be apathetic/corrupt towards alot of things, Kennesaw cops are like super troopers.
And last but not least, the article is inaccurate:
http://www.620wtmj.com/_content/talk/jessicamcbride/index.asp?id=125&entry=21755
http://www.walb.com/Global/story.asp?S=5311421
http://www.scancobb.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=67 (acworth is right next to kennesaw)
http://www.disastercenter.com/georgia/Year2004/KennesawPD.html
P.S. Everyone there doesn't own a firearm. I have several friends who live out there, they don't own guns. It may be a law but it's the kind of law that isn't enforced..like no wearing green on the 2nd friday of every month. - PotatoSalad, on 10/12/2007, -5/+74I have a Kennesaw address, but the law only applies to residents living in old downtown Kennesaw (unless I'm mistaken). In either case, I've heard of at least two murders that have happened nearby here, but neither involved guns.
There was one incident several years ago where the police took a robber down. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -20/+86So not only did you not read the article before talking, but you also failed to read the description on Digg. A lot of good would come from making or at least strongly encouraging every mentally stable non-criminal HoH to own a gun after the proper training. There is no greater deterent for committing a crime than the fear of being shot.
In the end, it comes down to who you want owning guns: criminals or decent citizens? It really is that simple. - mrveritas, on 10/12/2007, -32/+90This is a great example of the facts versus the popular PC fiction we see all the time.
- pezguy, on 10/12/2007, -26/+84This story is purely anecdotal, but it certainly gives one something to think about. Liberals who rail against monopolies and want to ban guns tend to forget that governments have the biggest monopoly of them all when it comes to the legitimatized use of force. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want people like Teddy Kennedy and Dick Cheney to have a monopoly on gun ownership.
- EbowUK, on 10/12/2007, -14/+70If only such an idea worked in an entire country!
Oh, hi Switzerland. - KJay, on 10/12/2007, -7/+63@ilyag: RTFA. It says in the past 25 years there has not been a single fatal shooting. That would imply that there has not been a SINGLE accidental shooting that was fatal.
- ubuntuedgy, on 10/12/2007, -13/+58And Kennesaw (I am from Georgia) is just North of Atlanta. Look at the crimes rates for Atlanta. And anyone who brings up the correlation/causation argument is a fool. These two are directly related: high gun ownership=less crime. It has been shown time and again and there are real world examples to prove it.
- boostedfc3s, on 10/12/2007, -5/+48NONE, RTFA
- roughridersfan, on 10/12/2007, -9/+46How is a statistic - Zero gun deaths in 25 years since passing the requirement - anecdotal?
- Gryffydd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+41An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Robert A. Heinlein
Who in their right mind would *ever* break into a house in that town? Who would want to mug somebody in that town? Liberals like to whine about us not being in the Wild West, but there's one thing: just like in the Wild West, the Police aren't there to protect you. They're there to fill out the paperwork after you've already been robbed, after you've already been raped.
And to nsummy: I can't show you how well this has worked in a big city, but I can show you how badly the opposite has worked. Take a look at Washington D.C. Their gun ban has really worked out just dandy. - knoit911, on 10/12/2007, -3/+40RTFA "the population has skyrocketed to 28,189. " - that is the population in 2005. it was 5000 back when the law was made.
- vuke69, on 10/12/2007, -5/+37"Our forefathers wanted the citizens to have the right to bear arms so that they may rise up against a corrupt government. Are you gun nuts trying to say something here?"
Yes, as a matter of fact, we are trying to say something. The reason you mentioned is the single most important reason that we demand our Constitutional rights are preserved.
One day... you will likely thank us. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+39its not anecdotal... wtf
they also had a 90% drop in crime immediately after that rule
thats not anecdotal, thats cold hard obvious blatent fact
the more honest people have guns, the less crime
so making it harder and harder for honest people to get guns increases the crime rate, the bad guys will always find guns - catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -20/+48"Correlation does not imply causation"
So smoking will not give me cancer? You can argue that for any study ever done. That's why we have to draw informed conclusions and use statistical analysis. - hrshgn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31You can't compare it to Switzerland. It's true that we have lots of guns at home since every serviceman is required to keep his assault rifle including ammunition at home. This is to be ready immediately in case of mobilization.
It does not serve to defend your home against criminals though. In fact you can be heavily punished for opening the sealed packaging containing the ammunition. And most people keep their gun in the attic anyway since you only need it once a year for the mandatory shooting exercise and for the occasional military service of course. - oddmanout, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30From Wikipedia... to answer the discussion of who has to own a gun and what happens if you don't want to or can't afford to
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). - KJay, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25I think the fact that guns were purchased legally is irrelevant. If he wasn't able to legally purchase firearms, it does not mean he wouldn't of purchased them, he just wouldn't have done so legally. Anyone who thinks gun laws make it more difficult to purchase firearms illegally is a fool. I could buy an illegal firearm in a couple of hours as opposed to the several days it took me to get my hand gun legally.
- nottidredd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24RTFA there have been no deaths in Gun Town USA for 25 years
- jm9206755, on 10/12/2007, -17/+37@ilyag
It doesn't matter. They showed the change in crime rates for each individual city after each law was passed. The idea wasn't to compare the cities directly but to compare how one law changed crime rates in one city and how another did in another city. Barring some sort of massive migration of the local population which drastically changed the demographics from one year to another it is irrelevant. - Gman1223, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20If you did, the story on digg would be something like "Man goes to guntown to murder someone, autopsy reveals he was shot 8,000 times."
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20That's it, I am buying a gun next week...
- lazn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17@maabus
The other amendments have no teeth without the 2nd.
If you wanted to enslave a people the first thing you would do is disarm them, because after that, the rest is easy. I fully support the full bill of rights, but if we lose the 2nd the rest will go away and we will have no way to deal with that.
BTW: I am not a Republican, I am a realistic Libertarian, which actually makes me a Democrat on moral issues, a Republican on Fiscal issues and neither on the rest of the issues. (BTW the current GOP directly violated their own small government ideology.. Just as the previous Democratic congress passed more anti abortion laws.. Both parties tend to do the opposite of their political stand once they are in power, we really need a couple strong other parties) - cynicalirony, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Then take it as a Darwinian filter.
- Lisztman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Well, that in itself will only do a nominal job in ensuring your safety.
What is also important is to make sure other people KNOW that you are packing heat.
That is the true deterrent. - unibomber999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Buying it is just the first step. You really need to make sure that :
1. You are properly trained in it's use, and
2. You are mentally prepared to use it if necessary.
Don't buy a gun if you just plan on waving it at people. It is not a talisman that wards off evil. If you try to use it in this way, then it may get you killed. Buy it, train with it, and accept responsibility for it.
If you aren't prepared to take a life in self defence, then buy a stun gun or some mace and save yourself getting shot with your own weapon. The deterrent happens when bad guys don't feel safe breaking into anyones' home. - cynicalirony, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16knoit is correct. I've lived in ATL for many years and the population of Kennesaw has been increasing rapidly. Mainly for the fact that the metro area of ATL has expanded so much. When you take in to account that Kennesaw is part of the metro area of ATL this becomes pretty big, and yes being part of the metro is a big factor.
- Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19 by obijohn 15 minutes ago
The 2nd Amendment clearly states in plain English: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
---------------------------
The right of the people to keep an bear arms is not equivalent to a well regulated militia. "The people" is the citizenry. A militia is a military organization that may support or oppose a standing army.
So you're wrong. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18"correlation might not always equal causation, but correlation and causation also happen to go hand-in-hand a lot of the time, too. maybe this time, maybe not."
in other words: the mere fact that correlation does not imply causation does not preclude causation.
(attempt at a trendy counter-phrase for the trendy phrase) - shakin, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21I completely understand why high gun ownership can reduce crime. It makes a lot of sense.
What I fail to understand is what exactly is going wrong in the United States that when gun ownership declines, crime skyrockets. It's absurd. In terms of crime the US is about as advanced as your average war-torn 3rd world nation. There are actually plenty of very peaceful 3rd world nations.
I live in Canada near the US border in a city with a population of about 170,000. In the six years I've lived here we've had two murders and one was committed by people visiting from another city. I don't know anybody who has a gun for protection (plenty for hunting that are kept locked away and unloaded). Maybe I've been spoiled, but it just doesn't makes sense to me that similar-sized US cities have far greater levels of violence.
Even our large cities have small fractions of the number of murders as big US cities. For example, Toronto usually has 55 - 60 murders each year. Chicago is about the same size (for the city, not the suburbs in which crime stats are separate) and usually has over 600 murders per year. I know Chicago has a very high murder rate, but the numbers for any major US city are staggeringly high comparted to any major Canadian city.
Guns aren't the cause nor the answer. I don't know what the problem is in the US, but something's clearly got to be done about it. - ShouldBeStudyin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18@Infowarmachine
It is anecdotal because this is only one instance and does not constitute a valid sample size. This would be the same as saying that you've heard of a person who smoked a pack a day and lived to be 100 and a person who never smoked and died at 50; therefore, smoking must be good for your health. There are certainly many differences between these cities aside from the gun laws that could account for the differences in crime and murder rates.
That being said, just because this story is anecdotal does not mean it should be ignored. I agree that banning guns is not the answer to our problems. Many crimes are committed with illegal firearms so banning guns all together would not help. This story provides evidence that requiring gun ownership might be a good idea, but it should not be taken as proof that this is the best course of action. It is certainly worth exploring though. - drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I want to know why the Illinois ordinance hasn't been repealed yet. It's clearly a violation of the Bill of Rights.
- Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -16/+27 by badriram 21 minutes ago
"Correlation does not imply causation..... Read up on wikipedia, or take a stats or logic class
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation"
-----------------
Correlation implies a relationship. It does not prove a relationship. You're being a *****. - Gryffydd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13What does one town classify as illegal that the other one doesn't?
- logic6, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I live in Switzerland, and you are right, there are a lot of households with rifles (not handguns). But that's not why their murder and crime rate is so low. What is more likely is the lack of poverty, very high standard of living, social welfare, and sensible drug laws. Anyone suggesting that a rifle in someone's closet is a violent crime deterrent has an agenda.
(my sentiments exactly rhavenn) - airship, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I wish that on this topic (and all others, as far as that goes) that people would follow the science instead of their gut reactions. What you 'feel' is not what is true. What is true is what is true. Look at the studies. Analyze the statistics.
- omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10That may be the true deterent, but it's more fun to guess who's packing and who's not.
- TimOgg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I think murder is a crime whatever. I havent heard where it is legal, have you?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10lets be honest about this, Guns control laws, war on drugs, copyright laws, they're like locks on a door. All they're doing is keeping the good people out. You can put 10000 locks on your 5 inch metal door, if i want to rob you i would just break your damn window. Like these gun control laws gonna stop a maniac from killing 30 people if he really wanted to. Gangsters are gonna get their guns, Druggies are gonna get their drugs, and I'd still won't buy a note of music.
- mgrucker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@b00le
I think YOU are the one that doesn't know what the 2nd Amendment says.
Check out TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 of the US Code. It states that:
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
Please don't talk about my constitution unless you have, at least, the slightest ***** clue about it. - fotbr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Kind of like ThinkProgress does to the other side?
I love watching the far-left argue with the far-right (and vice-versa). Its like watching two retards fight -- sad, but damned funny. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"A militia is a military organization that may support or oppose a standing army.
So you're wrong."
Actually, at the time, every able-bodied person was considered part of the Militia, because we had no free-standing army...and most of the Founding Fathers were opposed to a free-standing army.
So, you're wrong, too. - trilioth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Robert A. Heinlein"
People should read his work, then they might understand the significance of this quote. I had even forgot he had said this. Thanks for the reminder.
I personally don't like the idea of ever shooting anyone. I was living in Gulfport when Katrina hit. My neighbor/landlord/friend gave me his pistol and holster for me to wear and we took shifts at night. We never saw any trouble, but we did hear gun shots around us. Also the guy has a reputation for owning lots of guns. I've seen his stash; he has his reputation for a good reason. If I only had myself to think about I would have not been interested in carrying a gun, but there were about seven of his grand-children staying there at the time and I could not bring myself to refuse.
Before then I did not even consider ever touching a gun; I hated guns. That time caused me to give the issue more thought. I don't know what it means to say we have a gun culture. We have guns because we have technology and have been (or were) on the leading edge of technology for a long time. Many innovations in gun manufacturing were developed here.
If we didn't have guns, I guess some would say that we had some-other-weapon culture. I think a gun ban is ignorant. It won't work in the south, we would just hide our guns many of us already do. We just have too many.
The only responsible measure to be taken is gun education not gun abstinence. I don't think guns should be in the hands of the mentally ill or the simply incompetent. We have a moral duty to defend ourselves. Pacifism is selfishness and not the same as non-violence. The non-violent prefer not to use violence, but recognize self-defense when necessary. -
Show 51 - 100 of 470 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is