digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'

worldnetdaily.com — This is a tale of two cities. Kennesaw, GA, requires every head of household to own a firearm and watches its crime rate plunge. Morton Grove, IL, bans all firearms (except for police officers) and watches its crime rate skyrocket.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • LonesomeFighter, on 10/12/2007, -227/+32I would hope not everyone had a gun, like ex-felons and mentally challenged people should be without guns (not that they can't buy on the black market). I would also hope their schools also taught gun safety, not that it isn't hard to know already... don't point at person.
    • HNIC, on 10/12/2007, -24/+206>I would hope not everyone had a gun

      RTFA and you'll find out! It was only required for each head of the household.
    • spatznick, on 10/12/2007, -222/+27OK, let's make firearms mandatory! LOL
      I think not!
    • psg188, on 10/12/2007, -64/+282I 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.
    • PotatoSalad, on 10/12/2007, -5/+73I 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.
    • ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -57/+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.
    • Infowarmachine, on 10/12/2007, -51/+13@spatznick
      "lets lower crime rates! LOL
      I think not"
    • BradMW, on 10/12/2007, -20/+85So 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.
    • OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 10/12/2007, -49/+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.
    • skeeve, on 10/12/2007, -36/+18Guns don't kill people!
      People kill people!
      Guns protect people from people from people with smaller guns.
    • danep, on 10/12/2007, -40/+175*sigh*... If I had a nickel for every time I said it... repeat after me people

      Correlation does not imply causation.
    • tunacubes, on 10/12/2007, -15/+130You 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!!!
    • jm9206755, on 10/12/2007, -17/+36@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.
    • ubuntuedgy, on 10/12/2007, -17/+102Switzerland 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
    • badriram, on 10/12/2007, -26/+19I have to agree with ilyag.....

      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
    • mikeneilson, on 10/12/2007, -14/+103@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.
    • Bartboy919, on 10/12/2007, -33/+5No murder sure, but how about accidental Gun related deaths?
    • KJay, on 10/12/2007, -7/+62@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/+57And 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.
    • 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).
    • Myko, on 10/12/2007, -19/+8psg188:

      Actually, in the case of Cho stronger gun legislation might have helped - the guy was psychiatric patient, and should not have been able to purchase the weapons in the first place. But everything else you say makes sense 8)
    • catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -20/+47"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.
    • KJay, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24I 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.
    • Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -16/+26 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 *****.
    • DiggasWAttitude, on 10/12/2007, -33/+11psq188- "Just think, VT could have had only 2 deaths instead of 32."

      What Happened: Cho was mentally unstable and was forced to get mental health councelling. Va law prohibits such people from buying guns. Cho was able to buy guns anyway. Cho kills 32 people.

      Your Solution: make it easier to buy guns in Va., easier than walking into a gun store and buy a gun in a state where there is no waiting period. Make it legal to carry a guns everywhere, including school grounds where presently it is illegal.

      Your Logic: instead of fixing the current system to make sure people with mental health problems are properly screened, you think making guns more accessible would have prevented the massacre.

      Your ideas intrigue me. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
    • SavageBlackCat, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5Insert red-state / blue-state argument.
    • danep, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5@mikeneilson (and others)

      I'm not automatically dismissing it because I happen not to agree with it... I'm automatically dismissing it because it's nothing remotely resembling a controlled study. Out of the millions of small towns in the world, there's bound to be a few that display surprising "correlations" like this- it means absolutely nothing other than that there are millions of small towns in the world.

      I'm also dismissing it because the way it is presented is meant to imply that there IS a causal relationship.
    • Kbennett, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5According to the article, Morton Grove has a only a slightly higher crime rate (but still significantly lower than the national average) and this is some huge victory? Go ahead and do a search for both on http://www.bestplaces.net/city/ and you'll see they're comparable on the crime statistics listed. Kennesaw does have a slightly lower rate of property crime. There is no statistically significant difference between these two despite their differences in gun laws.

    • megaton, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3And in other news: There are no princesses in The Magic Kingdom.

      Correlation != causation

      Although it's a thoroughly interesting article, nonetheless! :)
    • Genesee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17"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)
    • khafra, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6It's true the Swiss have privately owned machine guns and low crime. However, they also have socialism; so poor people generally don't feel they have no other options to survive.
    • brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3I would like to see the statistics for gun-inflicted suicide and accidental discharge injuries.

      BTW a small town has an incredible amount of control over its 'crime statistics' if it wants to make a point.
    • charli2na, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5- psg188 "I 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"

      And then another armed innocent bystander shoots the person who just shot Cho in the confusion thinking that person was the shooter, then a police officer rushing to scene shoots that person....

      I am sick of the solution to gun control being more guns. I am no way in support of banning guns as I think violent people will kill regardless of guns, but I really hope there is a better solution.
    • twiztedambience, on 10/12/2007, -12/+11This compares apples to oranges

      city of 20,000 vs a city of 5,000 --- give me a break. I lived in a town of 8,000 once -- everyone knows everyone's name and the police are just fearful of any strangers. I also lived in a 22,000 town and it is noticeable how much less control the police have.

      Even if crime rates went up or down this really is a poor example written to attract internet attention by uninformed diggers. It says nothing about if gun bans work.

      Notice I'm taking no position for or against the banning or allowing of guns here...
    • manova, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10To all of the correlation and causation commenters:

      Correlations lead to one of 3 conclusions: X causes Y, Y causes X, or there is a Z variable. Yes, increased gun ownership could lead to decreased crime, it could be people who do not commit crimes are more likely to legally register their guns (its hard for me to think of a good Y causes X argument), or there could be a Z variable which ilyag was trying to explore. The first thing that jumps out at me is that the IL town has stagnate population growth, while the GA town seems to be a thriving bedroom community for ATL. This does suggest some differences in economic situations.

      So where do we go from here? We could devise some experiments. We could find willing towns and ask them to pass these same gun laws and see what happens. It would be a messy experiment, but at least we should have generalizability.

      More practical, let's use this correlation to make hypothesises. If we take from this data that X causes Y (increased guns causes decreased crime), we should see this in other settings. For example, let's go community to community and look at the correlation of % legal gun ownership and crime rate. Make other predictions that can be tested. As the person said about smoking causes cancer, if the preponderance of evidence points in a certain direction, we can agree about causality even if we only have correlation evidence.

      I will point out a problem with this line of reasoning. We know there is not a single factor that determines crime rate. Therefore, gun ownership must be viewed along with other factors. While lung cancer can happen even if a person has never smoked (10-20% of the time), that must mean that 80-90% of people with lung cancer do smoke. That, along with other evidence, points toward smoking as a major cause, but not the only cause. If you look at the article and look at the crime rates of the two towns, you will see that they are very similar. The article instead points to the percent change as their proof. Once again I point to the population changes (IL is stagnate probably meaning no new jobs, with GA is rapidly growing probably meaning new jobs). So we have to realize that gun ownership is not the only cause in crime rate change, and the goal of future research is to determine if it is a major factor or not.
    • 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.
    • cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11"I am sick of the solution to gun control being more guns. I am no way in support of banning guns as I think violent people will kill regardless of guns, but I really hope there is a better solution."

      I'm sick of people who know nothing of firearms using this argument. If you properly educated, as psg188 mentioned, you know that you must identify your target, and what is beyond, before shooting. There is not a better solution where freedom is involved. An armed society is a polite society.
    • kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2"Do you ever wonder why the crime rate is so low, but the accident rate is so high."

      :)
    • Nogger, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6> Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates on the planet and every home has a MACHINE GUN!

      Iraq has one of the highest murder rates on the planet and every home has a MASCHINE GUN!
    • Bhima, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I used to live there... no one pays attention to that law.
    • Rooster99, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9Why is World-Net-Daily being used as a source for information?? I have read more accurate stuff off my toilet paper! This is grade A garbage!
    • daimposter, on 10/12/2007, -15/+7Switzerland everyone owns a gun in say Switzerland….but they have almost no crimes whether it’s burglary, assault, robbery, vandalism, etc. You can give them nukes and they wouldn’t use it. (why do they have such little crime is another story but in short it’s because very few poor, very few differences in race, and very few religious difference).

      But the US and so many other countries are not that kind of Utopia. Give everybody guns in Detroit, Chicago, New York, LA, Atlanta and you WILL have many more murders. Ban the guns and you will see murders drop. Possession of a gun only allows people ready to snap to have access to a killing machine (see Virginia Tech). If every person in these crime ridden city had guns, so many people on the edge will kill the person they are angry at. When do you have more balls….holding a knife or holding a gun? A knife still requires you to get up close to your ‘target’ and thus you are still endangered.

      Look at countries like the UK and Brazil which just about banned all people from having hand guns and their murder rates dropped. Japan has hardly any deaths by guns and have such low murder rates that it makes the US seem like Darfur. You can even look at cities…..Chicago and NYC became more stringent on guns (I believe outlawing handguns completely) and have seen murders drop to record lows. In fact, NYC had about 2,000 murders a year back 15 to 20 years ago and it’s now around 600 to 700. Chicago had murders near 1,000 a year and have seen it drop to around 550 per year.

      For those of you who said that if everybody had guns, only 2 or 3 VT students would have died before killing the shooter are sadly misunderstanding the consequences of that statement. Sure, only 2 or 3 students would have died at that incident but how many more would have died as a result of normal spats on a day to day situations? You don’t have to look that far back to see that in the old wild west people were killed all the time because they had access to guns all the time and settled disputes with those guns.

      p.s. think about places with the biggest mass murders in recent times…..colorado (columbine), texas (watch tower on a campus in the 60’s), virginia (VT), etc. They seem to be in gun happy states, don’t’ they?? Coincidence??? I think not!
    • mindhaq, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"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."

      Funny. When I said something along those lines in the VT-Shooting comments, I was dugg down as much as you've been dugg up.

      Honestly, I think every American should wear TWO guns at all times.
    • d3c0yn4m3l355, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Indeed this article makes no sense at all. Of course if you ban weapons in 1 tiny city and everywhere around you still can get weapons then what kinda situation do you create. This only shows how crazy law-makers can be when you actually consider such. These actions should be done nation wide to prevent gun-abuse. Like pointed above, its clear that weapon-hugging-countries like the US for obvious reasons also have the highest death-toll. Pointed out that Chicago had 500 deaths related by gun-use, thats 25 times the same amount as the entire Netherlands. To put this in related numbers we have about 20 deaths every year by guns, that would mean that Chicago has 340 million people, yet it only has 2 million. Nah keep hugging those weapons Americans, you'll wipe yourself of the planet, and after that we can re-colonize this nice country again and make something proper of it. You guys seem to be lost in oblivion
    • WiZZLa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@ tunacubes: "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."

      Actually, they weren't zombies, they were aliens that invaded because Earth was peaceful & defenseless. They didn't ban guns either, they destroyed them all because Lisa wished for world peace with the monkey paw they bought while on vacation in Morocco.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehouse_of_Horror_II#The_Monkey.27s_Paw_.28Lisa.27s_Nightmare.29
    • mgross, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4I really don't get it. As a Canadian, I really don't see the what guns are used for except to kill people. I can understand the argument to protect yourself, but really, what is with the obsession about owning something that has the sole purpose of killing. Is it really that necessary to own one?
    • All4not, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@daimposter

      All the places you mentioned are educational institutions which are gun free...
    • TrevorBradley, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8SELECT MAX(GunDeaths) from Cities where FirearmBan = true;

      SELECT MIN(GunDeaths) from Cities where FirearmRequirement = true;

      Look ma! I just wrote a biased article!

      Where are the list of cities that have Firearm Bans and Firearm Requirements?
    • evilbeatfarmer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6daimposter:

      The drop in crime rate in Chicago has more to do with an increased police presence downtown as well as increased property value.

      Several months ago there was a bunch of noise in the local papers about how the crime rate was dropping in the city but rising in the suburbs. The cause? The lower income inhabitants that used to live in the city were being priced out of their neighborhoods and forced to migrate to the cheaper 'burbs. There aren't stricter gun laws in IL than most other places. 30 day waiting period on handguns, photo id registration.. that's about it.

      So.. you're just wrong and misinformed.
    • OhSmashing, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0Instead of comparing two small backwater towns, wouldn't it make more sense to compare larger samples, such as countries? Compare the US to any other broadly similar western capitalist democracy (UK, Germany, France, etc.) and the one with liberal gun ownership, the US, shows *massively* increased number of gun deaths per capita - accidental and deliberate - compared to those without liberal gun ownership.

      If you do not have a gun, you cannot shoot someone. Whilst there are many factors involved in violence and crime, whoever does not see the basic logic of the preceding statement, is simply a moron.

      In a nutshell, while I may feel safer with a gun, I feel much safer if *no-one else has a gun*.
    • Emanji, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9lets 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.
    • Tricycles, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1the statistics are overwhelming that guns are not used for self deffence. For every 100 homicides with a weapon, less then 1% were used in self deffence. Infact in countries where you have to apply for a gun permit, and give your reasoning for having a weapon, and self deffence isn't a valid reason.
    • aDJsavedmylife, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2I'm sorry but answer this question for me.

      Do more people die from being shot in countries where guns are legal?

      1 Yes

      2 No

      The answer is yes, I'm not saying NO ONE gets shot when guns are illegal i'm just saying alot less people will..obviously.

      I live in a city in the UK about the size of Bakersfield, CA. And not ONE person was shot here last year. Proving that you only need guns to defend yourself if guns are legal...It's common sense.
    • goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Switzerland doesn't prove that more guns means more safety. It has mandatory military service, and almost all males serve in the reserves until 30. And many well beyond that. That's why there are lots of guns in Switzerland - because they're in the homes of members of a disciplined and trained reserve militia. Not only that, but the ammunition for those weapons is stored and regularly checked under the rules of the military - that's called regulation. The Swiss case has almost zero relevance to the US.

      Fact is, the US has more than accidental and intentional gun related killings than any other developed country. More than double the country with the second highest number of gun-related deaths (Finland). And no, other countries don't make up for deficit with knife and baseball bat murders. Cultural reasons may come into play, but if you don't think lax gun laws play a big part of the US's high murder rates, you're in fantasy land. Digg me down, but the idea that more guns equals a safer society is dumb.
    • DAaaMan64, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10"It's true the Swiss have privately owned machine guns and low crime. However, they also have socialism; so poor people generally don't feel they have no other options to survive."

      Dude you stupid ass,

      Welfare
      Unemployment
      Foodstamps
      Qwest Cards
      Government funded apartments
      Women Infant Children(WIC) checks

      Not to mention an abundance of job finding companies in every major city.
    • imperium2000, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12What a load of crap statistics.
      Kennesaw, GA http://www.city-data.com/city/Kennesaw-Georgia.html 2002 data
      # 0 murders (0.0 per 100,000)
      # 2 rapes (8.8 per 100,000)
      # 4 robberies (17.6 per 100,000)
      # 19 assaults (83.8 per 100,000)
      # 60 burglaries (264.7 per 100,000)
      # 426 thefts (1879.6 per 100,000)
      # 24 auto thefts (105.9 per 100,000)
      # City-data.com crime index = 133.6

      Morton Grove, IL http://www.city-data.com/city/Morton-Grove-Illinois.html 2002 data:
      Murders 0 per (0 per 100,000 )
      Rapes 2 (8.9 per 100,000)
      Robberies 5 (22.3 per 100,000)
      Assaults 11 (49.0 per 100,000 )
      etc.
      City-data.com crime index (higher means more crime, U.S. average = 325.2) 132.9

      They look the same to me.
    • Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@adjsavedmylife

      Replace the word shot with murder and put a percentage somewhere in that question, then you might have yourself a valid statistic acquire.
      I know UK has a pretty bad knife murder rate and Japan has had a lot of strangulations and body burying too. Also the mayor of Nagasaki was just shot to death a few days ago. Your answer is wrong.
    • falxx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There's lies, damn lies, and statistics. You all know which one this is.
    • strabes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@ilyag: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

      Death statistics provided by the CDC. It's called WISQARS. Look it up yourself. The number of accidental deaths from firearms is minimal compared to the accidental deaths of, say, anything, including children drowning in swimming pools.
    • barktwiggs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/4779755.stm

      What was that about no gun deaths in the UK?
    • alexiscaptive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1only in usa. im sorry but you are so weird.
    • Nysul, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@shakin

      Look at Canada's immigration policies. You basically have to have a phd or a job already lined up to get in, and you don't have alot of illegal immigration, which means we have a lot more disenfranchised people over here in the US. It's Canada's "protection against poverty".
    • HigherLogic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1http://www.metacafe.com/watch/372026/family_guy_gun_safty/

      I was actually looking for the episode where there's a nuclear holocaust and they decide to burn all the guns and get attacked by the Stewie clones, but this one will do :)
    • Vic333, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates on the planet and every home has a MACHINE GUN!"

      I have another theory as to why Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates on the planet. Military training is mandatory. They take every young hormone driven adolescent off the streets and train him. Train him how to be
      disciplined. Train him how to take responsibility. Train him how to work as part of a group. In short, they teach them how to be a responsible citizens.
    • djm91, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1our cemeteries would fill up faster than you could believe.. but at least you wouldn't have to worry about walking home alone at night
    • NumberFour, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6well honestly, it wouldn't matter if the ex-cons had guns. (The mentally handicapped is another story), because if they really wanted to get one, it really wouldn't be that hard. People think less guns=less crimes, but honestly, how many crimes are committed with guns? Compulsory gun ownership would practically stop all crime in its tracks. If you thought the little old lady you were about to rob had a machine gun in her house, are you likely to go in there? No, you'll get your head shot off. If that guy you're thinking of mugging probably has a concealed gun on their person, what are the chances of you mugging him? If everyone had a gun, no one would be stupid enough to try *****.
    • returnofmalv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If we give everyone guns, the stupid people and their children will cull themselves off. Good for protecting your home, good for keeping the stupid at bay.
    • macmcrae, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2What numbskulls don't know about gun violence is the vast majority of it is perpetrated between people who know each other and have no previous criminal record. Most murders don't even involve criminals or gangstas, or bank robbers. For the most part, they are crimes of passion that escalate to murder because guns are so lethal. And another stat that pro gun arguments leave out is in 2004, more than half of the 32,439 Americans who committed suicide used a firearm.(Washington Post Study). That is an incredibly damning stat. Can anyone believe that many screwed up americans off themselves? (0% of people who attempt suicide with drugs live. 90% of gun suicides die. I am not saying outlaw all guns, but at least know the facts and get your arguments straight people.
    • macmcrae, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1^^^^^^^^^My stat should read "90% of attempted suicides involving guns are successful."
    • macmcrae, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1^^^^^^^90% of suicides involving drugs are not successful
    • WileEPeyote, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2-The "everyone should own guns" solution is junk, because not everyone should have guns. There are people out there who should not have guns for various reasons; mental illness/ chemical imbalance, lack of judgement, poor eyesight, poor reflexes, etc. I see people all the time lose their minds over the most insignificant things, do you really want them to have a gun handy.

      -People who can handle the responsibility and can pass multiple checks should be allowed to posses guns. I don't feel this way because of the second ammendment. I think the 2nd ammendment really has very little to do with personal gun ownership and more to do with preventing a military coup, but I don't think responsible people should be limited in anything.

      -Not everyone who advocates gun control wants to "take away" your guns, they just don't want people like the VT shooter to be able to purchase them.

      -Not everyone who owns a gun is a "gun nut". Some people own them for sport/recreation, self-protection/fear, food collection and others.

      -If everyone at VT had owned a gun AND had training (not a safety course, but training) then this MAY have been less bloody, but that is pure speculation and has no place in an actual debate on gun control.
    • mv10, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1No one wants to ban guns.. they just want to control it so crazy people wont get them
    • tunacubes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@Wizzla:

      No, YOU'RE wrong. That DID happen, but not the episode I was refering to.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehouse_of_Horror_XIII

      Do your research before trying to prove me wrong, *****.
  • mrveritas, on 10/12/2007, -32/+90This is a great example of the facts versus the popular PC fiction we see all the time.
    • PurgueFlantar, on 10/12/2007, -34/+8In your right wing backwards ways you are rushing to arm every citizen of the US, have you asked yourself if everyone WANTS to be armed?

      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?
    • ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -21/+4What this is a great example of is of people's refusal to understand that correlation does not imply causation. Just because you believe passionately in a particular conclusion does not mean that you can ignore rules of logic to try to prove you're right.

      Using this fallacious logic, one can prove just about anything.
    • vuke69, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36"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.
    • obijohn, on 10/12/2007, -20/+4@purgueflantar
      "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?"

      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."

      It has nothing to do with "rising up against a corrupt government", much to the consternation of the left. It also has nothing to do with hunting or individual protection, much to the consternation of the right.
    • ubuntuedgy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7@purguflanter

      "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, we are trying to say that some people cannot read (you are one of them). The Constitution is cut-and-dry. Well regulated militias and the right to bear arms (so we can keep the government in check).
      • LarsHolmberg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I see one corrupt government, but nobody rising up against it...
    • 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.
    • maabus, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3When did digg turn republican?

      Anyone else find it infuriating that certain people, namely our conservative executive branch, will pick and choose when to treat the constitution like it's infallible--typically when it comes to something as unimportant as gun-control--and yet it will completely ignore the constitution when it comes to other amendments, specifically amendments that play a larger role in most of our lives than guns...

      Think about how blatantly some of other constitutional rights have been ignored:

      Amendment 1-Freedom of the press (one small example--the suppression of global-warming related writing in academic journals).
      Amendment 4-Illegal search and seizure (e.g. illegal wiretapping).
      Amendment 5-Trial and Punishment (e.g. Guantanamo Bay)
      Amendment 8-Cruel and unusual punishment (see above)...

      Just think about how unimportant this issue of gun control is when it comes to these other amendments, which are being ignored, Whether you are for or against gun control.
    • KaserPro, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2yes the facts are very clear:

      2,027 per 100,000 (all crimes) in the gun toting town

      compared to 2,268 per 100,000 (again all crimes)

      a whole .2% percent less.

      not only does this not account for class wealth and levels of social cohesion, it fails to tell you what crimes are being committed. for example half of all the crimes in one city could be "violent crimes".

      use your brains people. everyone having guns is not the only factor.
    • lazn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16@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)
    • texpundit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"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.
    • cdavies, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Actually, it's a good example of how to lie with statistics.

      Lets start with the town that now has mandatory ownership of guns. That town was described in 1981 as having a crime rate significantly above the "national average". This is lie number one. In actual fact, if the town only had ~20 less crimes that year, they would have been below the "national average".

      In the paragraph above, I put "national average" in inverted commas, because this is lie number two. They cite the national average for 2005, and would have you believe it is the national average for the country in 1981. In actuality, the crime rate per 100,000 people in 1981 was 5,603. So, in reality the crime rate for "gun town" was less than the national average in 1981.

      Lie number three is the conclusion they draw here, that the town has gone from being crime ridden to being peaceful. In reality, the town has simply benefited from the national decrease in crime during the reporting period. In 1981, the town had a crime rate of 77% the national average, and in 2005 it has a crime rate of 70% of the national average, considering the population, this shift is not statistically significant.

      The fourth lie is that we are invited to conclude that the town with mandatory gun ownership is much less crime infested that the town that bans guns. In reality, the towns are basically at parity. The article doesn't remind you, but the gun free town is also below the national average in its crime rate. The difference in the crime rate represents, in real terms, only about 50 crimes. Statistical noise. Ditto with the cite that the crime rate increased by 15% after the ban.

      The fifth, and biggest, lie is that we are invited to believe that any drop in crime (and, remember there was no statistically significant drop) was due to gun ownership. In reality, in small towns such as these, it was far more likely to be due to a decrease in alcohol related dangerous driving during the 90s. Small towns simply don't suffer from violent crime problems on any significant scale.

      If you put critical thinking before ideology, you can see right through this kind of story every time.
  • pezguy, on 10/12/2007, -26/+83This 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.
    • roughridersfan, on 10/12/2007, -9/+46How is a statistic - Zero gun deaths in 25 years since passing the requirement - anecdotal?
    • Infowarmachine, on 10/12/2007, -7/+38its 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
    • hikaruzero, on 10/12/2007, -16/+14I'm starting to get kind of concerned here. There are many conservatives out there that make the charge that all liberals want to restrict availability to firearms and other dangerous weapons. Yet those same conservatives want to prevent any country which doesn't currently have a nuclear arsenal from obtaining one, while the liberals largely say "if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander." So who's really who? Because seriously, if Iran wants nukes, they're going to get nukes whether we like it or not. So why not treat the country like a country of adults? Because you know ... when people are treated like children, they tend to ACT like children.

      I personally am EXTREMELY liberal (by the common definition) -- liberal enough to actually agree that firearms ought not to be restricted. But maybe there is an explaination for me ... maybe I'm just *so* liberal that I'm coming full-circle into the conservative realm ...
    • ShouldBeStudyin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17@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.
    • jm9206755, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@hikaruzero

      Sounds like you're a moderate. Idiots on both sides of the isle have created the false dichotomy of "liberal vs. conservative". There IS a middle ground. A middle ground based on logic and science whereas both extremes have their little political footballs they like to throw around rather than doing anything useful.
    • jm9206755, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@shouldbestudyin

      But nothing else changed dramatically from the year before to the year after both laws were passed and the main statistical effects of the legislation occurred within the first couple of years after being passed. Unless everyone in both towns was kidnapped by aliens and a whole new population moved in it doesn't matter. Not only that but this would also count as a longitudinal study since they are comparing crime rates over 25 years.
    • geoffp, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Oh, no -- not the "government is the biggest monopoly evarr" thing again. When corporate leadership is democratically elected by their customers, you'll have a valid comparison. Until then, it's apples and oranges.
    • cudgel13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@ hika

      I think that most in favor of the right to bear arms also agree that there should be a reasonable check for legal gun ownership. For instance, criminals and/or mentally insane folk might be restricted. If you put the nuclear proliferation ban in that context one could say that Iran et al might be considered mentally insane. It's when rational thinking nations (in terms of nuking someone) question the restraint of another nation that the proliferation issue arises.

      IMHO
    • jm9206755, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Indeed. Just because we have the right to bear arms doesn't mean we should be stupid about it. One should require a permit, all guns sold with a waiting period, and to get a permit should require you to attend basic firearm safety classes as well as regular refresher courses.
    • KJay, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1From where I'm standing, the moderates look like liberals too, hell, so do some of the "conservatives". Retroaction is where it's at.
    • ChromaticDragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@hikaruzero

      This isn't hard to explain.

      Most of the nations in the world support the idea that no new nations should develop nuclear weapons. They also would like to see the current nuclear powers drop their stockpiles and ultimately get rid of them as well.

      The reason many feel our unbridled support of Israel is such a problem is because we simply look the other way concerning that power's nuclear program. The issue here is that it, in spirit at least, contradicts the ideals of the treaties at hand. If they can do it, why not everyone else.

      It's usually the "everyone else" that is most worrisome.

      You see, if everyone had a gun and 45% of the population were suicidal or enormously irrational, gun deaths or injuries would likely go up, not down. If a few major world powers with sane leaders have nuclear weapons, we may not have nuclear war. If a country (eg. NK) is eagerly willing to sell knowledge/weapons to any buyer (read terrorist group or countries with such affinities) or if a country with known history of supporting terrorist groups (Iran and to a lesser degree Pak) gets them there is a very serious concern here. Not so much that they'll use them directly, but they will give/sell them to those that would. Deterrence simply cannot work with those all too eager to die in the process.

      Pak seems to have shown themselves responsible here.

      But there are many reasons for concern regarding Iran and nuclear weapons.

      I do agree with your prediction that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. All the polls I've seen suggest a large majority of the population there supports this goal. It seems it would take some very serious diplomacy to offset this force.

    • blackhawk919, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@hikaruzero says:
      "I'm starting to get kind of concerned here. There are many conservatives out there that make the charge that all liberals want to restrict availability to firearms and other dangerous weapons. Yet those same conservatives want to prevent any country which doesn't currently have a nuclear arsenal from obtaining one, while the liberals largely say "if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander." So who's really who? Because seriously, if Iran wants nukes, they're going to get nukes whether we like it or not. So why not treat the country like a country of adults? Because you know ... when people are treated like children, they tend to ACT like children."

      Wow, your comparison is way off here. Our attempts to prevent Iran(and also the attempts by the majority of the rest of the world) from obtaining a nuclear arsenal is comparable to attempting to prevent CRIMINALS from obtaining guns, not honest citizens owning guns to reduce crime.
    • xDibblerx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7JM9206755 writes: "Indeed. Just because we have the right to bear arms doesn't mean we should be stupid about it. One should require a permit, all guns sold with a waiting period, and to get a permit should require you to attend basic firearm safety classes as well as regular refresher courses."

      But.... Since this is a constitutional right, if we start putting restrictions on it we will then be setting ourselves up for restrictions on other rights. How about a "Free Speech Permit" that requires us to take classes on government regulations or require government approval and a waiting period before we talk to crowds larger than 3. You can argue all you want but it's the exact same thing.
    • khafra, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1@blackhawk919: By your obviously Randian ethics, a criminal would be one who initiates force, right? So let's compare some statistics.

      Countries invaded by Iran post WW-II : 0
      Countries invaded by the US post WW-II : too many to list here

      Nukes used by the US against enemies: twice
      Nukes used by Iran against enemies: zero

      WMDs used by the US against enemies who did not use WMDs first: Nukes , possible use of borderline chemical weapons in Vietnam. Several known cases of biological weapon tests in the US.

      WMDs used by Iran against enemy who did not use WMDs first: None


      Tell me again who the "dangerous criminal who shouldn't have a gun" is in this analogy?
    • splinechaser, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Disclaimer-I support the right to arm bears.

      Two points here. (boy howdy is this gonna get me DUGG down)

      Cho LEGALLY bought the guns used in the killings. As a corollary to that, if guns had not been for sale, 32 people would still be alive and a crazy korean would be an impotent rage filled crazy korean. So one can assume if he bought it legally, then a ban on gun ownership would have stopped him from buying it legally.

      Of course that doesn't say anything about the "saturday night special" he could have bought on the streets.

      Oh, and the government holding all the guns? Nazi Germany had pieces of flair. Look, ***** you and your gun toting ass. Go to Washington. Hold your gun up high in front of the Whitehouse make sure they see it. Let them know you HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. Yes, go do that *****.

      What kind of ***** fallacy do you live by that you think you can stand up to the government with your little gun? Whether we ALL have guns or whether the government has ALL the guns, it doesn't matter. The military has MORE guns with MORE power than any of you are likely to ever have. The military answers to the Government. It's a stupid argument to think for one minute that you, having guns, in some way keeps us SAFER from the government.

      Your right to bear arms was created in much the same way Switzerland has an armed populace. It was to protect the country as a whole. To stop a totalitarian government from within if necessary. Well here it is! This is almost as totalitarian as its ever been. Where ARE YOU?! With your big gun!? How are you stopping a government out of control, and getting more so? Do you only want to stand up to the government if they are going to take away your gun?

      If there were no guns here, there would be much fewer gun deaths. In a generation or two, the desire to hold and fondle a gun would go away. Simply making MORE people have guns is the most American ideal ever. It's backwards and serves no purpose to keep people safe. Everyone having a gun means everyone can kill everyone else. I realise you are part of the culture of death, and that may not scare you in any way... perhaps when you are done shooting people with your legally obtained handgun, you can pop a couple rounds into your own head.

      The solution to gun violence is not more ***** guns. You can't stand up to the government with the one's you've got. So what other reasons do you have? you aren't protecting the homeland. When's the last time you killed a swarthy muslim that was going to blow himself up? When's the last time a swarthy muslim blew himself up in America? What the hell are you doing with your guns?

      Legal handguns in the hands of a crazy person legally, just killed 32 people. Yes! Guns should be legal. More dead people! yay! jackass.

      /crazy assed rant

      Disclaimer - I support your decision to kill people.
    • Mirag3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@khafra
      Shut up. You know nothing of geopolitics.

      P.S.

      Number of religious based persecution incidents sanctioned by government:
      US - none (any small number negligible)
      Iran - COUNTRY IS FOUNDED ON POLICY
  • EbowUK, on 10/12/2007, -14/+69If only such an idea worked in an entire country!

    Oh, hi Switzerland.
    • hrshgn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+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.
    • hrshgn, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6It's also funny to note that at this very moment the Swiss government wants to do away with the requirement of military personnel to keep the ammunition at home. This is in light of some cases of people going postal with their assault rifle over the last few year.
      Different cultures, different approaches.

      I just can't understand how people can feel comfortable living in a society where everyone carries a gun.
    • HUKI365, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3While yes, you can't compare the two - the basic principle is the same. Why is there a low crime rate? Because (most) bad guys think "hey there will be a rifle in that house".

      There will always be some bad guys who will ignore this risk - but I'd say ore bad guys are deterred from committing crime than are committing crimes *just* because they have guns.
    • gsnedders, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7No, there will be a rifle THAT CAN'T BE LEGALLY USED. That includes self-defence.
    • wacki, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@hrshgn

      "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"

      You use "we" like you are swiss yet you imply that the cans of ammo are the only ammo they have access to. Ammo is freely available and even subsidized by the swiss government. So to imply that little tin foil seal keeps people from accessing any ammo is quite a stretch.
    • rhavenn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The swiss have a lower crime rate because the average socio-economic standing is far higher then in the US. The government takes far better care of it's lower class and therefore they don't see the need to rob, murder or pillage. Granted, it's a far more socialist state then the US and people here would whine to high heaven if taxes were hiked or they had to pay for others.

      Protecting your home with a gun only works if you're home to protect it. It doesn't prevent you from being robbed when you're not home or having someone pull a gun in a dark alley. A gun already in hand is far easier to fire then a gun in a holster, pocket or purse.
    • 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)
    • drafhk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2You know they can't use it, I know they can't use it, but does the average robber know that? Probably not.

      Also, I don't care what restrictions are placed on me, if someone breaks in my house trying to kill me, I'm going to kill him no matter what.
    • Gryffydd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Maybe their lack of poverty is a result of the low crime rate, not the other way around?
    • eam52guy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Actually, almost every swiss criminal would know that. They're not stupid. Switzerland has a very different culture to the US and making the kind of assumptions that you'rre making isn't valid.

      Another disclaimer: I'm not against the right be bear arms. If you think there's not a shred of validity in what you're about to read, then do digg me down.

      However, in the UK no one would bat an eye-lid over something like this. The great majority of towns of a similar size won't have had a gun death in the last 25 years (that's before hand-guns were banned (1997) incidentelly). If there has been one, it's the exception rather than the rule. If one person gets shot in London, or Birmingham, it's national news. In the basis of that I'm not sure you can make too strong the claims about the correlation between guns and crime-rates. Maybe in the US, but not as an absolute. What's noticeable as an outsider who's visited lots of places with laws to the effect of the second ammendment (and visited the US) is that america is a culture obsessed with guns. The swiss don't talk about it, obsess over it, post pictures of their collections on internet forums, and neither do any of the other (ostensibly civilized) cultures. No where else do they permeate the zeitgeist in quite the way that I witnessed in the US. I have no idea whether or not that's a bad thing.

      Certainly its crimerates aren't as good as Switzerlands (lots of guns) or the UK (far fewer guns). But Switzerland is a small place with among the toughest border and immigration control in the world, and the UK is an island so border control is easier too. Guns may have little to do with accounting for the disparity in crime statistics. Hey, border control may have little to do with it either, i'm just postulating.

      When I was in the US most recently, it was around the time when the nude scenes were found in GTA. I thought I'd walked in on the apocalypse. So here's a game which involves shooting, murder, theft, drug taking, gang culture, and extreme violent rampages. Cool, it's on the shelves in Wal-Mart. But as soon as some naked breasts are in there, it's as if the sky is falling in and everyone is getting pious and trying to burn it. There's a huge and frankly unjustifiable disparity between the national responses to violence and to nudity/sex. It's this kind of thing that I would hazard is more accountable for the crime rate differences people are discussing here.

      I'm painting with a broad brush here, for sure, but when one talks about 'culture' and is comparing crime statistics at a national scale, it's difficult not to. Like i said, I'm not anti second ammendment, and I have no particularly strong feelings either way which is why I hope i can at least try and be slightly objective in my observations. They're just the observations of one guy. I don't think I went in with any pre-conceptions as what I found genuinely did suprise me.

      In conclusion, I think it's a question of cultural attitude, not ownership statistics.
    • danandre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@logic6

      I completely agree.
      I don't think gun-crime is directly associated with gun-control, but rather with the culture and general welfare of the country. In Norway, even cops aren't allowed to wear guns, and we have a strict set of rules and regulations if you want to own a gun. Most people who owns guns/rifles in Norway use them for hunting, not for killing.
  • nsummy, on 10/12/2007, -37/+8I hate to point this out, but having a murder rate of 0% in a town of 5000 is not a big deal at all. The town that I'm from has 4000 people and hasn't had a murder since it started over 100 years ago! Show me a big city that is like this and you may have a case. And in a town that small, what exactly composes the crime rate? DWI, Public Intox, Driving without a License, kids vandalizing? I would say this has nothing to do with owning a gun
    • knoit911, on 10/12/2007, -3/+39RTFA "the population has skyrocketed to 28,189. " - that is the population in 2005. it was 5000 back when the law was made.
    • takamalak, on 10/12/2007, -25/+3Wow, 28,189 people. BFD.
    • 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.
  • DuhStupid, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4You respect my *****, I'll respect your *****.

  • robotbling, on 10/12/2007, -38/+8but how many accidental gun deaths take place annually in "Gun Town USA" compared to the town with the ban?
    • cynicalirony, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Then take it as a Darwinian filter.
    • boostedfc3s, on 10/12/2007, -5/+48NONE, RTFA
    • robotbling, on 10/12/2007, -20/+7not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender. that doesn't sound like it covers accidents, the wording is ambiguous, probably on purpose to support your rightwing agenda
    • nottidredd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24RTFA there have been no deaths in Gun Town USA for 25 years
    • TheWhiteEwok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9there is little gun related violence at all. The last one i read about was a cop nailed a guy in the head after the cop was shot in the chest a few times by the person (cop had vest on)
    • skeeve, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@TheWhiteEwok, if that's true that directly contradicts the article. That would imply that there has been some gun related violence. Do you live in Kennesaw or near by? Where are you getting your information from? A newspaper article would be awesome.
    • Hacbarton, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I'm pro-choice, pro-stem cell research, love Colbert, and an atheist (making me one of the last people to be called "rightwing" by anyone) but you cant deny these kind of statistics (its true for many, many cities all over the world....http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/opinion/16reynolds.html?ex=1326603600&en=3b3fcfadc7e7f096&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss.....). I hate this two-wing politics for this very reason: people will not listen to the facts when it's associated with their opposing wing (both the left and right are guilty). Gun control sounds nice, but when the facts say otherwise, listen to them!
    • GoatMonkey2112, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"there have been no deaths in Gun Town USA for 25 years"

      That's a good place to retire.
    • Myko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2hacbarton: as a liberal myself I think gun control is still important. Not necessarily banning guns but screening people, mandatory waiting periods, and safety classes are good ideas and all part of "gun control".
  • ChicknBot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20That's it, I am buying a gun next week...
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • ArmandoM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Making sure people know you are concealing a weapon could get you into some pretty serious legal problems too.

      Concealed means concealed! Wave it around and you're going to get thrown in jail quick. Brag about the fact that you're carrying and many will take that as a threat and call the police. Have somebody that doesn't like you? If they know, or even suspect that you have a gun on you, all they have to do is tell the police that you brandished it. Even if you didn't, when they search you and find your weapon they're going to believe that you did.
    • ThePikey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5unibomber999 = "Buy it, train with it, and accept responsibility for it."

      Kind of like a puppy.

      BTW, interesting screen name for someone promoting gun safety. ;)
    • alarion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I always liked the black and orange "for sale" type window/tree signs that read:

      "Intruders will be shot. Survivors will be shot again."

      I think that advertises it enough :)
  • madloop, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10I have no idea if this story is legitimate or if it raises valid questions or not. Perhaps it does. But, as a rule, I never to believe any story I see on worldnetdaily. They spin everything out of all context to annoy liberals and soothe their right-wing readers. That is not news.
    • 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.
  • Rutje, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8Ehhm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_relationship ?
    • sovereign3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Care to elaborate?
      (i.e. find the "spurious relationship")
    • Lisztman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Like what? Say something other than posting a link to bloody Wikipedia.

      We have a strong (though not airtight) relationship here.
      When A increases, B decreases;
      and
      When A decreases, B increases.

      Though that is not irrefutable evidence, it still is pretty compelling.
    • skeeve, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1What he's saying is a statistical relationship between the two cities does not in any way imply causality. And I'd have to agree. You need much more data than just two cities to show causality. I'm sure there are plenty of medium-sized cities that have stricter gun-laws (at least stricter than requiring the head of house to own one) that have also not had any gun-related violence in a long time.
    • jm9206755, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You also have to look at the degree of change which in the case of Kennesaw was quite dramatic.....
    • Rutje, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What i meant:
      1. a sample of two cities does not imply any validity
      2. even if there was any validity, that doesn't imply causality between the two values.
    • Lisztman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Rutje:

      1) What do you mean, imply? It DOES imply. It just doesn't prove.
      True, the sample set that is given in this article is very small. However, this does not mean that the observations are without any merit. Unfortunately, you have very few places that are willing to enact such drastic ordinances, for either position. This forces the sample set to be small. We must work with what we have.
      2) Yes. To an extent. Again, keep in mind that we have here examples of an "argument" and its contraposition being verified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition
      While, realistically, we can't with 100% certainty declare a direct cause-and-effect relationship, the limited logical conclusion is very strong. Of course, I say "limited" because there very well may be other factors involved which link A and B that may be taken as a universal given. (i.e. all members of the population value their own life individually over virtually all other things). Regardless of the presence of this additional factor or not, you're still presented with strong evidence.
  • mavranos, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5Ooh, guns, guns, guns! Come on, Sal! The Tigers are playing — tonight! I never miss a game.
    • ColonelJessup, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1LOL! I wish I could digg you up 1000 times for that!
  • NicePaul, on 10/12/2007, -21/+2Ban cars and car crime would skyrocket when people still drive.
    Legalise speeding and car crime would decrease.
    It's nothing to do with guns, its to do with what is and isn't classified as a crime for their statistics.
    • Gryffydd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13What does one town classify as illegal that the other one doesn't?
    • TimOgg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I think murder is a crime whatever. I havent heard where it is legal, have you?
    • ghandi69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Ummm, there are still laws on how you use your gun.. its not like shooting someone is no longer classified as a crime....
    • Smuikas, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3"I think murder is a crime whatever. I havent [sic] heard where it is legal, have you?"

      Iraq.
    • mnic001, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0@timogg:
      There are definitely places where murder is legal. *cough* Iraq *cough*


      edit: d'oh, looks like smuikas beat me to it. Oh well.
    • armbar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Killing while at war isn't a murder, it's a killing. Murder is a legal term.
  • 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.
    • skeeve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2That's an admirable stance. But it doesn't take into account that you still have to question the science and the statistics. Statistics can be used to show many things. Hence the common joke, "An economic analyst and goes into a conference with the president to discuss a study. The analyst shows the president a spreadsheet full of various statistics. The president says, "What do all these numbers mean?" and the analyst replies in a whisper, "What would you like them to mean Mr. President?"
  • jrstinkfish, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4The town is not "murder-free". Also, it says no "fatal shootings". And crime rates between the towns are not much different. Those who keep saying RTFA need to RTFA themselves.
    • TheWhiteEwok, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8do you live in kennesaw? I do. And i read the local paper daily. They report immediately about things like murder. I havent read about a murder in ... well ... evar.
    • jm9206755, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4But if no murders are committed with guns the original point still stands. Try getting an education. Help out those critical thinking skills.
  • FiP0, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Humm... anecdotal evidence is the best kind of evidence !
  • 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.
    • JSager, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4Right, because you can compare an affluent suburb to an inner city filled with horrible urban poverty...
    • guinsu, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Yeah, those Somalians are known world-wide for their politeness for sure.
    • b00le, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4"An armed society is a polite society." Strange idea of manners, that they should come from mortal fear. Nor do Iraq or Sudan strike me as frightfully well-mannered. An armed society is a barbarian society; civilised people are not armed. Your precious 2nd amendment doesn't say what you think it says (or are you a member of a well-ordered militia?). If it really did say that every citizen could own whatever weapons he liked, it would be stupid, and you would have to repeal it. Americans have to stop organising their society according to infantile fantasies -- religion, capitalism, survivalism, TV westerns... That unpleasant burning smell? That's reality, and it's just outside.

      (ducks...)
    • KuJo6784, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ guinsu
      Yeah because it's the civilians of Somalia that have the weapons and are killing the poor of that nation.

      Think before you speak.
    • darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Dugg for the "Beyond This Horizon" reference. Heinlein actually touches on the concept of social politeness and risk of death in "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" as well but the point of the two books is the same, you are a lot less likely to mouth off to someone if they are going to challenge you to a dual (risking death or serious injury) or toss you out of an air lock with out a space suit.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • BabyWookie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Good going, quoting that militant fascist Heinlein.... Politeness at gun point. That's just awesome! What kind of a scary ***** world do you right-wing gun nuts live in?
    • mgrucker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@BabyWookie

      The real one.
    • trilioth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@BabyWookie
      Most conservatives would call me a liberal, but I guess that goes to show that people can't be so easily classified.

      It's like Chris rock said, "You are conservative about some issues and liberal about other issues." (That might not be an exact quote.)

      You reference to Heinlein seems to be baseless. Would you care to explain the reasons for all the accusations you hold against him?
  • JSager, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3It also doesn't say anything about how many people have died because of gun accidents, or how many people have been wounded.
  • mtrip, on 10/12/2007, -15/+10Note to self, go to Guntown and murder somebody. I've always wanted to be the first at something.
    • mtrip, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2btw, just kidding. I don't want to end up on the front page of digg as that "guy who threatened guntown on the internet and got arrested."
    • BradMW, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4You have made the first completely tasteless and idiotic comment I have read today, congratulations.
    • 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."
  • meggani, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4How about we go halfway between and require everyone to carry airsoft guns!
    • spearce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1LOLOOLLLOL> that's the best idea I've heard all day. airsoft guns are strong enough to make some one run in the other direction and quit what ever they're doing but not powerful enough to kill.
  • gonzone, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3"I have no idea if this story is legitimate" - madloop
    From World Nut Daily?
    Well of course it's legit!
    Bat Boy told me so!
  • MajorBlud, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5IANAL, but is it really legal for this town in Illinois to outlaw all guns? Is it OK for them to disregard the Second Amendment completely?

    If it is OK for them to make and enforce their own laws that conflict with the Constituion, couldn't they make it legal to smoke crack rock even though the Feds say it's illegal?
    • bgoodin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Marijuana remains illegal under Federal law. However, several states (California, Montana, etc...) have approved it's citizens to possess it for medical reasons. Not the bill of rights... but a case where federal and state law are in direct conflict. There have even been people arrested by Federal agents who were legally growing marijuana for medical use in their state.
    • pizzaman100, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@MajorBlud

      According to the article the IL town banned handguns only, not all guns. Presumably you could still have a rifle or shotgun. So they probably got around it by banning just one type of gun, not all.
    • Spuy767, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0LOLZ, you said, I anal.
  • 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.
    • darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Depends on how it is written - if it still allows for hunting rifles or shotguns then it will pass the second amendment as shown by numerous court cases upholding the restrictions on types of firearms.
  • Langford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm not disputing the possibility that the gun ownership requirements is related to lack of murders, but I am curious how much of the population actually owns a gun. Not that it's important or anything, but I doubt they are checking to make sure people comply with the requirement. The local population probably has a good idea of the actual percentages involved.
    • spearce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the percentage of the population that owns guns might be big enough to make crooks think twice before breaking into your house.
      Not everyone should or wants to be armed (and that will never change) but enough people (decent law abiding citizens) should be allowed to with ease to make the bad guys go else where to do their dirty work.
  • reed311, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9If everyone was made to carry a firearm, we would have several thousand people dying every year from police officers. If the police were aware that the majority of people carried firearms, they would be more apt to pull and fire their weapon if they even suspected that a person may have a gun. Remember, people have been killed by police for simply brandishing a wallet.
    • mtrip, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Inaccurate. Black people have been shot for pulling out their wallets. Let's not go overstating the facts here.
    • BradMW, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Curious to know how much less police-intervention would be necessary though.
    • spearce, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1if the cops aren't getting called because the bad guys aren't doing bad things then the point is moot.
    • alcornmj, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1While that may seem a valid possibility, it hasn't happened in Kennesaw. Apparently the benefit has far outweighed the risk.
  • mythandros, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Without knowing why Morton Grove passed the ordinance banning guns, this article is utterly useless. At best, it's a NRA propaganda piece. I haven't done a whole lot of research but I have already found out that the population of Morton Grove has shrunk by 1.1% since the year 2000. The question we have to ask is why are people trying to get out? What precipitated this outflux? Is the gun ban a desperate attempt to close the barn door after the horses have already gotten out? What was the rate of increase of crime for the years preceeding the gun ban? If the rate of increase in the crime rate slowed after the gun ban, then the gun ban actually had beneficial effects.

    These are all details that were conveniently omitted from the article linked and which directly address the intentions of the author.
    • GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Morton Grove, IL is liberal. I can throw a stone from my porch and it will land in Morton Grove. So I know what the village is like.

      Morton Grove is like anytown, USA. It has parents. It had an unusual event that involved gun violence. It had residents dramatically overreact. It had a government that enacted an ordinance led by a town mob.

      This kind of thing happens all the time in anytown, USA.
    • alcornmj, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1Could be that after watching the crime rate increase and being forbidden from providing adequate protection for their families, the smart money left.
  • gordonj, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3This is a great article for all those who advocate increasing guns to decrease gun violence. There are lots of examples of places in the world where lots of guns are owned and yet gun crime is low. To me however that is less of an indicator about whether the presence of guns will lead to gun violence, and more of a statement about the general mental state of the place in question. I am aware of an awful lot of fear and paranoia in America at the moment, whether it is terrorists, war, religious conflict etc... In this sort of psychological background, I personally don't think an increase in guns will lead to a decrease in gun violence/accidents. While they are tragic events, all it takes is 1 unidentified nut job in a million people who can get their hands on a gun and run riot like in VT. More guns just means more guns in the hands of nuts!
    • alcornmj, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1It also makes any violent actions by those nuts of much shorter duration and lethality.
  • tdk2fe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'd like to know the demographics of this town. For example, is it a town with a lot of older people? A lot of families raising kids? Because I know that where i'm from (St. Louis), we have concealed weapons laws which allow people to take their gun with them wherever they go (except certain buildings in the city). However, a week doesn't pass on the news without hearing about some kids playing with dads gun and one shooting the other in the face.
    • TheWhiteEwok, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Demographics for K-town are as follows:

      Mainly elderly, mainly drunks, mainly blue collar workers. It really isnt a bad town @ all ... just F'in country as all get out.
  • macattk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7One is in a somewhate rural community outside of Atlanta, not even a real suburb. Then, there's Morton Grove, and urban area of North Chicago. Not equal to compare.

    • morenoiv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Is there not a fairly good-sized 4 year university in Kennesaw? I'm pretty sure there is because my sister went there for a year, and unless I was dreaming, it was there. And BTW, I live in a rural farming community in S.Ga. Kennesaw is no rural community. That is ridiculous.
    • Spuy767, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is, I started nailing my high school history teacher when i graduated and she went to kennesaw state to get her degree.
  • glonq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3FWIW, this is what wiki has to say about Kennesaw's gun 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).
  • steveneven, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Wow, now I'm totally convinced. Thanks WorldNutDaily! My god, gun fetishists realllly need to take some basic science.
    • BradMW, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I don't see how anyone could possibly argue against more extensive background checks coupled with a lift of virtually all gun bans.
  • surlygrad, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Come on, this town is tiny and shouldn't be taken as an example. Look at NYC, which has around 7 homicides per 100,000 people annually and a population of over 8 million. And it's very difficult to legally keep a firearm, let alone a handgun.
    • chadseld, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Yeah. That's why all the murderers keep _illegal_ ones. The rest of the people are sheep.
  • mt066, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't think people are worried about gun owners who take everything totally seriously and are totally responsible. If you have a town full of very responsible people, you can give them guns, bombs, tanks, whatever and there will be no issues. It's idiots that everyone on the gun restriction side are worried about, and there are plenty of them out there. You might say I'm pretty on-the-fence about the whole issue. I just think we should address the real concerns of people.
  • nopointinnames, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I live in Kennesaw and I will tell you why there are no shootings. The town is primarily middle age and white. Very few minorities just until the past few years. People just don't have a reason to shoot people. It's also not a poor town, people generally have money. Look at Detroit, poor, mostly minorities. They have shootings daily.
    • stickywheelz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0I've been to Kennesaw. Its now more of a suburb of Atlanta, They have a university(Kennesaw State) and big shopping mall, etc. Just like ever other town in the USA. I would even speculate that demographic would be reasonable similar to Blacksburg VA.
  • Bobd314, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I live in Kennesaw, and though the law exists, its not really inforced that much. I know for a fact that my aunt, who lives alone in her own house, does not own a gun.
  • patience, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4The solution: Crazy kids like this should be taken to massage parlor where they can be
    loved long time.

    This guy needed sex. It would taken away the edge and mellowed him out.
  • lpetrazickis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0What works in a specific town of 5,000 or even 25,000 does not necessarily scale up to a city. It's also a fairly small sample -- you could surely find a neighbourhood of NYC with 25,000 residents, 0 guns, and 0 murders.
  • yellowsnowcone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I live in a city (Hong Kong) where there are strict gun laws. Basically, you can't own one, unless you go to the gun club and keep your gun there.

    And there is hardly any crime. You walk the streets at any hour. It was the same in Taiwan when I lived there.
    • jm9206755, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Well...when there is a hefty fine for spitting on the sidewalk one could attribute the lack of crime to just generally draconian laws.
    • c0y0t3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Economics cause crime. Psychos too, sure.

      But availability of guns doesn't "cause" the crimes. Just because I can buy a gun doesn't mean I am inclined to rob someone with it - unless I am in put into a desperate position by economic conditions, desperate enough to take the risk of incarceration.

      Increase that deterrent to the risk of IMMEDIATE RETALIATION - that's what you have with a potentially armed citizenry - and those economic conditions must become far more desperate before one is inclined to take so much more risk.

      If Hong Kong has a low crime rate, it may be because there are fewer people on the cusps of poverty. How many homeless are there in Hong Kong, how many families losing their homes because of bank foreclosure, how much stress is there on the populace, leading to addiction, health problems, and violence? Seems like less maybe... Maybe more police? Maybe more money to go around, or less assholes at the top ***** on the people at the bottom...

      This guy was a nut, he could have used a bomb or a chain saw. No gun ban is going to prevent paranoid whack jobs from killing people.
    • GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Wait, are all these Chow Yun Fat cop movies fake then? It seems like they're handing out guns in Hong Kong.
    • darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The same applies to Japan and in fact it is rare for the police to even wield firearms unless there is a specific need for them. This does make for some interesting situations though as you are more likely to be mugged by a knife than a firearm due to the fact that since they are so rare if people see them they are assumed to be replica airsoft guns.
    • pu-z, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hi! Gun owner in Scandinavia here (Hand gun and shotgun owner). We have a strict policy of using the firearms as hunting or sports tools only. In addition to all the sports shooters and hunters, there are a lot of H&K G3, H&K MP5 and Glock 17 in the homes, due to the national guard. We arenot allowed to carry loaded firearms on the body, firearms are to be unloaded at all times except at the range and on a hunt and it has to be locked up when not in use. To own a firearm, you have to be licensed hunter, this implies a rather hard course and test or member of a gun club, this means 10 hours of safety training and a test. Then, after 6 months of proving yourself as a sports shooter by attending the club, you can apply for a ownership license at the police. When you check out at the club, no criminal record or no mental health record, you are allowed to buy a firearm in whatever the caliber you use for sports shooting.

      And we have a much lower gun crime rate than the US, even though there are hundreds of thousands of guns around in the homes.

      Now, how can this be? It is, of course, the same reason that some towns in the US can be gun-ridden and crime free, while others can be gun-free and crime ridden. Socioeconomic reasons, simple as that.

      Also, the mentality is totally different. I, as many many others, was drafted to the military (draft is compulsory here) and learned good weapons manners. When ever the Americans came over on NATO exercise, they