Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia Crime Rate Plummets

Oh no! A mandatory gun law for the head of household is required for residence in Kennesaw. Well at least we know that this plan works. Crime rate went down. Police jobs went down. The horror.

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?...

Chuck_Baldwin

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts

Actually it isn't mandatory. They might say it is, but the exceptions in the law render it, in effect, a meaningless law. It's nothing more than political grandstanding.

Oh no! A mandatory gun law for the head of household is required for residence in Kennesaw. Well at least we know that this plan works. Crime rate went down. Police jobs went down. The horror.

[quote="Chuck_Baldwin"]

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?...

LOXO7

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts

you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?...

LOXO7

That's because it has 13-fvcking-thousand people. Who cares about a town with 13,000 people?

I've heard about this but it's a small town. Have a similar set of laws in a major city with a high crime rate and then we can see the results.

Correlation does not equate to causation. Also, crime in general has been going down all across the United States. l4dak47

Either way, this is proof that more guns doesn't lead to more violence.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"]Correlation does not equate to causation. Also, crime in general has been going down all across the United States. leviathan91

Either way, this is proof that more guns doesn't lead to more violence.

Not necessarily it isn't.

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.Kennesaw City Ordinance Sec 34-21

Kennesaw's population is ~30,000 not 13,000.

Sure, there are exemptions, but the law does state it is required to own a weapon. Crime has dropped overall 50% up to 1005. I live not far from Kennesaw and it is never in the news as far as crime compared to other areas of Metro Atlanta that are constantly in the news for robbery, home invasions, shootings and the like. Why is that?

[quote="Kennesaw City Ordinance Sec 34-21"]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.WhiteKnight77

Sure, there are exemptions, but the law does state it is required to own a weapon.

Unless you oppose owning a firearm. Which renders it a moot and meaningless law.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

Oh no! A mandatory gun law for the head of household is required for residence in Kennesaw. Well at least we know that this plan works. Crime rate went down. Police jobs went down. The horror.

[quote="Chuck_Baldwin"]

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?...

sSubZerOo

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts

True. It's ok to mandate the ability to send people to the hospital, but it's not ok to mandate that they be covered for their hospital visits.

lol

[quote="Kennesaw City Ordinance Sec 34-21"]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.WhiteKnight77

Kennesaw's population is ~30,000 not 13,000.

Sure, there are exemptions, but the law does state it is required to own a weapon. Crime has dropped overall 50% up to 1005. I live not far from Kennesaw and it is never in the news as far as crime compared to other areas of Metro Atlanta that are constantly in the news for robbery, home invasions, shootings and the like. Why is that?

You're required to own a weapon?

but i thought the big bad government cant make you buy stuff

You're required to own a weapon?

but i thought the big bad government cant make you buy stuff

Aljosa23

So...er, does this mean that Republicans would agree with a socialized healthcare system if the only treatment was shooting the patient?

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

You're required to own a weapon?

but i thought the big bad government cant make you buy stuff

l4dak47

I fully expect Airshocker to come in here and condemn them for forcing us to...pfffftttttt, hahaha, yea right. l4dak47

The link references a 1997 article from New American Magazine that studies crime between 1980-1996 with a population of 13,000.

As someone who 100% supports gun ownership in rural environments, this article simply does not provide enough data to support it's conclusion. I understand that crime rate has decreased with in the time span of 1982 to 1997 but the crime rate in general has decreased during the 90's in the U.S. across the board. A simple control group with be neighboring counties with contrary gun ownership legislation, having different results.

While the logic does make sense, there are other potentially influential factors this particular source doesn't account for.

The crime rate is down everywhere over the past 16 years.

If I am to believe that it is because of this in whereever, Georgia then I should also believe that it is for the exact opposite reason in the numerous other places that have strengthened guns laws in whereever, USA.

Which scenario would be true? Oversimplification for the win!!

I like guns n' shiit. Not sure I'd go for a mandate even if it lowers crime, though. Freedom is a cool bro.

ALSO, THIS THREAD TITLE REEKS OFPOST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC.

Looks like we should start arming everybody in Camden.

[quote="Kennesaw City Ordinance Sec 34-21"]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.WhiteKnight77

Kennesaw's population is ~30,000 not 13,000.

Sure, there are exemptions, but the law does state it is required to own a weapon. Crime has dropped overall 50% up to 1005. I live not far from Kennesaw and it is never in the news as far as crime compared to other areas of Metro Atlanta that are constantly in the news for robbery, home invasions, shootings and the like. Why is that?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="LOXO7"]

Oh no! A mandatory gun law for the head of household is required for residence in Kennesaw. Well at least we know that this plan works. Crime rate went down. Police jobs went down. The horror.

[quote="Chuck_Baldwin"]

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?...

Netherscourge

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts

True. It's ok to mandate the ability to send people to the hospital, but it's not ok to mandate that they be covered for their hospital visits.

lol

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] ... Wait what.. People are against mandates for healthcare, but they are perfectly fine with mandates for gun ownership.. What?LOXO7

True. It's ok to mandate the ability to send people to the hospital, but it's not ok to mandate that they be covered for their hospital visits.

lol

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] ... Wait what.. People are against mandates for healthcare, but they are perfectly fine with mandates for gun ownership.. What?LOXO7

True. It's ok to mandate the ability to send people to the hospital, but it's not ok to mandate that they be covered for their hospital visits.

lol

So do you support the idea that government can require you to purchase a certain good or service?

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] ... Wait what.. People are against mandates for healthcare, but they are perfectly fine with mandates for gun ownership.. What?LOXO7

True. It's ok to mandate the ability to send people to the hospital, but it's not ok to mandate that they be covered for their hospital visits.

lol

Nothing to stop you from moving out of the US. You could move to Somalia where I am pretty sure they don't have Obamacare.

1. I've seen this thread at least 3 times in the past.
2. The city's population is around 30k, not 13k, and it's part of the Atlanta metro area. There's nearly a million people living in Cobb County.
3. People still don't understand that socio-demographics of varying places has more to do with gun crime than anything else. If guns in Kennesaw were illegal and everyone had one in downtown Atlanta, there'd still be many shootings in Atlanta and virtually none in Kennesaw. If everyone had a gun in Kennesaw and they were banned in Atlanta, there'd still be many shootings in Atlanta and virtually none in Kennesaw.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

True. It's ok to mandate the ability to send people to the hospital, but it's not ok to mandate that they be covered for their hospital visits.

lol

l4dak47

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="LOXO7"] Except that not everyone lives in Kennesaw, GA. If you don't like it move. Or say it's against your religion. But, Obamacare is for everyone living in the US. If you don't like it, move. Or say it's against your religion.. no wait. You can't do that. :roll:LOXO7

Obamacare has exceptions, bro.

Stop being a doofus.

Be consistent like me.

"Mandates r gai."

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

True. It's ok to mandate the ability to send people to the hospital, but it's not ok to mandate that they be covered for their hospital visits.

lol

worlock77

So do you support the idea that government can require you to purchase a certain good or service?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] Except that not everyone lives in Kennesaw, GA. If you don't like it move. Or say it's against your religion. But, Obamacare is for everyone living in the US. If you don't like it, move. Or say it's against your religion.. no wait. You can't do that. :roll:LOXO7

So do you support the idea that government can require you to purchase a certain good or service?

You support mandates you like, but oppose mandates you don't like based upon the fact that you do not like mandates--UNLESS YOU ARE ADMITTING YOU DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM W/ MANDATES.

You big gov't pig.

2. The city's population is around 30k, not 13kGamerForca

The OP links to an article from 1997, when the city's population was 13,000.

The OP links to an article from 1997

worlock77

lolol

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] Except that not everyone lives in Kennesaw, GA. If you don't like it move. Or say it's against your religion. But, Obamacare is for everyone living in the US. If you don't like it, move. Or say it's against your religion.. no wait. You can't do that. :roll:LOXO7

So do you support the idea that government can require you to purchase a certain good or service?

There are exceptions in Obamacare as well. Regardless of any exceptions you cannot think that one mandate requiring people to buy something is ok while condemning another. At least not without some serious cognative dissonance.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

True. It's ok to mandate the ability to send people to the hospital, but it's not ok to mandate that they be covered for their hospital visits.

lol

SUD123456

Nothing to stop you from moving out of the US. You could move to Somalia where I am pretty sure they don't have Obamacare.

Beautiful. This is quite remarkable as well considering the Atlanta metropolitan area is filled with violent hoodlums.

Beautiful. This is quite remarkable as well considering the Atlanta metropolitan area is filled with violent hoodlums.

kingkong0124

1. I've seen this thread at least 3 times in the past.
2. The city's population is around 30k, not 13k, and it's part of the Atlanta metro area. There's nearly a million people living in Cobb County.
3. People still don't understand that socio-demographics of varying places has more to do with gun crime than anything else. If guns in Kennesaw were illegal and everyone had one in downtown Atlanta, there'd still be many shootings in Atlanta and virtually none in Kennesaw. If everyone had a gun in Kennesaw and they were banned in Atlanta, there'd still be many shootings in Atlanta and virtually none in Kennesaw.

GamerForca

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]

Beautiful. This is quite remarkable as well considering the Atlanta metropolitan area is filled with violent hoodlums.

l4dak47

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

So do you support the idea that government can require you to purchase a certain good or service?

worlock77

There are exceptions in Obamacare as well. Regardless of any exceptions you cannot think that one mandate requiring people to buy something is ok while condemning another. At least not without some serious cognative dissonance.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The OP links to an article from 1997

coolbeans90

lolol