In the thread about the Virginia Tech shooting Grinler stated that if the thread became about guns that he would lock it, so here's you opportunity to vent your spleen, and I'll even start it off.

I live in a rural area where the good ole boys define gun control as having a steady hand. But these good ole boys also have a practical appreciation for their firearms, generations of the people have hunted in the foothills and mountains where I live. These people don't depend on their firearms to feed them as they did in the past, but the marksmanship and safety skills are still taught in the family tradition. My point here is that this is the only practical application for owning a gun...unless you intend on shooting someone.

Keeping a firearm for protection has become a way of life for an ever increasing number of people, and most anyone can purchase a firearm for that purpose. Unfortunately this purchase does not require the same type of training that you have to have to pass the written and driving test for a drivers license. Perhaps requiring a certificate of completion from a gun safety course would be good requirement for anyone who wants to purchase a firearm, then again licensed teens are killing themselves and others street racing.

What are your thoughts here? Do we need to make firearms harder to get? Do we need to get rid of them? Do we allow people to have permits to carry a loaded hand gun?



Just a thought here, how many of you are aware that car accidents kill more people per capita than firearms. And how many of you are aware that physicians kill more people than cars?

Moderator Edit: Moved topic to more appropriate forum. ~ Animal

I'm not a gun owner - never have been and never will be.

Having said that, though, I don't beleive it is as simple as "guns are the problem" at all.

From what is coming out about the shooter at Va. Tech., he was a tragedy looking for a place to happen. If not using a gun, he may have built some bombs, or lit some fires, or driven a vehicle through a crowd, or...


Even more possibly paradoxical to some, is the possibility that guns could have been the solution in this situation. Va. Tech. is a "guns free zone", and even those licensed to carry a firearm are restricted from doing so on the campus. If even one student with such a license had been there, he or she could have ended the shooting spree and might have saved a number of lives.


Just some thoughts to ponder.

I think we better postpone this. I think we already have a topic on guns in the speak easy that we can talk about this but its up to the mods to merge it or whatever.

I do want to talk more on it though.

What topic? Postpone it? Now is the time to address this issue.



John Who, I had expected to be blasted by the usual "guns should be banned" sentiment, it is refreshing to see a realistic view of the problem.

Speaking of paradoxical situations, here is a community concerned enough to create a gun free zone with this campus yet Virginia has some of the most lax laws pertaining to purchasing a firearm. I simple search for a record was all that was required, he made his purchase and was out the door with his hand gun in about the same amount of time it takes to do the average persons grocery shopping. I do own firearms and believe that others should maintain that right as well, but I do believe that there should be some standardization adopted nationwide regarding the requirements for purchasing a firearm. In addition to an extensive back ground check I believe that there should be a standardized gun safety course required for each potential applicant to to show proof of having successfully passed. I also believe that similar documentation should be required for the purchase of ammunition.

I appreciate your take on this, and allow me to be devil's advocate if I may....who do you propose pay for that type of training and documentation? Built-in to the price of the gun? Make the seller responsible for the cost, the Government? etc. etc.

I live in the UK and the attitude to guns is very different here. I was watching the news last night and they were interviewing some students that attended Virginia Tech, and they said that they just wished that everyone had been carrying guns around on that day and prevented all the killings by taking him down.

At first I thought that everyone carrying guns is such a bad idea, and almost the opposite to a solution, but then I thought that this just shows how different the attitudes to guns in the UK and the USA is.

There is not going to be a ban on gun carrying in America as far as I can see, the right to bear arms is to deeply imprinted in American culture for that to be a realistic solution. However, something needs to be done about the problem. There needs to be stricter control on guns, and yes this will cost extra, but I think the problem will only get worse without some sort of control. Something needs to be done to avoid more loss of life.

Of course, this is all my opinion and as someone who lives outside the USA and only sees the affects of guns on the news, may be a little one sided, for that I'm sorry.

Josh

While I agree that stricter guidelines need to be enacted for gun ownership, I think it should be in the hands of the individual State. If a person doesn't like the way firearm ownership is treated by that State, then move to another.

Placing that kind of control in the hands of the Federal Gov is a recipe for disaster and unnecessary control.

I own guns, and I enjoy using them for hunting and target practice. I also enjoy the security that guns provide.

And let's be honest, do we have any idea what the alternative would truly be like? It is easy to make assumptions and say, "Well, we couldn't allow college students, who have a concealed carry permit, to carry on campus. Think of the chaos!" Yet, there is no data to suggest this would be the case. We will never know if the outcome would have changed had the students been allowed to carry. Perhaps it is time we tried to gather such data.

If I or any of my friends had been allowed to pack on that campus, the moment this idiot had to reload, he would have been finished. Max handgun capacity is about 20 rounds, without having a hideously long clip. So he had to reload at least once, probably more. Properly implemented, guns would have been the solution!

Regards,
bg04

I completely agree with you. Well said.

Just to add....you get the government to approve a gun ban, and watch all the shootings that happen as a result of the ban. Ever heard the phrase, "you can have my gun when you pry it from my dead, cold hands..." Some people feel very strongly about having their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT taken away.

Oh, and on another note, please don't listen to anything Rosie O'Donnell has to say about this situation.

Perhaps in this situation, a well-trained gun owner could indeed have stopped the killer before so many lives were lost.

But just to throw this out: for every situation like this where a gun owner might have been needed, how many more incidents would there be on a gun-filled campus?

Also, I am not convinced that just "putting down" the assailant would have necessarily been so easy. The real world has many factors to consider. A gun-filled campus might erupt into a gun battle, bullets randomly spraying everywhere.

"Gun-filled"? Allowing those few folks who have gun permits to carry them on campus wouldn't really create a "gun-filled" environment, would it? Is the rest of the surrounding area "gun-filled"?

Otherwise, it is a reasonable question. Are there other campuses around the country that do not restrict legal carrying of licensed weapons? What has happened there?



"might erupt into a gun battle" - possibly. Do we have any data to support that supposition? Has it happened before? What were the circumstances?

We don't know for sure what would have happened if any of the other people on the campus, legally carrying a weapon, had used it to protect themselves. We do know what happened without that possibility though.

I'm not sure either way what would have happened. Just offering up some speculation. I believe that there are a lot of people carrying licensed guns that would use them responsibly. Are there some that would not? I suspect that there is. However, I'm not ready to condemn all of them on speculation that a few may be irresponsible.

Being from Canada and seeing what a fiasco a federal gun registry can become ($2.0 BILLION and counting), stricter laws will only affect the law abiding citizens who own and have registered their guns. Let's face it, if the latest reports on the shooter are correct, he had a plan and would have executed that plan by whatever means necessary. The guns he used were purchased legally stricter laws simply would have forced him to use other means to acquire what he needed.
Just my humble opinion.

John Who, sorry, I should have explained that a bit better. I was thinking "cross-thread," since the "Guns...are they the problem?" and the "Virginia Tech" threads are so closely related.


When you asked,


I was thinking of this:


There are a fair amount of people who believe that social stability would be greater if the majority of the population was "responsibly" armed. So, I was tossing out a few possibilities that might ensue if such a premise were ever put into practice.

Since colleges are almost entirely populated with legal adults, and if we were to continue with this premise in mind, a college campus might then become "gun-filled."

But we are getting at the same thing, I think. I was trying to point out that there are so many variables involved, it is difficult if not impossible to make predictions on similar situations in the future. However, I think that while 18-22 year olds are considered to be legal adults, they may not have the tools to make the best decisions when it comes to situations such as this. Thus, by having a large number of armed 20 year olds in a concentrated area, a bad situation could quickly become worse.

Yeah, possibly.

But the recent historical facts do not support that, do they? I mean, since the establishment of the country, it has been legal for virtually everyone to have a gun, and how many times have instances such as you describe ever happened, other than perhaps back in the "lawless" days of the wild, wild west?

Historical facts? What other event could we possibly compare this to? None of these type of situations are the same. As far as I know, none have happened on campuses where weapons were allowed or were present among random students. I am just saying that the more variables you introduce, the harder it is to predict the outcome of an already unpredictable situation.

I agree, although I wonder -

can an unpredictiable situation become less predictable than unpredictable?

(See my signature for help with that )

Not really going to point out much here but the store in Roanoke where he got the gun is a little shady but then again so is everything in the neighborhood. I know ive shoped there and I lived there last year. But he got them legally since he had no record (due to people not standing up for themselves and pressing charges, hate to say it but its true) and there is no statute in VA on people who voluntarily enter a mental institution not being able to posses a firearm. Just a little of my 2 pennies on the whole subject

BTW : Permits aren't really accepted in this area neither is gun registration. It's just not our way, too much government involvement. I own 2 guns which are legal (a SKS .223 and a 30-06) and intend to add a SKS or AR-15 in 308 (sniper rifle) to the collection. The SKS wasnt when I bought it (30 round clip and collapse able stock)but it is now thanks to the fact the Brady Bill is no longer in effect

For someone who doesn't have a gun and likely never will, I do agree that it's not guns that are the problem, but the people who use them.

But as another member said, we have to be trained and licenced prior to driving a car - and surely this couldn't be such a bad thing to have all would-be gun owners have to do something similar? And I admit I was stunned to read that even ex-mental patients can obtain fire arms. I'm afraid that should send up 'warning bells' until someone with the proper credentials is willing to assure the person has no tendency to be violent or doesn't require daily meds in order to function without being a danger to him or herself or others.

Rifles and other hunting weapons can be used for bad things, true - but at least one hopes they were purchased for a different intent. But while I may be missing something here, hand-guns are purchased for one reason only, and that's not to bring down a bear.

I cringed when I read a different post about "if all the kids had been armed" re the slaughter at the college. Even trained police officers may have had difficulty with this beserk person, let alone terrified young people shooting willy-nilly out of terror.

Rather than 'arming all the kids', I'd far rather see trained experts hired to guard schools/students and other safety measures put in place - what a horrible thing to even contemplate in our world, but keeping our children safe at all costs seems the wiser alternative surely.

Actually I had to use a .45 magnum revolver for deer season when I messed up my shoulder. But it was the size and weight of 2 bricks. Most modern handguns have that one purpose I agree but there are a few hunting pistols left. Lightweight weapons (like those used) serve only said purpose because they dont pack the accuracy or firepower to take down a large animal. If they did either they would weigh 10+ lbs or have recoil so bad it would break your wrists.

Interesting comments. I don't own a gun either, and don't need to; I do all my hunting with a bow.

Just to be a little sick and twisted (or a lot, just depends on the person that I talk to) a crossbow or bow can be just as deadly as a gun, it all depends on the operator.

The only problem here, is that driving a car is a privilege, so the government has a right to put any restrictions on it, that they want.
Owning a gun, is a right, guaranteed by the Constitution, therefore the government has no business sticking their nose, into it..

You are missing something.
A lot of people hunt with handguns.
This also includes, bear hunting.
In fact, every year, the number of handgun hunters goes up.

But a 'right'? I realize that statement is apparently true, but gracious, does a person who has been convicted of murders and served his or her time still have the 'right' to own a gun when they are released from prison? Or someone who is medically highly unstable/violent have the 'right' to own a gun, as well? If so, wow, that's an interesting 'right' - sigh.

Actually, even here in Canada, we have several friends that own guns, mostly for hunting. And a friend that owns two un-licensed hand-guns ... and I understand completely why she does. (Just because I don't own one nor want one honestly doesn't make me totally 'anti-gun' - just anti-gun in the wrong hands). But I also have a cousin that, if she were to own a gun of any sort, I'd be scared not just for those I love but total strangers. And our government, thank dod, won't allow her to have one. I know governments can be a pain in the bum at times, but there are other times when whether we like all their decisions or not, one of those decisions could save the life of someone you or I love.

I do stand corrected about the hand-guns ... honestly had no idea that people used hand-guns to kill animals.
(I did say I may 'be missing something' - grin ... but to be honest, my poor relatives don't even tell me when they go hunting as I'm afraid I disgraced our family when I was a kid by jumping up and yelling, "Run Bambi run!" at just the 'wrong' moment).

Personal note to 'oldfart' - I burst out laughing when I read your name - wonderful! Never met an 'old fart' that I didn't like - huge grin. And although it's been decades since I last tried using a cross bow, I do remember it takes an incredible amount of skill and strenth. And I know I'm likely to get 'blasted' here for saying this, it somehow seems a tad more 'sportmanship' to hunt with a bow versus a gun?

Technically speaking Felons have no rights they cannot vote or own a gun. Here in Virginia we have a program called EXILE (dont ask me why its called that) where if a felon is caught with a weapon they are supposed to got to prison for life. Im not gonna say it happens every time but thats what the program is. As for the mentally unstable people if I am not mistaken those committed involuntarily arent allowed to possess a gun after release. But as in this case those who voluntarily commit themselves are allowed to.

It could also get someone you, or I love, killed.
Home invasion.....criminal has every intention of killing homeowner.....government took homeowners gun.....homeowner, and everyone in the house is killed!!


Project Exile

Project Exile, U.S. Attorney's Office -- Eastern District of Virginia

I am not anti gun by any means,as I am a licenced gun collector.Here we are at the mercy of any criminal,since the citizen is forbidden to own a Gun.We are sitting ducks,as they say.My opinion is that everybody who wants to own a Gun,to protect one's property and himself and Family should be able to do so.

I read about Japan who wanted to invade the American mainland in WW11.Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto deprecated invading the USA saying words to the effect that we cannot invade America because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.It is still your choice to own a gun,but sadly our choice has been taken away.

My opinion is that you will never be able to ban Guns.I think it is utterly silly to even contemplate.The NRA has over 4 million Members,so I think what would help is to make it harder to obtain a gun licence.
The big flaw which I believe lies in the criteria to obtain a Gun licence is that you can be an absolute nutter,and providing you have no criminal record,no problem in getting one.I think what must be included is to suppy all your Medical History also.So there is more chance of picking up someone with a mental health problem,and show some indication that a particular person with that Illness could be prone to Homocidal Tendencies.I think that supplying Medical History is a valid point.IMHO.

Ok...the title of this thread is "Are guns the problem?", the answer...of course not. People kill others with what ever they choose. In this case it was a pair of hand guns, but it could have been just as effective if he had walked into that classroom with a bomb strapped to his chest and blew everyone away.

There has been speculation here about what the outcome would have been if there had been an armed student thrown into the mix. Frankly the idea of some untrained student carrying a loaded hand gun with the intentions of playing the lone ranger is a scary thought. Target shooting isn't going to prepare this person for shooting a live person who is going to be firing back, and in a crisis situation like this may not have the presence of mind to observe muzzle discipline and just start blasting away. I don't believe arming the general populous is the answer.

I would still like to see some of the stiffer registration requirements and waiting periods currently in practice adopted by all states. I would also like to see a requirement that all those applying for the purchase of a firearm be able to show certification for passing a gun safety course. In addition I would also like to see similar documentation required for purchasing ammunition. The state would have to adopt a curriculum for the course and provide some recognized form of certification. If a state can afford to pursue legislation to make it illegal for parents to spank their children then they should be able to afford funds to make or change legislation like this and leave parenting to parents and let society police their actions.

There is a misconception that has been mentioned here regarding the second amendment to the constitution regarding the right to bare arms. Courts have consistently held that the amendment's language--"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"--only gives the states the right to maintain well-regulated militias, which since 1903 have taken the form of the National Guard.

I don't think so.
The national Guard, is not considered, the militia
Your understanding of the term "militia", and that of the Supreme Court, differ.
An excert taken from the U.S. v. Miller (1939) case, in which the Court also takes the opportunity to define the "militia" considered by the Founding Fathers in creating the Second Amendment.

Remember, I'm not a gun owner, but often in these conversations I read things that prompt me to respond.



That is making an assumption that the licensed gun holder wouldn't act reasonably. It is just as possible that he or she would make a decision that would ultimately have saved a number of lives. The assumption that they would "play the lone ranger" might be a little insulting to all the legal gun carriers out there.





Or, he or she might calmly take the person out. Do any of us know how we might act in such a situation?

Even the sick person at Va. Tech., from what I've heard, may not have been simply "blasting away", but may have been somewhat selecting his "targets of opportunity".


I can't speak for others, but I'm certainly not calling for that. However, allowing those that are already "armed", to continue to be so, is a different concept, in my opinion.

The "answer"? Probably not.

But, something that might have made a difference? Possibly.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1364

What Is a Militia, Anyway?

Just as news media have been reluctant to challenge the constitutional claims of the N.R.A., some have also failed to question the claims of private paramilitary groups to be the "militias" whose right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

While it's been argued that the Second Amendment's reference to "well-regulated militia" is ambiguous, the Constitution itself is quite explicit about what a militia is: Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power

to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; [and] to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Article II, Section 2 makes the president the commander-in-chief of the militias when called into service of the United States--a fact that no doubt would dismay many self-proclaimed militia members.

In Presser v. Illinois (1886), a case which is still good law today, the Supreme Court ruled that "citizens of the United States have no right to associate together to drill or parade with arms, independent of any act of Congress or state law." In Vietnamese Fishermen v. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (1982), a federal district court in Texas ruled, citing Presser, that "the Second Amendment does not imply any general constitutional right for individuals to bear arms or form private armies."

The militias mandated in the Constitution have, since 1903, taken the form of the National Guard. While many so-called militia leaders claim to be constitutionalists, their reading of the Constitution is dubious: The constitutional militias were formed to execute federal laws and suppress insurrections; many latter-day militias advocate ignoring federal laws and preparing for insurrection.

As for the first part of your post; we have no idea how many incidents there would be. We have NO DATA to suggest that it would be anarchy. And I think it is pretty obvious that the current system is failing. If you want to explore this, I would suggest More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott. Interestingly, there were 450,000 gun-related crimes in the US in 1999 (I think that was the year), however 2,000,000 crimes were averted in the same year as a result of gun ownership.

It is true that a firefight is never a clean and easy situation. But 3 men with covering fire (triangulated to assure no friendly casualties) could allow one man to perch and eliminate the target. One of the first things learned with firearms is to know your target and beyond. Keep a brick building behind the perp and pave the way for a precise shot. It only takes one.

Regards,
bg04

Suppress insurrection from whom? They were formed to fight the Autocratic rule of the British, and there perceived right to control and tax those whom they didn't represent.

Is it so unbelievable that the same path may become necessary at some point in the future? Wasn't it the insurrection against "The Government" that opened the door for the progress made in this country? If a law is found to be tyrranous and unjust, are we as a people obligated to follow said law? I would say not, that level of communal defiance is the only reason we exist today. If they try to put you under their rule by force, you have to be prepared to fight back.

I will defend what I said.

IT TOOK THE POLICE OVER A HOUR TO GET THEIR!

I didnt say kids!

I said 21 year olds who have been through training and have a permit to carry a firearm.

Like it or lump it at 21 you CAN get a permit to carry a gun. You just cant carry it everywhere. Nor should you have to. In schools their should be trained security in every hall at ALL times during classes.

My friend who is going into the law enforcement will get one in the next 6 months when he turns 21.

If you dont want 21 year old "kids" being able to protect themselves them you better make SURE!!!! that there is somebody who can! In the classrooms or in the halls.

What happened makes me sick. How long it took the police and how the college handled it. 31 people died not counting the idiot who killed them then shot himself.

And think if even the counselors would have had a gun they could have shot the idiot as soon as he came in their classroom.

But no we should all be afraid of guns. They had no way to fight back. The police were not their. You cant tell me that having a gun whether by a trained 21 year old or by a teacher would have not been a help.

True having all those guns and people in mass panic could be bad. Or deadly with people firing everywhere.

But at 21 they would know their enemy.

Then goes the thing where if all people had guns how deadly little fights could be. If you take away the guns as you have just seen the enemy WILL always get one no matter what the government does. Making its people defenseless is NOT the answer.

We need more security in those schools.

I may go to college in the next couple of years. And I dont want to feel insecure because this could happen again and their are very few security officers on a HUGE campus.

You're speculating on my speculation. Seriously...For those of us who have never been under live fire you will never know till it happens just how well you will maintain your composure. We have professional organizations that spend hundreds of hours practicing techniques to handle situations like this. This training takes over in actual events and these people react with this training, afterward they may spaz out, but not until the action is over. Who know for sure though, there might have been a student there will the iron will and resolve to have accomplished this, then again I might have won the lottery if I had purchased a ticket last week.

In post #26 I was just pointing out, that the National Guard, according to the Supreme Court, is not the militia.
What a lower court "feels", has no bearing on that, as they are subject to the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Are you sure,

or are you speculating?

To those who think it would be ok just for everyone to own a gun consider:

While yes a robber might think before robbing an elderly lady because she might be toting a .45 semi-auto pistol we must consider the the robber is fairly sane as he can make a common sense judgement on weather the risk outwieghs the payoff. Consider the school shooter, he just has lost all grip on sense and want to mindlessly kill. It doesnt matter if kids own guns or carry them to someone who has no common sense or logical thinking.

Also consider the scenario there is a shooter on campus several people have been shot, The first thing I wouldn't think of is "ohh gee a shooter I'll go grab my gun and end the situation right away"

Consider that if one person steps up to the plate and pulls out his own gun to take out the shooter, what if someone else sees this person with a gun, with all of the confusion he/she could easily be mistaken as the shooter.

Lastly consider that most people aren't ready to handel a weapon aim it and take another human life if neccisary, think of the after mental effects to those who can't take those situations!

So while I am full on the belief for our 2nd amendment right, I don't believe we need to all carry guns with us all the time everywhere.

On a side note, CGM I think you need ot think that even though there was a lapse in the time getting there and getting to the other shooting you must consider that there was a possibility of miscommunicationn and the police believe they were investigating a crime scene, and normally with a crime the perpatrator leaves the scene and to not return. It was very tragic nonetheless.

Arming everyone is chaos waiting for a place to happen. We have law enforcement and military teams that train constantly for situations like this and others. These people train for hundreds of hours so that when they go into action their training will take over and they will execute their role by reflex, they won't over think the situation, they will do as they were trained. One of the problems in a confined space is muzzle discipline, making sure that your line of fire doesn't traverse across your team or the people they are trying to protect. Can you imagine a classroom full of say thirty students, someone pulls a gun and five others respond by producing their guns all pointing from different locations at the same target. Yeah this is going to get the first shooters attention, but what is going to happen if those other five people open fire on this shooter. These five shooters could be just as lethal as the first shooter with collateral damage.

As I said before, guns are not the problem, and arming everyone is not the answer. Tighter gun control laws aren't the answer either, this guy could have simply used a bomb.

I also have to say arming every single person is not the way to go.

I do however wonder, why the law is that you are aloud to carry a gun. I do not live in America so can someone please explain to me what the need to carry a weapon is?

This is an actual large debate of the people on what specificly this passage entitles
But the most widely accepted idea is that the people have a right to defend ones own self.

First its not a law. Laws can be changed very easily . It is an Amendment to the Constitution . Its very difficult to change the basis on which a nation was founded.

Secondly it does not state that the citizens are allowed to carry guns it merely states that every citizen is allowed to own a gun.

The second Amendment Gives U.S. citizens the right to keep and bear arms (i.e weapons, not just guns). This amendment was put in place so that if the government turned on the people or if there were a military coup, the American people would have the means to defend themselves.


Seafox14

There isn't a law that allows you to carry a gun, but there are some cities or states that will issue a permit to carry a concealed firearm. A currier that transports large sums of money or gems worth large amounts of money would be a type of need.

Mostly we don't hear about the people who carry a weapon daily. Only when someone uses that weapon for offense instead of defense does this subject come under scrutiny. No press is given to the thousands upon thousands of crimes averted by the responsible use of firearms.



I agree dc3. Just as not everyone should be allowed to wear spandex , many should not be entrusted with the safe employment of a firearm.

I wonder where we can go from here? Will we have to slide back to the point where many are armed and only the proficient live? I pray not.

After making my statement regarding arming the populous let me just throw this out there.

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?C...;o=21&part=

25 Years Murder-free in "Gun Town USA" [ Post 295428733 ]

Category: News & Opinion (General) Topic: Constitution & Civil Liberties
Synopsis: Crime rate plummeted after law required firearms for residents
Source: WND
Published: April 19, 2007 Author: WND
For Education and Discussion Only. Not for Commercial Use.



25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'


Crime rate plummeted after law required firearms for residents

Posted: April 19, 2007

1:52 p.m. Eastern



© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

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

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding
to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance
requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite
dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents,
not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim,
attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage
of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly
lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242
but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national
average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005
– show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed
to 28,189.

ha!! I was just getting ready to say something about Kennesaw as I live 10 miles away from there. We Atlantan's (conservatives anyway) will always bring up this city and situation. It is the perfect example of the truth and facts that cannot be argued with. Happy citizens too. I know quite a few of them.

Another thing about the Second Amendment is this:

It gives you the right to a shotgun. Not a semi-automatic weapon, not an automatic weapon or any military grade wepaon. During the time of the constitution the fore-fathers had no idea what weapons to expect.

Another thing to note is this: the procedure that the killer went through to obtain the gun was completely legal.

So a person could lets say carry a knife to defend themselves or a rocket launcher? And would a person need a right or permit to carry a knife?

Then everyone would carry a gun. If this happened all across the USA I think crime would go down.

Of course if there were no physotics carrying them, etc.

With respect,whats the point? Are you suggesting that kennesaw is a lawful town, or this idea should be adopted throughout the US? I shudder to think, trying this in the Bronx.In the Western World,estimates are that 1 in 6 of the population suffer from some kind of Mental health problem,so a lot of screening would be necessary,I would imagine.Maybe the Second Amendment needs to be amended to bring it in line with the 21st Century.I have no problems with law abiding citizens with guns.It's the small lunatic few, that gives guns a bad name.Guns, themselves are not a problem.Only in the wrong hands.IMHO.

How would you amend the 2nd amendment? How do you draw the line to say who is mentally unstable? Who is capable of making the determination that another individual is mentally unstable? Doctors? Well, according to your little stat, 1 of every 6 doctors is mentally unstable, so they obviously can't make the determination.

It's not my little stat,it's comes from your "National institute of Mental Health"
I would suggest that most Doctors,would be able to diagnose their own mental state.
Are you saying you can land on the Moon,but can't change the Constitution?
The main point of my post is that guns on their own pose no more risk than a leather Belt you could strangle someone with.


http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/numbers.cfm#Intro