- don
|
Joined: 4/23/2009
Msg: 1 | |
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/4/2009 8:13:06 AM |
I used to live in Kennesaw, GA where there was an extremely high crime rate. They passed a law saying every house/home was required to have a gun and the crime rate dropped significantly.
Criminals don't want to break into a house when they know there is a gun in it. (If Grandma or Janie is packin' heat, they don't mess with em)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia
Gun law
On May 1, 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-1a] requiring every head of household to maintain a firearm together 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 ordinance.
Reports of resulting burglary-rate statistics
Gary Kleck, a criminologist and gun-control critic attributes a drop of 89% in the residential burglary rate to the law. 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 of America). Others have challenged this conclusion, however, citing data showing that the number of burglaries in the 10 years spanning the passing of the ordinance remains roughly the same, while burglaries dropped in the city of Morton Grove following their gun ban. [4]. These statistics are in turn disputed because the report in question lacked important considerations such as proportions for the population and growth over time.
Current statistics indicate that Kennesaw's crime rate[6] is lower compared to surrounding cities like Marietta[7], Smyrna[8], Alpharetta[9], or Atlanta[10].
If everyone (or more people) carried a gun,
Wouldn't it make the jobs of police officers easier?
&
Wouldn't criminals would think twice before attacking/raping/robbing & carjacking people?
(but might just make smarter criminals through survival of the smartest. I don't think the dumb ones would last long) | |
|
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/4/2009 8:22:39 AM |
If everyone (or more people) carried a gun,
Wouldn't it make the jobs of police officers easier?
&
Wouldn't criminals would think twice before attacking/raping/robbing & carjacking people?
Yes; that's why you don't hear much about Kennesaw. The stats fly in the face of the government, that would like to take away the people's guns and afford the government's own brand of protection (a racket) for the "greater good" of "society" (theirs, not yours). | |
|
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/4/2009 9:29:39 AM | Let's take a look at the "criminals" in order to answer this question. Basically, there are three types of criminals...broke down into subsets.
The basic three are the "violent" or "career" type...don't care about anything and commit crimes as an everyday act. Nothing "physically" wrong with their brain. Includes drug dealers, mass murderers, armed robbers, etc
Second are the "crime of opportunity" type. They see a chance to gain something and take the chance. Looters and such.
Third are the "unintentional" type...doing somehting wrong either by force of circumstance and then having to pay for it through criminal court, or not having the mental capacity to know they did wrong. Poor schmuck who shoots an intruder in the home, but gets him in the back...thereby bringing the full extent of the law down on himself.
Most of these "criminals" would prefer "easier pickings". But there are the few who would not care. they would be a danger to everyone. As far as I'm concerned...an armed criminal is NOT armed to protect themselves but to commision a crime under threat of force, or by force. Therefore they have given up the "right" to protection under the laws and it should be "open season" on them. The "law" does not see it that way. Then again, the "law" is an azz in many cases.
I could offer a few suggestions....like the "road ragers" who would feel "justified" taking a pot shot at the guy who cut them off. Perhaps the woman walking who thought she was being "stalked", and shot first to ask questions later" and then found out it was a new neighbour in her own building.
Sure...there "could" be accidents and also a few mistakes and some would definitly need their attitudes adjusted. But many people will escalate the violence rather than tone it down. (Guilty of it myself...I will defend myself and my home rather than run...and face the charges afterwards....been there done that...)
But...if everywhere adopted the "guns in the homes" attitudes...where would the "wolves" hunt? There would be no place left for them...so they'd have to escalate their violent tendancies in order to continue their criminal careers. Which may result in more of them being killed...but also in "victims" being killed.
I figure it would send a real messaage out though...."we are people...NOT sheeple...so be prepared to kill in order to violate us! Otherwise you, yourself will be taking your own life into your hands...and your intended victims will NOT be merciful."
Crime rates would drop...but violent crimes may increase slightly, until the idiots get the message that we will NOT be cowed under by criminals.
The police and the laws cannot protect us any longer. They can only pick up the pieces of shattered lives and try to bring those responsible to the courts for punishment. By not allowing the laws to be broken in the first place, people will be living a far better life. Not to mention the lower crime rates. Less burden on police and courts.. Etc. | |
|
| |
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/4/2009 2:17:05 PM | No...not so much "vigilante justice"...more like stopping a crime rather than actually hunting a criminal down and punishing them without due process.
Example...someone breaks into my home. Why? Obviously to commit a crime. What possible other reason could they have? If it was for "shelter" or something, that could well be taken into account. But if the home owner comes out and sees someone crawling out a window with their stereo system under their arms...here in Canada we don't have the right to stop them or injure them in any way. Huh? That is correct though. Otherwise WE can be charged. Catch him coming in...different story. You can stop him.
Perhaps if he was stopped by the homeowner, them we wouldn't have so many criminals. Those few still performing criminal acts would be those who killed or incapacitated their victims first. They would soon be weeded out though. I realize there would be a spate of gunfights and such....but the end result would be safer communities.
As I said...sometimes the law is an azz. | |
|
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/4/2009 3:30:04 PM |
All criminals are dumb.
Except for all the smart ones in prison, of course.
It is actually the dumb criminals who are in prison, the smart criminals know how to avoid going to prison well most of the time. | |
|
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/4/2009 3:58:34 PM | To Ops header question I believe they call it ethnic cleansing.
As for the rest seems like a nra rant based on propaganda. | |
|
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/4/2009 4:40:36 PM |
If everyone (or more people) carried a gun,
Wouldn't it make the jobs of police officers easier?
&
Wouldn't criminals would think twice before attacking/raping/robbing & carjacking people? Yes and no. If everyone was just given open season to shoot their guns any time they felt like it, then it would end up like mayhem. But if it was permissible to shoot someone in the event of them robbing your home, or attacking you, or trying to rape you, or trying to carjack you, and it can be proved later that you had good reason to suspect this was what was going on at the time, then criminals would find another way to make money. They'd probably join the other criminals who've all gone into identity theft.
But the law frowns on shooting criminals. It put a British farmer in prison for 3 years, all because 2 guys tried to rob his house, he defended his property, and shot one of them as they were running away. Almost ALL the British people thought he should be given a medal. The law doesn't seem to be too worried about making laws that the people want.
(but might just make smarter criminals through survival of the smartest. I don't think the dumb ones would last long) Police have such a hard time catching smarter criminals, that most of their arrests consist of the dumb ones. If this was law, then the dumb criminals would end up dead, or in hospital, so the police wouldn't get any credit for arresting them, and since they really don't arrest many smart criminals anyway, their arrest rates would go right down. People might start asking what we pay the police for in the first place. That might be another reason why it's not allowed. | |
|
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/4/2009 5:40:21 PM | Fine, someone has run across a single instance where the local government forcing residents to have guns _APPEARS_ to have reduced crime rates. Are their other jurisdictions where similar laws were inacted? What results are they seeing?
Is there some unique quality about this community which makes this result predictable? What would need to happen for this situation to change there?
What constitutes a gun? Handgun? Berretta 0.22? Colt .45? Rifle? Winchester .308? A .50 Sniper rifle? Tommy gun? Shotgun? M-16? Bazooka? British M777 Howitzer?
Does this work for any type of weapon? Can we force all households to have a crossbow, and still have this work? How about bombs? Is a bundle of 10 sticks of TNT equivalent to a gun?
I'm sorry. For me, this story is just about a statistical aberration. It appears to have worked here, now. It may not work in the future at this location, and probably doesn't work elsewhere now (or in the future). I am not doubting the accuracy of the story, I just think it is a statistical fluke. | |
|
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/4/2009 6:23:08 PM | RE Msg: 10 by Cyke:
I heard someone say that in the UK they have now even outlawed the carrying of knives! I'm sure happy I don't live there. Yes, they have, and for good reason. A few teenage boys took to carrying them. Then other teenage boys got knifed by them, and they all got scared. Now, a very high proportion of teenage boys, and some teenage girls carry knives. When asked, they invariably seem to reply, "in case someone else has them". It's caused an outbreak of stabbings amongst the teenage population. In the first few months of this year, there were 1-2 stabbings every week.
No-one would care if they carried knives. But that seems to lead to them being used, and that's the problem. | |
|
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/4/2009 11:52:52 PM |
What is your idea of a "smart" criminal?
All criminals are stupid.
For those who disagree, why don't you give us an example of a "smart" crime?
You know what makes criminals stupid?
The fact that they think they're smart.
Well a 'smart' criminal is an intelligent one knows how to avoid being arrested by the cops, they often choose white collar offenses to commit. The attempts aren't successful all the time but they are a lot more successful than a lot of criminals who aren't very intelligent who fill up the prisons. | |
|
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/5/2009 6:02:06 AM |
If everyone (or more people) carried a gun, Wouldn't it make the jobs of police officers easier? & Wouldn't criminals would think twice before attacking/raping/robbing & carjacking people?
No. A gun is useless unless you wear it during all waking hours and keep it under the pillow at night. If it's a pistol, you have to practise a LOT, and if you do that, you'll notice that sometimes you can punch a hole thru a hole, and sometimes you can't hit the ground with your hat. If you're taken by surprise and miss, who gets the "collateral damage?"
I don't advocate any abridgement of the right to bear arms. Some people are good at it, but most are not. | |
|
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/5/2009 6:17:13 AM | | After the Heller vs DC ruling went down Mayor Daley in Chicago said something to the effect of 'it's going to be like the wild west now'. I didn't realize that law abiding citizens just go around shooting at everybody. Chicagao has some of the most strict gun laws (including the state of IL) and some of the worst crime. That doesn't seem to be helping the victims there. How are even more strict gun laws actually going to help people? Laws are not going to stop the criminals from obtaining and using guns. | |
|
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/5/2009 9:09:09 AM | I somewhat agree with the deterrent factor of increased gun ownership. Although honestly, I just don't trust people to own/use them responsibly. In the last 3 years, I have had a gun pointed at me twice.
The first was at a gas station that I was about to walk into. I glanced to my right and see a boy of about 12-14 and 30ish yards away, looking down the sights of a rifle pointed directly at me. Now, If any of you actually own/have been trained to use a gun then you know that the absolute, number one, override-all-else rule is........don't EVER point a gun at a person unless you intend to use it. I won't go into detail about my job (I was working), but there was reason enough for me to believe that someone might be upset at me because of what I was doing. Luckily that was not the case and the kid was just 'playing' with the gun, but I spent some very strong words on his father.
The other happened while I was actually doing my job. I was on a property, and I'm startled to hear "HEY! TURN AROUND!!!".......which I then did, to find that yet again I was being viewed through the sights of a rifle. It turned out to be a neighbor that was investigating my 'trespass' on the property. Mind you, I was wearing a BRIGHT orange vest with big letters that said what agency I was from, I was nowhere near the house or anything that could be feasibly taken or damaged, and all that I was carrying was a clipboard and measuring tape. Obviously I was a big enough threat that I needed to have a gun pointed at me while he approached.....
Incidentally, I have been in contact with someone carrying a gun only 4 times through the course of my duties. The other two times the weapon was just being carried and pointing towards the ground (which I have no problem with). But that means that 50% of the times I have seen someone carrying a gun, they were using it improperly and dangerously. Obviously it's a small sample size, but to me it doesn't speak well of the ability of the average citizen to safely own or use a firearm. | |
|
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/5/2009 10:31:05 AM |
Fine, someone has run across a single instance where the local government forcing residents to have guns _APPEARS_ to have reduced crime rates. Are their other jurisdictions where similar laws were inacted? What results are they seeing?
I don't think any other place in the U.S. has a similar law. I'd guess that results would be similar, but until some other municipality takes the chance to find out, we'll never know for sure.
What is your idea of a "smart" criminal?
All criminals are stupid.
For those who disagree, why don't you give us an example of a "smart" crime?
The criminals who don't get caught are either smart or lucky. An example of a "smart" crime is all of the crimes that remain unsolved, or did you think that all crimes get solved? Just because someone isn't moral doesn't automatically make them stupid. | |
|
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/5/2009 11:23:04 AM |
What is your idea of a "smart" criminal?
All criminals are stupid.
For those who disagree, why don't you give us an example of a "smart" crime?
How about Frank Abagnale Jr.?
He was the basis for the movie "Catch Me If You Can".
Commited some of the most daring frauds in history, got caught, now he's a multi-millionaire working for all the people he ripped off. | |
|
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/5/2009 1:42:15 PM | @ Scorp
<div class="quote">The law doesn't seem to be too worried about making laws that the people want.
That's because the laws are written to serve the political & sociological "needs" of our "masters" instead of enforcing people's rights and administering justice.
<div class="quote">No-one would care if they carried knives. But that seems to lead to them being used, and that's the problem.
Do you think that someone who wants to injure or kill somebody else will worry about being caught with a gun or a knife? I'm sure the psycopaths & killers are shaking in their boots about the new laws. You know who aren't going to have guns & knives?...The people who need them to protect themselves from the psycopathic killers & robbers, who will now feel relatively safe & secure in the knowledge that the next person they attcak and/or rob isn't going to be similarly armed. After all, what law-abiding citizen wants to break the law, just to protect himself. Only a naive, gullible fool would ever abide by such "laws."
It sounds like a stupid slogan, but it really is logical and true: If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them! Everyone else is a victim ripe for the plucking.
@ fortran
<div class="quote">Fine, someone has run across a single instance where the local government forcing residents to have guns _APPEARS_ to have reduced crime rates. Are their other jurisdictions where similar laws were inacted? What results are they seeing?...I just think it is a statistical fluke.
Why not look at comparative before & after studies anywhere "anti-gun legislation was brought in? I think you'll find (If the Kennesaw study is valid) that outlawing guns has either no effect on, or increases the incidence of violent crime (be sure to deduct out gun accidents and cases os self defense that the courts ruled (wrongly in my opinion) as "criminal", since these skewed stats can be deceptively utilized to falsely portray guns as an evil. | |
|
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/5/2009 2:29:07 PM | RE Msg: 25 by JustDukky:
It sounds like a stupid slogan, but it really is logical and true: If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them! Everyone else is a victim ripe for the plucking. That happened here too. Guns have always been illegal in the UK without a licence. Over 10 years ago, they outlawed knives. All that happened was that there were so many illegal knives and guns in circulation, that the police declared a general amnesty on getting rid of them. They just put big yellow bins outside police stations, and said that anyone could dump a gun, knife, or other illegal weapon in there, without being prosecuted for it.
We don't have a good answer about what to do with guns and knives. When more people have them, more of them are used in crimes. When we make them illegal, more illegal ones show up.
I'd suggest that we just make everyone have them, but knowing how many people in the UK get drunk and end up in punch-ups (we just came #1 most violent country in the whole of Europe), we'd just end up even worse. | |
|
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/5/2009 3:06:31 PM | I'd suggest that we just make everyone have them
That's what they did in Kennesaw Georgia and it worked out quite well for them. If I'm not mistaken they have the lowest violent crime rate of any comparably-sized community in the entire country.
knowing how many people in the UK get drunk and end up in punch-ups (we just came #1 most violent country in the whole of Europe), we'd just end up even worse.
A lot of bars here won't let someone in if they are carrying a weapon; it has to be turned in upon entry and returned when leaving. However, It is up to the discretion of the bar owner; if the patron is considered too drunk to be trusted with their weapon, he is told it will be returned when he comes back sober. From what I've seen, that little system seems to work.
England has long been known for it's strict gun laws, but knives? Do you have to get a "lethal weapon" permit to cut a steak? 
Forgive me for laughing, but I find it no less than highly comical that a country that even forbids playing with knives has one of the highest violent crime rates in the (so-called) civilized world. Do you think we could accept that as evidence that anti-weapon legislation achieves the opposite of its (supposedly) intended goal? | |
|
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/5/2009 4:36:06 PM | I still don't see this premise as being useful. Forcing everyone to have a "gun" doesn't equalize anything. A .177 pellet gun does not compare to a .45 handgun or to a .50 sniper's rifle. A RPG is in a sense a gun. Last time I brought up a modern British howitzer (M777). It is not able to be "carried" by a single person, but it is a gun. If one goes to muskets (which aren't rifled), they probably have the worst accuracy. There are variables at play in your example which are not displayed. If everyone has about the same kind of gun, and about the same skills with that gun; there is in a sense a level playing field there.
A few years back, I ran across an exercise to draft a constitution up for a hypothetical lunar (on the Moon) colony. Of course, some American had the right to bear arms in that document. Which I never could understand. You are living in a vacuum. One stray bullet and everybody dies. It is about the same as having a (big) bomb.
There has got to be other ways of reducing crime rates. | |
|
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/6/2009 7:26:24 AM | Under natural law and under common law, men or women have the right to protect themselves and may defend themselves & protect their property using whatever reasonable force may be necessary. To me, this means you can use any weapon for self defense so long as it is reasonable to do so.
To my mind there would be weapons that no reasonable man would use for self defence & property protection: A .50 cal. sniper rifle is designed for taking people out at several hundred yards distance and a stray bullet could be lethal to an innocent person miles away. It is obviously an offensive weapon, unwieldy at close range and a hazard to innocent bystanders. I doubt that carrying one would qualify as reasonable personal protection. Hand grenades could be considered reasonable weapons for home-based defense of property, but not for personal carry in an environment populated with innocent people. They would pose an unreasonable hazard to the public peace and the lives of innocent people.
It would not have been unreasonable for someone like David Koresh to use howitzers, .50 cal. machine guns, flame throwers, mortars or mines on that fateful day they moved in on him with tanks. Such a response would have easily met the "reasonable force" requirement for self defense and property protection. | |
|
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/6/2009 8:38:31 AM | I'm a responsible firearms owner and I think that it would be a poor idea for most people to own weapons.
While I'm not saying that there should be bans like in NYC or Washington DC, I DO believe that most people have unrealistic view about the efficacy of firearms.
That,coupled w/ the unwillingness of most people to take firearms training and a general lack of maturity in our society, makes general firearms ownership and unwise proposition,at best. | |
|
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/6/2009 6:58:53 PM |
That,coupled w/ the unwillingness of most people to take firearms training and a general lack of maturity in our society, makes general firearms ownership and unwise proposition,at best.
I'd say that came about as a matter of societal conditioning. However, if what you say is generally true, how do you explain Kennesaw? Maybe given the chance and a few courses in responsible use, most people are quite capable of handling firearms safely. | |
|
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/6/2009 7:20:24 PM | The good thing about politics is you can't get away from free choice. I'd never live in an area where firearms are proliferent. Got to know common behaviour a bit too well to be so ignorant.
Whenever making assertions or contentions using statistical data the anthropological ethic should be used, "correlation does not infer causation."
Statistical data is so subjective that under peer review it is not considered synonymous with observations in nature, and it cannot be used as the sole basis for supporting a hypothesis. According to the American Anthropological Society, the only true scientific value of statistical data of any kind is to suggest further research.
For example, unemployment statistics in Australia are taken by the Bureau of Statistics only by those currently registered with the state Social Security system. During election periods rules and regulations within the system are often tightened so as to disqualify many from immediate registration, or suspend those currently registered on minor and unrealistic infringements, which has the effect of lowered statistical data reporting in the media, much to the serious concern of Community welfare groups.
Rape and violent crime statistics are cultured in a very similar fashion.
The game, people, is politics, not altruism.
So here's what it comes down to. When you walk down the street, do you like the idea of every pedestrian packing a burner, or does that bother you? It's a personal choice. | |
|
| What happened to the Wild West?
Posted: 7/6/2009 7:31:25 PM |
I'd say that came about as a matter of societal conditioning. However, if what you say is generally true, how do you explain Kennesaw? Maybe given the chance and a few courses in responsible use, most people are quite capable of handling firearms safely.
Drunk people? How about *very* tired? On medication? Self medicating? What about really angry people? Or just unreasonable people? What about poorly informed and poorly educated people? I can go down the street right now and find all sorts of idiots who'd qualify the requirements unless specifically and exhaustively investigated. Even then there is specific circumstance and instance to consider.
And I should reiterate the notation that statistical data on its own cannot be used to support any hypothesis, that correlation does not infer causation. | |
|
Home
login 
