ForumsWEPRKennesaw, GA: where gun ownership is mandatory

37 4645
SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,869 posts
4,445

There are cities in the US where exercising one's second amendment right to bear arms is illegal, but there is one city in the US where it is mandatory. This city is Kennesaw in the great state of Georgia.
Not surprisingly, the reported crime rates dropped significantly (would you want to go to this city to commit a crime if you knew that every citizen was armed?

Proof and Facts:

What do you think about this? Is this law unconstitutional, or is it a great sign that liberal extremists will not take away our constitutional rights any time soon?
Personally, I love this law! I like to "shove" it the face of every liberal that tries to argue with me about having the government run my life.

  • 37 Replies
Jacen96
offline
Jacen96
3,113 posts
5,600

I would argue that the gov has neither the right to force us to own weapons nor the right to ban us from using weapons.

~~~Darth Caedus

colinsaul
offline
colinsaul
5 posts
0

There are some crazy people in the USA.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,602 posts
3,675

Some quick points:

1) Statistics can be manipulated and presented deceptively fairly easily and it doesn't have to involve foul play. This "city" is small, and many small cities have lower levels of crime to begin with. It's not effective to claim that the rates of crime are lower there without taking into account locations with similar attributes such as wealth, average age, and population size/density. Even if crime levels are lower than these similar areas, it doesn't necessarily mean that guns are the reason why.

2) The gun ownership being mandatory likely affects the type of people who want to live there - namely super paranoid people who believe everyone should be armed. This is selecting for a population and thus is not representative of any normal distribution of people. As a guess, I'd also imagine the population is overwhelmingly white/Christian and that the population density is low. Since it's three in the morning I'm not going to research it right now, but feel free to correct me/provide more data if anyone wants to.

3) I do not see data about crime levels prior to the implementation of all households requiring a gun. Where is the claim that levels of crime dropped significantly afterwards coming from?

4) Guns are already prevalent in many areas, which have varying levels of crime. The presence of guns is not a factor in crime. The problem with guns though is that they are far more lethal than other weapons and are more often a source of harm than good.

5) I don't have a problem with people owning a gun, as long as they are trained to use it responsibly. If people want there to be a city where guns are required, whatever, if they aren't causing problems for others then great.

tl:dr, it's easy to look at something on the face of it and not understand other factors involved. Correlation =/= causation.

SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,869 posts
4,445

super paranoid people who believe everyone should be armed

If we're going to use extreme, ridiculous labels for conservative, freedom-loving people, I'll go ahead and say that all liberals are dogmatic communists that want to have everyone put in labor camps. Good enough?
I'd also imagine the population is overwhelmingly white/Christian

Oh, please stop it.
09philj
offline
09philj
2,880 posts
3,160

The law is actually:

(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.

If we work on the principle that most people in that socio-economic area advocate gun ownership anyway, this is in fact a cleverly worded gun restriction law designed to trick people into submitting to gun control, as it prevents the wrong kind of people (That is to say, those who are dangerously mentally disabled, or criminals) getting a gun. Also, people who don't believe in guns don't have to have one. Thus, it merely maintains the status quo in the area. I tip my hat to the man who wrote this law. It takes guts to try to fool an entire city.

On April 29, 2014, a gunman wounded six in a FedEx facility in Kennesaw, before committing suicide.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
2,831 posts
18,480

If we're going to use extreme, ridiculous labels for conservative, freedom-loving people


We aren't. You are using a ridiculous label for super paranoid people who believe everyone should be armed.

Oh, please stop it.


Are you trying to dictate what he is permitted to speculate or imagine? And, for that matter, are they?
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,602 posts
3,675

Wikipedia Page

Here are the demographics. Again, I don't know composition of other areas in Georgia so I don't know how this compares.

As of the census[1] of 2010, there were 29,783 people, 11,413 households, and 7,375 families residing in the city. There were 12,328 housing units at an average density of 1,027.3 per square mile (396.6/kmÃ�ÃÂ&sup2. The racial makeup of the city was 58.9% Non Hispanic White, 22.3% Black, 10.8% Hispanic (U.S. Census) or Latino of any race, 5.3% Asian, 0.4% Native American, 0.02% Pacific Islander (U.S. Census), 4.7% from other Race (U.S. Census), and 3.0% Non-Hispanic Mixed of two or more races.

There were 11,413 households out of which 38.1% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 45.0% were married couples living together, 15.2% had a female householder with no husband present, and 35.4% were non-families. 26.8% of all households were made up of individuals and 6.4% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.59 and the average family size was 3.19.

In the city the population was spread out with 27.0% under the age of 18, 10.6% from 18 to 24, 33.2% from 25 to 44, 21.8% from 45 to 64, and 7.3% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 32 years. For every 100 females there were 95.6 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 89.7 males.

If we're going to use extreme, ridiculous labels for conservative, freedom-loving people,

*Who often believe they are about to get robbed, murdered, or raped, in addition to thinking that a civilian militia can overthrow the military in the case the "government" (spoken as one malicious entity) tries to do ... something.

Oh, please stop it.

I'm not sure what you're taking offense to. White Christians are the majority in the United States and any group of people that is of the same race and religion is likely going to have less conflict among themselves. I didn't mean anything more by my guess. As it is, I gave the demographics above, and when compared with the demographics of Georgia in general, it's fairly representative, throwing out my question about that.

Georgia Demographics

The funny thing is, this isn't as important as you seem to think. One city is not proof of anything, and there are plenty of other places in the United States with lots of guns that have high rates of violence. There are places worldwide with lots of guns that have low and high rates of violence. You're right that guns don't cause violence, but they don't prevent it either. Guns are tools and are used how people want to use them. Arguing that proliferating guns will reduce violence is just as ridiculous as thinking getting rid of guns will get rid of violence.

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,170 posts
4,380

you see, surely this works if 1 town does it.
but it's also surely that it will lose it's effect if it was mandatory everywhere..
the criminals would still face the same problems as befor that causes them to do these criminal acts. (nobody is born as a criminal)

i think it would even have a reversed effect if it was mandatory everywhere.
because knowing that every single person has a gun on them when your going out to hit a target. (robbing something or whatever) makes you wanna prepare and beat them befor they (the victim) starts shooting at you. and what is the most easy way to do that? well, since the gun is mandatory anyway... shoot them befor they can react on your uninvited appearance by shooting you...
as criminal you got the adrenalin rushing when you go in. you are the one that had the opportunity to prepare for the situation your going to cause... your target is watching nascar with a beer in his hand expecting nothing.... who will shoot faster you think? the criminal wont wait to get shot if he knows that everyone has a gun. he will start shooting straight when he comes in.

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,170 posts
4,380

(double post cause my edit time was over already xD )

Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine


so they are mandatory, but not if you dont wanna...
it's just a law to make noise. just to make a sound against what they believe to be the "liberals who are going to take our guns away, so we cant defend ourselves when they turn the usa into the next north-korea."
--.--'
SSTG
offline
SSTG
12,627 posts
9,740

If we're going to use extreme, ridiculous labels for conservative, freedom-loving people, I'll go ahead and say that all liberals are dogmatic communists that want to have everyone put in labor camps. Good enough?

Geez, you must have an exhausting and complicated life.
Always afraid and paranoid about terrorists, Mexicans, Martians, evil Liberals who might take away your guns, rapists and murderers invading your home, killing your entire family, being pissed off all the time, hating the government, spending a fortune building an arsenal...
In case you didn't know, the World doesn't revolve around you.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

or is it a great sign that liberal extremists will not take away our constitutional rights any time soon?


Jeepers, what a misguided view on the liberal stance on gun laws.

Statistics can be manipulated and presented deceptively fairly easily and it doesn't have to involve foul play


For example, when people pull out statistics of other countries crimerate/death rate to show that countries with guns are safer than those without.

conservative, freedom-loving people,


>freedom loving
>has a law that makes people have guns
Choose one
SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,869 posts
4,445

Geez, you must have an exhausting and complicated life.
Always afraid and paranoid about terrorists, Mexicans, Martians, evil Liberals who might take away your guns, rapists and murderers invading your home, killing your entire family, being pissed off all the time, hating the government, spending a fortune building an arsenal...
In case you didn't know, the World doesn't revolve around you.

Give me an effing break, you know yourself that that isn't true.


>freedom loving
>has a law that makes people have guns
Choose one

And yet you pull pitiful strawmen
Jacen96
offline
Jacen96
3,113 posts
5,600

And yet you pull pitiful strawmen


Logic Dictates that freedom loving citizens would not put restrictions on the lifestyle of their fellows.

In this case, requiring gun ownership.

~~~Darth Caedus
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,410 posts
2,680

Always afraid and paranoid about terrorists...

Might as well disarm the police and military. There are no threats in the world anymore. Kumbaya.
SSTG
offline
SSTG
12,627 posts
9,740

Might as well disarm the police and military. There are no threats in the world anymore. Kumbaya.

Twisting my sentences as usual.
Terrorist attack as many innocent people as possible, not some coward hiding in his home with an arsenal.
Showing 1-15 of 37