Then how do you explain Kennesaw Georgia? I have posted links to stories on it time after time and NOT ONE of any of the anti-gun people has even touched it, let alone try to explain it.

Here once again is a link explaining Kennesaw.:

http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/gun-town-usa-25-years-murder-free/28388/

I think I know why nobody in the anti-gun camp has touched the Kennesaw issue...It is the proof and example that disproves the theory that more guns are bad and less guns are good. It becomes obvious that if federal gun legislation were similar to the Kennesaw city ordinance, the entire country would be a safer place to live...period.

This of course begs the question...If it is true, then why is federal gun legislation deliberately placing the public in harms way instead of promoting gun use to increase public safety as the city of Kennesaw did? This is a question you should be asking the people in Washington. Obviously, there is a reason they introduce "laws" inimical to the public interest...What is that reason?

I'm rather afraid that if they told you the REAL reason they'd like to disarm the public EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU WOULD PROBABLY BE EITHER LEAVING THE COUNTRY OR ARMING YOURSELVES TO THE TEETH.

In your lifetime, your government has never given you reason to trust them. For God's sake, don't trust them on this one!

do a search for 'myth of kennesaw'

kennesaw is not proof of 'more guns', nor of anything being 'good' or 'bad'

truth is kennesaw already had a 'low' rate (compared nationally) of violent crime

I did. All I found was a few "anti-gun" editorial critiques with fallacious and misleading stats, red herringish irrelevencies and serious omissions, like this one:

http://progressivevalues.blogspot.ca/2007/04/kennesaw-georgia-gun-violence-reduction.html

I was gonna critique the above story to point out the logical fallacies & propaganda techniques used, but i I figure it's more fun to give the people on Mingle some credit for intelligence and let them pick it to pieces for themselves.



I stand by my claim and would like to add Switzerland into the mix as a supporting argument. One in two Swiss citizens owns guns and switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world. It looks like it might be a nice place to live.

http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm



It was also murder-free for 25 years (1982-2007), which is remarkable in and of itself in this day and age.

that you feel a site is fallacious because its anti gun, doesnt negate the possibility that your pro gun references are equally fallacious


and kennesaw is remarkable when compared to larger and more densely populated cities, maybe not as remarkable when compared to cities of equal population density, many small towns probably share similar accomplishments (prior to 1982, there were less than 6000 people in kennesaw)

That people can't properly read the statistics I posted isn't my fault (though the screwed-up formatting might be...apologies). The stats, nevertheless have been posted for the benefit of the people that can read them. If anyone feels they are fallacious, they are free to point out the fallacies. I will NOT accept the innuendo by anyone who can't read or properly understand them, that my stats are fallacious. You'll have to prove it to me.

Please note that Kennesaw is practically a boom town, since its population grew so much so fast. That it managed to keep the crime stats as low as it has in spite of the arrivals of all those strangers to town is something of a miracle in itself.

Let's look at this logically. At the risk of sounding trite:

"If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."…TRUE

An armed outlaw is a danger to the public…TRUE

An unarmed citizen is essentially defenceless against an armed outlaw…TRUE

Deterrence (the danger of retaliation unacceptable to a rational aggresser) works…TRUE

Everyone has the right to defend themselves by any reasonable means necessary…TRUE

Outlaws, and irrational people should not have guns…TRUE


It seems then, that the most reasonable course of action is not to legislate guns or other weapons, so much as legislating that unreasonable people should not have them. In the interest of public safety, reasonable citizens should be armed.

Since outlawing guns means that only outlaws will have guns, we should instead arm the citizenry to act in the interests of their own (private and public) safety.

"If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."…TRUE

An armed outlaw is a danger to the public…TRUE

An unarmed citizen is essentially defenceless against an armed outlaw…TRUE

Deterrence (the danger of retaliation unacceptable to a rational aggresser) works…TRUE

Everyone has the right to defend themselves by any reasonable means necessary…TRUE

Outlaws, and irrational people should not have guns…TRUE



as to the first statement, yes its true , just like only 'criminals' have weed if weed is deemed to be illegal

and only 'criminals' jaywalk, if jaywalking is illegal,,,etc,,,

as to the second statement, its not an absolute truth at all, 'criminals' and outlaws are deemed such for any number of reasons (violent and non)

a 'criminal' (someone caught breaking the law) is no less or more a danger than a non criminal (someone who hasnt broken the law or hasnt yet been CAUGHT breaking the law) with a gun, what matters is their emotional state,,,,

as to the third statement, also not an absolute truth, as there are armed 'criminals' who falsely believe the weapon gives them power and who cower away at the first sign that it doesnt

as to the fourth statement, also not an absolute truth, deterrence works sometimes and sometimes it doesnt

as to the fifth statement, true

as to the sixth statment, not necessarily true,
again, I point to a persons mental state rather than their record of legal offenses , as to whether they should have a tool of death easily available to them

irrational people should not have guns, people who have broken laws should not have guns if they were violent offenses


and I Agree, common sense regulation should be implemented/enforced to work harder to keep guns out of the hands of UNREASONABLE, EMOTIONALLY UNBALANCED, IRRATIONAL peoples hands

and to ensure that the guns which are available are truly reasonably 'self defense' and not just tools of mass death with minimum effort,,,

Your argument hinges on what law is. Regulatory and statutory law is not law for anyone outside the jurisdiction. Such "law" requires the consent of the governed to be subject to it. Real (natural) law is very simple. Any behaviour that causes harm or willfully or recklessly produces a real danger of harm is criminal behaviour and anyone engaged in such behaviour would be an outlaw. Therefore my statements regarding "outlaws" pertain not to people who harmlessly violate statutes (like the pot laws or jaywalking), but to people who would maliciously cause harm, the real outlaws.

The simple truth is that anyone outlawing guns would be committing a criminal act and a breach of the public trust. A "law" outlawing guns might be passed, and would be "legal", but try to remember that everything Hitler did was "legal" also, because he was writing the "laws."

What is legal and what is lawful are NOT the same. It is quite possible to to make lawful activities illegal, as our pot "laws" will attest.

by your definition, which wasnt clear before , where 'outlaw' only applies to harmful persons

your statements would be true

I think unless you're in Law Enforcement, you shouldn't be allowed to purchase more than one gun. I dunno, that's just me. You can't run that 2nd Amendment crap on me. They wrote that when all people had were MUSKET GUNS...

Again Dukky, you proved nothing except that I was still correct.

And again the only way a gun or a million guns will help you against the government is if you blow your own head off before they come to get you.

I think a properly outfitted & trained civilian militia IS law enforcement.
Are you saying the second amendment is crap?
Are you saying that if it became necessary to overthrow a tyrannical government that the people should only be armed with muskets?

as far as guns and crime rates. - there was a study - ohhh maybe a decade ago that looked at England where not even the police carried guns and guns are not widespread and found their violent crime rate much, incredibly lower than our own, and this was consistent in other "evolved" countries in Euro where guns are not present in any great numbers. So actually there does seem to be a relationship between low rates of violent crime and gun free societies

unfortunately I can't remember where I saw the info reported but it shouldn't be hard to find

also consider, as many have stated, if guns were not accessible these things would not happen

the pipe bomb argument is silly. if mass murders and abusers were going to build pipe bombs they would do that now, not use guns. Besides even if that argument were plausible consider in the time it takes to build a bomb there's a greater likelihood of getting caught or having the interval of time while making it for the mental faculties to wake up, basically, that is not possible with quick access to loaded weapons. So chances of reactionary weapon use - as in rage based crime- is reduced. and it is not likely many would be killed tho there might be injuries, true

Fact is we really can only speak to the weapons that are being used now, stick to the facts and regulate those weapons sensibly. and middle of the roaders are really the only ones who should be permitted into the debate and decisions on the future of gun control. extremists from both ends should not be involved. because we really need to look at facts objectively and solve problems - arguing and extremism will not accomplish that

its just common sense that fewer guns will equal fewer gun crimes

we are such a desensitized culture with so much paranoia and vigilantaism,, that widespread availability of such guns is more dangerous than helpful,, in my opinion

Switzerland was used as an example, but what isnt mentioned is that Switzerland has mandatory 'militia' training between 20 and 30 years of age, and it is mostly those with such training (and probably more able to grasp the reality of their power) who carry weapons

in america, its much easier for he/she who feels like he/she has the capacity to be dirty harry to get a gun and use it on others

for me, thats a problem,,,

I think unless you're in Law Enforcement, you shouldn't be allowed to purchase more than one gun. I dunno, that's just me. You can't run that 2nd Amendment crap on me. They wrote that when all people had were MUSKET GUNS...

It is just common sense that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones.

It is just common sense that the earth stands still and the sun, stars and planets revolve around it.

It is just common sense that photons can be waves or particles, but not both.

It is just common sense that it doesn't matter if you change doors in the Monte Hall Problem.

In all these cases, observation and/or experiment has refuted the "common sense" assumption.

In similar fashion, the examples of Kennesaw and Switzerland refute the idea that fewer guns means fewer crimes.



If you think its bad now, just wait until thy've been removed.



Very true, and that should be the mandated duty of every American as well. For one thing, it would cure a lot of your country's social ills. Half of the swedish people have guns and know how to use them.



That's a problem for everyone, but it's the fault of the people themselves for allowing it to happen in the first place. From a very young age ALL children should be taught the safe handling & use of firearms and the awesome power & responsibility that goes with them as part of their basic education.