Well Dammit Boy, you're right that the crime stats for Kennesaw are very good-
http://www.homesurfer.com/crimereports/view/crime_report.cfm?state=GA&area=Kennesaw
But then, you probably learned that Gun Owners of America's talking points?
But then you could also ignore-
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/11/kennesaw.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/kennesaw_gun_ordinance_yet_aga.php
http://progressivevalues.blogspot.com/2007/04/kennesaw-georgia-gun-violence-reduction.html
Or-
Which says that burglaries- the crime for which your gun is supposed to defend you, didn't fall in Kennesaw at all, but actually that another town, that had more gun control, did see a decline in burgalries.
I guessed you also missed out on -
McDowall, D., B. Wiersema, and C. Loftin (1989). "Did mandatory firearm ownership in Kennesaw really prevent burglaries?" Sociology and Sociological Research, 74: 48-51.
Which-
argues that Kennesaw's crime statistics show that rather than a decrease, there was a statistically insignificant increase in crime afterward. On the other hand, these same researchers found that Morton Grove, Illinois had a "large and statistically significant decrease in burglary reports" after that city banned handguns.
Here are the facts. In 1982, there were 35 burglaries in Kennesaw. In 1983, after passing their mandatory gun ownership law, there were 35 burglaries in Kennesaw. In 1986, there were 70.
Here are some additional facts: After guns were mandated in Kennesaw, a gun was sold at a gun show there and was used to shoot New York City Police Officer Tanagiot Benekos in 1998. At least five other guns purchased at Kennesaw gun shows have been recovered in New York City crimes, including a murder and an attempted murder.
ANd then there is this report-
http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/8926.html
The proposition that widespread gun ownership serves as a deterrent to residential burglary is widely touted by advocates, but the evidence is weak, consisting of anecdotes, interviews with burglars, casual comparisons with other countries, and the like. A more systematic exploration requires data on local rates of gun ownership and of residential burglary, and such data have only recently become available. In this paper we exploit a new well-validated proxy for local gun-ownership prevalence -- the proportion of suicides that involve firearms -- together with newly available geo-coded data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, to produce the first systematic estimates of the net effects of gun prevalence on residential burglary patterns. The importance of such empirical work stems in part from the fact that theoretical considerations do not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence.
Guns actually induce burglary? That's a surprise, even for me. But then, guns are attractive loot for criminals.
Ok, so back to Kennesaw- you argue its guns, others say - no real change burglary crimes - which is probably your best case for arguing that guns reduce crime.
Could the reason why Kennesaw is doing better is because it doesn't have the problems found in Atlanta? Maybe.
Let's considering some of the demographics-
http://www.kennesaw-ga.gov/index.aspx?NID=38
Education-
Kennesaw's levels have surpassed national, state and regional increases. Between 1980 and 1990 the percentage of high school graduates in Kennesaw grew by 27%, compared to 20% for the Atlanta Region, 18% for Cobb County and 13% for the United States.
House prices and real estate-
As the price of the average house in Kennesaw continues to rise-- there are more $200,000+ houses for sale in the City than ever before-- educational levels can be expected to rise even more due to the strong relationship between income and education.
Jobs- Kennesaw is not just an area with impressive job growth, it is an area that will share in more jobs during the next 20 years than any other part of the Atlanta Region.
Income-
Per capita income in Kennesaw has usually been a little higher than Georgia's average except for the late 1970's to the mid 1980's. Probable reasons for the resurgence of Kennesaw's per capita income in the mid-1980's include its growing function as a bedroom community to Fulton County, which has the highest wages in the region, and job growth in Cobb extending all the way up to the Kennesaw area.
Since 1969 Kennesaw's median household income has been even higher than the per capita income in comparison to Georgia. The higher household income can in part be attributed to higher per capita incomes, but also significant is the larger household size and higher labor force participation rates for Kennesaw. The combined factors provide for more people in a house with more of them in the work force. Both of Kennesaw's income measures have traditionally been lower than Cobb County's, though due to Kennesaw's larger household size, household incomes have been closer to Cobb's level than the per capita income measure. The 2000 Census will more than likely show Kennesaw's income measures will be closer to Cobb County's than ever, though Kennesaw has quite a way to go to catch up. While the number of households in Kennesaw and Cobb making under $30,000 is about the same, 33% to 32% respectively, 28% of Cobb's households make over $60,000 compared to 16% of Kennesaw's.
Population-
Roughly 20% black, and 67% white with affluent Asians and others making the difference.
More stats?
http://www.kennesawareahomes.com/kennesaw-demographics.html
So Kennesaw is essentially a higher end community suburb of Atlanta. Like many of the higher end communities that exist outside major cities in the US, they are generally more crime free.
Is it guns? Not really, since no one has ever been punished for violation of Kennesaw's gun law- how do you even know if the residents are even following it?
Dammit Boy- I do appreciate your argument here. But what you've offered doesn't prove the point. In fact, guns don't seem to have had much of any effect in Kennesaw where other variables (income, education, property values) carry more weight. Next time (1) do your own research, (2) offer your evidence and (3) don't take your talking points from an advocacy group that merely supports your position.
Sorry to say it but a lot of the bad evidence in the gun debates comes from the gun advocate groups like NRA and Gun Owners of America. Frequently, they will throw out convenient facts that resonate with gun advocates and support their financial interest. John Lott, for instance, was used by gun advocates until it was established that he fudged his numbers. And please, try to get your evidence from reliable sources when you don't and I look at your proof, you end up looking foolish. And please, cite your sources.
Look, I am not saying that people shouldn't own guns. I am saying that people should be allowed to live without them. I am also arguing that the right of a person to breath is more fundamental than their right to own a weapon.
hat you are arguing is essentially that the way to promote public safety is to encourage the creation of social norms in which private use of guns becomes normalized in society. The idea is that if more people had guns, criminals would be deterred from using guns.
That may be true in some places and in limited circumstances. Kennesaw, like other similar places, has the social and economic demographics that reflect the minority conditions in which gun violence is not a major problem. In that sense, its probably a lot like a lot of towns where most of the people are doing pretty well, some have guns, some don't but people generally don't feel they need them.
Most of the people in Kennesaw don't fit that demographic most likely to get killed from guns- urban, black between the ages of 15 and 25 and generally with few job prospects and little education.
Its not Kennesaw that you have to worry about, its Atlanta and other regions where the social and economic promote a great probability of both crime and violence.
Does that mean that Kennesaw is without danger. No, because there are other forms of criminal violence that you have to worry about- the homicide that comes from people you know- the husband kills wife, the son kills father, the boyfriend kills girlfriend. But even here, those risks are lower. Why? Because the town is prosperous.
Greater poverty leads to greater violence. Add guns, and violence becomes more lethal.
Violence, be it with guns or knives, is more likely under conditions of poverty than prosperity. Given that, minorities in the US are more exposed and prone to violence largely because those minorities suffer greater levels of social poverty.
http://www.nctsnet.org/nctsn_assets/Articles/77.pdf
If we really wanted to reduce gun violence, we'd build a more equal society in which every one enjoys the fruits of prosperity.
The problem- that's too expensive and a large part of our population is afraid of greater social-economic equality.
Honestly, if the wealthy and middle class want to have guns, and take the risks associated with having guns in the house (greater likelihood of negligent homicide, increased 'success' at suicide, more likely that you'll have domestic violence become lethal), than fine- its a democratic society.
Ideally, they could place safeguards so that the mentally ill don't get guns, that we have more maintenance to prevent domestic violence from occurring, that we have safeguards in place to protect women and children from abusive and violent men (which is the normal pattern in gun violence among the upper and middle class.) Modest controls to limit that violence, I don't have a problem with that.
But what about the other group of people- those still stuck in poor cities with few jobs and opportunities, where gangs become a more attractive alternative when there are insufficient jobs, and where violence becomes normalized.
Your argument is to normalize guns in society. But to do that across the board would be to increase the number of guns in the neighborhoods most likely to use guns from criminal purposes. That result will increase the number of gun related fatalities and make our cities increasing unstable and dangerous. You essentially promote violence among the poor to further secure the property and lives of the upper and middle classes who have faced a decreasing risk of violence. One classes security comes at the price greater violence among the lower class.
What drives the gun advocates argument on guns as defense is a sense of either entitlement or insecurity. But the insecurity argument generally fails given that rates of crime overall have decreased in the US, and especially for the middle and upper classes or the rural and suburb areas. Sadly, gun violence and homicides have been on the increase after decades of decline- but that's partially because the Bush administration gutted public spending.
The areas that suffer greater insecurity are poor urban areas (and to some extent poor rural areas). So the insecurity argument craps out.
What about the entitlement? I'm fine with it, provided there exist sufficient safeguards. What are sufficient safeguards? I think a democratic society can debate that. Take away the right to own a gun? No, I don't support that. But i don't think the right to own a gun is unqualified. I don't even think the most extreme gun advocates support that. Should the insane and those with criminal pasts own guns?
Suaside argues above that the safeguards are essentially a pain in the ass for him- forcing him to take added precautions and suffer administrative delays. So he pays a cost for this and perhaps it is excessive. But how many lives is it worth. What are the crime rates in Belgium-
Answer- not much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Belgium
Is it worth the cost of those added precautions? It seems the Belgians think so or they would change it.
The question really is whether its better to live in a society in which a person has to strap a gun on to feel safe, whether normalized gun use is necessary. Does normalizing guns in society make us safer?
You might also ask about Switzerland, where a lot of folks own guns. Is it the ownership of guns that makes Switzerland safe, or is it that they happen to be an extremely rich country with significant social programs that limit the risk of violence?
Sander- your point about military coups- generally speaking most political coups against democracies have occurred in parts of the world which are fairly unstable and the democratic practices have not been consolidated (Usually Africa or parts of South/Southeast Asia). Those in Latin America often reflect the strong role of the military in national politics. While the idea might be that an armed militia might be used to oppose a military coup, I think the safeguards are better if you have a strong system of civilian control and a military that is loyal not to its institutional interests or charismatic leaders but to constitutional governance.
If the US where to have a military coup and the country would suffer a civil war or counter-revolutionary backlash, than I suspect the number of deaths in the US would surpass those who died in the Russian Civil War.
