Carrying Guns On Campuses For Defense

[Big Boss]

I don't know how accurate my sources are, as with yours, but I heard that very few kids took one to the head. Lets say that every student at VT had a gun. Would the massacre have happened? Probly not. Yeah, what happened really sucked but we have to look past that. Will the next school shooting happen exactly the same way? No, it wont. I guess the reason i chose to respond to this thread is that I would not feel safer if everyone had a gun. If you would feel safer, then hey, congratulations.

[The King]

I don't know how accurate my sources are, as with yours, but I heard that very few kids took one to the head. Lets say that every student at VT had a gun. Would the massacre have happened? Probly not. Yeah, what happened really sucked but we have to look past that. Will the next school shooting happen exactly the same way? No, it wont. I guess the reason i chose to respond to this thread is that I would not feel safer if everyone had a gun. If you would feel safer, then hey, congratulations.

I just don't know how many times it will take for me and others to say this....

ITS NOT ABOUT EVERYONE HAVING A GUN....ITS ABOUT VT TAKING AWAY PEOPLES RIGHTS TO BEAR ARMS. FEW PEOPLE HAVE CC LICENSES, BUT IF YOU CAN OBTAIN ONE AND GO THROUGH THE TRAINING YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CARRY ON CAMPUS SO ALL THE STUDENTS ARE NOT LEFT VULNERABLE

[insidius]

This is the last thing I'm going to say in this thread.



As for as MORE people having guns, doesn't ANYONE see the problem with that "logic?"

More guns equal more problems, all around.

Let me give you a reasonable example of what I'm talking about.

Let's say 5 people in the vicinity of the VT shooting were armed. The Shooter pulls his guns and starts blasting people, while another student reacts and pulls his own piece, and starts firing at the Shooter. Both take cover and start firing at one another. Innocent bystander victims caught in the crossfire aside, let's say another student see/hears this happening and pulls his gun. Who does HE start shooting at? What about the other 3 armed students?

This is just one of many examples of what could occur. Sure, the armed student could manage to just drop the Shooter before he kills many people, but what happens to him when another armed student happens upon him (if he doesn't see the original shooting)? I don't think more guns is the answer.

Yes, it's sad that we live in a world of violence where people feel the need to arm themselves for self-defense. However, violence begets violence. Period. People with a 'gun mentality' aren't helping the problem go away. If you absolutely feel the need to protect yourself from armed assailants, then PROTECT YOURSELF, don't arm yourself.

I'd rather be killed than take another life anyday, no matter how tortured they are. Perhaps not a popular view, but it's mine.

[Scheetz]

I don't know how accurate my sources are, as with yours, but I heard that very few kids took one to the head. Lets say that every student at VT had a gun. Would the massacre have happened? Probly not. Yeah, what happened really sucked but we have to look past that. Will the next school shooting happen exactly the same way? No, it wont. I guess the reason i chose to respond to this thread is that I would not feel safer if everyone had a gun. If you would feel safer, then hey, congratulations.

So by your standards its ok for everyone to wear a Class 1 kevlar vest to school everyday? Do they come in fashion styles also? Or does everyone have to walk around with 60lbs on their bodies besides their books? I bet it would be real comfortable to sit through some lectures with that vest on. Maybe we should wear some helmets also? Sure they wont stop anything over a 9mm and even then its luck if it does. But hey, its better than carrying a firearm right?

I just don't know how many times it will take for me and others to say this....

ITS NOT ABOUT EVERYONE HAVING A GUN....ITS ABOUT VT TAKING AWAY PEOPLES RIGHTS TO BEAR ARMS. FEW PEOPLE HAVE CC LICENSES, BUT IF YOU CAN OBTAIN ONE AND GO THROUGH THE TRAINING YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CARRY ON CAMPUS SO ALL THE STUDENTS ARE NOT LEFT VULNERABLE

^^^In bold so you can read that again. Then read it a few more times before anyone replies.

This is the last thing I'm going to say in this thread.

doubtful

More guns equal more problems, all around.

Kennesaw, Georgia. I suggest you look it up. 25 years now they have had that law passed.

Nobody said anything about placing more guns in peoples hands. We are demanding the right to our second amendment and the fact that gun free zones are nothing but turkey shoots to anyone who feels the need to break the law. Do you honestly think a NO GUNS sign means jack shit to a murderer or a robber? The only thing it does is stops law abiding citizens from ever carrying or purchasing an item from that store.

Let's say 5 people in the vicinity of the VT shooting were armed. The Shooter pulls his guns and starts blasting people, while another student reacts and pulls his own piece, and starts firing at the Shooter. Both take cover and start firing at one another. Innocent bystander victims caught in the crossfire aside, let's say another student see/hears this happening and pulls his gun. Who does HE start shooting at? What about the other 3 armed students?

This is just one of many examples of what could occur. Sure, the armed student could manage to just drop the Shooter before he kills many people, but what happens to him when another armed student happens upon him (if he doesn't see the original shooting)? I don't think more guns is the answer.

Let me go over this one more time. We want our right to carry on campus not to go terrorist hunting but for the fact that we can hold up in our dorm/classroom with our firearm and secure the students and ourselves. Conceal carry citizens are not police officers. WE CARRY FOR OUR OWN SAFETY. If there are others around us we will protect them, why because they are incapable of doing it themselves when a gunman is afoot.

Sure, someone could kill the shooter then have others surround him not knowing who he/she is and who they just shot. They do not have reasonable cause to shoot that person still standing. What they do have is the ability to control the situation and tell them to stand down and drop the firearm. Believe me, if you are legally carrying you will follow those commands. Especially since these are the people who have no intent of killing anyone.

So now you will claim, HEY what if that person doesn't give any commands and just starts shooting. Guess what, I have no control over what the other carrier does. But knowing the laws like they should and do know they will understand once they start shooting they are liable for every round that leaves that chamber. Do you honestly think someone legally carrying with start shooting at a gunman who is in front of 1 or 2 or more harmless people?

Carriers also understand that once a threat is neutralized you reholster your firearm. The above statement goes for the same situation with police officers. When they arrive on a scene they are coming hot and knowing someone has a firearm. They have no idea who is a good guy and who is a bad guy. This is something concealed carry people understand. When there is no longer a threat or the police are just around the bend its time to holster your weapon and not make a scene.

However, violence begets violence. Period. People with a 'gun mentality' aren't helping the problem go away. If you absolutely feel the need to protect yourself from armed assailants, then PROTECT YOURSELF, don't arm yourself.

And by all means what are you stating we should do here?

Wear kevlar vests also? Or maybe never leave your house? That seems like a good idea, lock your doors. Sit on your couch, smoke, drink beer and piss your life away.

I'd rather be killed than take another life anyday, no matter how tortured they are. Perhaps not a popular view, but it's mine.

What the hell is wrong with you? You would rather sit there and let someone KILL you and not do a damn thing about it?

Sorry, but I do not plan on letting some jackass end my life before I deem its time. If some accident comes my way and ends it so be it. But no piece of shit will end it with his own hands and his own will.





And let me set this straight. I am not a gun nut. I do not revolve around guns with my life. I have seen and had shit done to me, my family and my friends and I vow that it will never happen again when I am around. If you want to walk around every day oblivious to the real world around you, so be it.


Stay Safe-

[Blue Midnight]

Why shouldnt I be able to bring my gun onto an airplane then? Isnt it my right to have a weapon on me always?

Great point. I personally say "why the hell not?"

Brazil began allowing passengers to carry on their domestic flights right after 9/11.

Havent heard any trouble with Brazilian airline shootings, hijackings... or terrorist actions involving flights.

Ha! Well, I'll give you this, at least your position is consistent.

As for your Brazilian example, it proves nothing. What if I were to argue that not carrying guns on planes works, and the reason why is because since 9/11 tons of countries didn't change their gun policies and have had no hijackings. So who would be right, me or you? The answer, of course, is neither of us would be right. Because the problem with your example is that it assumes that A didn't happen, and therefore B must be the reason why, when in fact it is almost certain that the two things you claim are related are in fact totally unrelated, or that there may even be a relation in the exact opposite direction. The proof? THE STORY WASN'T EVEN TRUE IN THE FIRST PLACE! So now by your logic, you would have to completely retract your whole position, since, if I were to apply your line of thinking, the fact that Brazil DOES NOT in fact allow guns on planes must "prove" that such a policy is working.


P.S. Were you just repeating something you read on sierratimes.com? That web site is full of all sorts of crazy ass right wing fringe stuff that even Newt Gingrich wouldn't touch. I'm not accusing you...I'm just asking whether it was reported elsewhere or not. Edited May 24, 2007 by Blue Midnight

[Lakemonster]

I really dont need to retract my whole stance over being mistaken about the Brazilian Airline bit.

Sheetz brought up Kennesaw GA. Been monitoring that place for several years now.

That place is a great piece of evidence right there. The absence of crime can be attributed to the 100% gun ownership. Comparisons have been run between the crime rates in that town and other towns of simular size and demographic.

Look. People say that if there are less guns there will be less shootings. Thats true. There will be less less people that defend themselves annd home.... so less self defense shootings will drop. Now, I wonder just how much the rate victimization will go up involving weapons that are not firearms (club, knife. ...etc).

Saying that shootings going down while crime otherwise is up is not a good point for anti-gunners to make. This has already been shown in the UK statistics of before and after the handgun ban and burglaries.

Is the problem the gun or is it killing?

Where is the evidence that GUNS are the reason for CRIME?

[insidius]

Gun Town
Kennesaw, has the nickname of "Gun Town, USA" due to a city ordinance passed in 1982 [Sec 34-1a] that requires every head of household to maintain a firearm 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.




Conflicting 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.^{<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#_note-0" title="">[1]} 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 Foundation).

Other criminologists, such as David McDowall, Brian Wiersema, Alan J. Lizotte and Colin Loftin, dispute the 89% figure, using the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting data, and find instead a small, statistically insignificant increase in burglaries after the law was passed.

**From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

[Lakemonster]

Crime Statistics

City of Kennesaw 1981 (Year Before Gun Law Passed)
Population: 5,242
Total Part 1 Crimes: (per 100,000 pop): 4,332

City of Kennesaw 2005
Population: 28,189
Total Part 1 Crimes (per 100,000): 2,027 -7% from 2004

U.S. Average 2005
Total Part 1 Crimes per 100,000: 3,899

Summary: Although the population of the City of Kennesaw and surrounding area has increased dramatically since 1981, on a per capita basis crimes rates were actually lower in 2005 than in 1981.

Note: To control for population differences and make comparisons between jurisdictions more accurate and meaningful, index crimes are reported at the rate per 100,000 persons.

Part 1 crimes consist of: Murder, Non-Negligent Manslaughter, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Burglary, Larceny, Auto Theft and Arson.

http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/index.asp?NID=137

So. burglary is up SLIGHTLY..... but the town has grown dramatically and its violent crime and serious crimes on the whole is LOWER than before the ordnance.

Now. the one thing you have to consider is what the burglary rate is for the surrounding towns not under the ordnance..... my bet is that it higher......along with the the rates of other heinous crimes.

[insidius]

Do you think requiring each household (with the exception of conscientious objectors, which I think is notable) to own a firearm is the solution to the death rate due to firearms in this country?

[Lakemonster]

I may, as a gun owner, have to contribute to an addition to the gun death rate.

Heres why I wont mind. The person I may have to send to his grave would be breaking into my house or attacking me or someone near me.

Now, heres the kicker.

As a baseball bat owner.. I may also have to contribute to the bat death rate for the same reasons.

[insidius]

I may, as a gun owner, have to contribute to an addition to the gun death rate.

Heres why I wont mind. The person I may have to send to his grave would be breaking into my house or attacking me or someone near me.

Now, heres the kicker.

As a baseball bat owner.. I may also have to contribute to the bat death rate for the same reasons.

Ok, now answer the question.

[Scheetz]

No.



There are a portion of people in this country who should never touch a firearm.


And now for sarcasm but truth.

But there is a larger portion of people who should never have children.

[Blue Midnight]

Crime Statistics

City of Kennesaw 1981 (Year Before Gun Law Passed)
Population: 5,242
Total Part 1 Crimes: (per 100,000 pop): 4,332

City of Kennesaw 2005
Population: 28,189
Total Part 1 Crimes (per 100,000): 2,027 -7% from 2004

U.S. Average 2005
Total Part 1 Crimes per 100,000: 3,899

Summary: Although the population of the City of Kennesaw and surrounding area has increased dramatically since 1981, on a per capita basis crimes rates were actually lower in 2005 than in 1981.

Just like with the airport example, it seems as though you are selectively cherry picking specific examples and distorting their meaning to fit your beliefs, while at the same time ignoring the bigger picture because it doesn't mesh with your preconceived worldview.

First off, you are taking two things that happened, and then claiming they are related, when that may or may not be true. An example: Suppose the amount of traffic lights in a specific city increases, and during the time period after these lights were installed violent crime goes down. What if I were to take this example and then use it to argue that installing traffic lights reduces violent crime? Why am I not right? After all, one happened and then the other happened afterwards, so they must be related right?

No, because the two things are correlated but are not actually related at all. In this example, there is clearly a third or fourth or fifth variable (or variables) that are unaccounted for which are actually causing crime to go down. It is what as known as a spurious correlation; you are taking two things that are correlated and then claiming that they are causing one another. But it doesn't make sense to do that when other variables are not controlled for. Think about all the different variables that could cause a reduction or increase in crime. Race, gender, economy, conditions specific to locality, and so on. This list could go on forever. The statistics you cite are raw data, they account for none of it. It would actually take a statistical regression model, accounting for all kinds of variables that could be related to a reduction in crime in order to determine whether the relationship you suggest exists actually does exist in reality.

It is also important to note that violent crime across the U.S. decreased dramatically between the mid 1990's and now, by over 50% in fact (it has started to creep up again just very recently). I would guess that this trend alone probably accounts for some or even all of the reduction in the numbers you cite above.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm


Bottom line: As my mother used to say, everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.

Just sayin'....


P.S. I am a former grad. student and statistics dork, so my apologies to anyone if my post was confusing. Edited May 28, 2007 by Blue Midnight

[Lakemonster]

NO.

question answered.

I do believe that the death rate by firearm would go up if EVERYONE had a gun.

I dont believe that the death rate as a whole would go up much at all.

I havent promoted the idea that we need to arm every last person. Rather, that persons that wish to arm themselves might do so.

[insidius]

How come you're ok with places requiring the ownership of guns, but it's not ok to ban guns altogether?

What, exactly, is the difference?

[Scheetz]

How come you're ok with places requiring the ownership of guns, but it's not ok to ban guns altogether?

What, exactly, is the difference?

mmmmm, maybe the fact that DC and NYC banned guns. Go look at their crime stats with firearms. Hell, just other day a guy was shot and killed after leaving a club. So much for NO GUNS in the city.

DC just allowed guns again. Smartest thing they have ever done. We tried the no guns way for 40 years. It DID NOT WORK. Time to try it the other way.


Here is an easy answer for that.

Criminals do not care if there is a Gun Ban or No Guns sign. They are already breaking the law in the first place. They wont care if a gun ban law was broken after they killed someone.


Say guns are destoryed all across the world. Guess where we fall back to. Swords and knives. Seems like a great idea don't it.

[insidius]

You didn't answer the question.

How come it's ok to require gun ownership, but it's not ok to ban guns?

[Lakemonster]

I never said it was OK to impose gun ownership on anyone.

You are tackling the straw man here.

I also dont believe in banning gun ownership.

I used Kennesaw as a basis for statistics in that the presence of gunowners = lowered crime on the whole.

[The King]

You didn't answer the question.

How come it's ok to require gun ownership, but it's not ok to ban guns?

IF their were no guns, there would be no shootings, yeah, that's true. Problem is the people that commit the gun crimes are already breaking the law and have no recognition of authority or respect the laws. If your willing to go murder some one surely you don't care about having a gun. These gun laws take the guns away from only those people who follow the law. So whats happening is the law abiding citizens are following the law, and are unarmed. The criminals don't give a flying fuck and of course continue to carry. Don't you see a problem with this?

I don't think requiring guns is okay either. But bottom line is, if a person chooses to carry to protect themselves and obtains a CC license and goes through the process, he should not be stripped of his constitutional right to bear arms

Lets say guns were completely out of our world... Not a gun any where...we would be having the same problem with knives or crossbows or something Edited May 29, 2007 by The King

[insidius]

You didn't answer the question.

How come it's ok to require gun ownership, but it's not ok to ban guns?

IF their were no guns, there would be no shootings, yeah, that's true. Problem is the people that commit the gun crimes are already breaking the law and have no recognition of authority or respect the laws. If your willing to go murder some one surely you don't care about having a gun. These gun laws take the guns away from only those people who follow the law. So whats happening is the law abiding citizens are following the law, and are unarmed. The criminals don't give a flying fuck and of course continue to carry. Don't you see a problem with this?

I don't think requiring guns is okay either. But bottom line is, if a person chooses to carry to protect themselves and obtains a CC license and goes through the process, he should not be stripped of his constitutional right to bear arms

Lets say guns were completely out of our world... Not a gun any where...we would be having the same problem with knives or crossbows or something

Yes, I know what is happening.

I just wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page; it seemed some of us were ok with requiring gun ownership, but I guess not.

Usually when someone uses a specific example as an argument in their defense, they support that example, but not in this case, I guess.


As far as knives and .....crossbows.... I can deal with that. When's the last time you heard of a mass knife murder? Not even going to touch the crossbow example.



In any event, I think I have changed my mind about gun control, as a result of my extended research. So I guess I'm on your guys' side of the fence now, but in a totally different yard, as it were.

[The King]

You didn't answer the question.

How come it's ok to require gun ownership, but it's not ok to ban guns?

IF their were no guns, there would be no shootings, yeah, that's true. Problem is the people that commit the gun crimes are already breaking the law and have no recognition of authority or respect the laws. If your willing to go murder some one surely you don't care about having a gun. These gun laws take the guns away from only those people who follow the law. So whats happening is the law abiding citizens are following the law, and are unarmed. The criminals don't give a flying fuck and of course continue to carry. Don't you see a problem with this?

I don't think requiring guns is okay either. But bottom line is, if a person chooses to carry to protect themselves and obtains a CC license and goes through the process, he should not be stripped of his constitutional right to bear arms

Lets say guns were completely out of our world... Not a gun any where...we would be having the same problem with knives or crossbows or something

Yes, I know what is happening.

I just wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page; it seemed some of us were ok with requiring gun ownership, but I guess not.

Usually when someone uses a specific example as an argument in their defense, they support that example, but not in this case, I guess.


As far as knives and .....crossbows.... I can deal with that. When's the last time you heard of a mass knife murder? Not even going to touch the crossbow example.



In any event, I think I have changed my mind about gun control, as a result of my extended research. So I guess I'm on your guys' side of the fence now, but in a totally different yard, as it were.

No I'm not saying crossbow or knife problem is something today.. I'm just saying there will always be those people in life who are not willing to work for something and would rather just commit a criime and take the easy way out...If they're were no guns people would still use another form of intimidation

Criminals exploit this in the fact that gun laws leave the innocent people vulnerable...

[Scheetz]

Yes, I know what is happening.

I just wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page; it seemed some of us were ok with requiring gun ownership, but I guess not.

Usually when someone uses a specific example as an argument in their defense, they support that example, but not in this case, I guess.


As far as knives and .....crossbows.... I can deal with that. When is the last time you heard of a mass knife murder? Not even going to touch the crossbow example.

In any event, I think I have changed my mind about gun control, as a result of my extended research. So I guess I'm on your guys' side of the fence now, but in a totally different yard, as it were.

Its better on this side of the fence anyway.


Well, I never intended to make it seem that I am all for forcing of gun ownership. My mother does not like guns to much. My father owns some but is not really to into them and I am a gun fan. Like I have said before, there are some people in this world who should never own or fire a gun. Some of these people shoot at the same range as me. And my god, its not fun looking to your right and seeing the business end of a handgun with the slide closed.

A few videos that are enjoyable to watch. They all prove a good point and attempt to drive the nail into some of those thick headed people.

Penn and Teller's video is great because of the fact that they have people on both sides of the fence. And they actually drive home the point of how removing guns is a bad idea and how screwed up the peoples thinking is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2b_mFS3WM8...ted&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

Penn And Teller's Bullshit Show on Gun Control
Pt 1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWeTEXSV7ts...ted&search=

Pt.2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po8ywLD3f-k...ted&search=

Pt.3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psEjU550xmw&NR=1




On another note. Right now in Virginia we are standing our ground against the Million Mom March (MMM). We have one more meeting to attend as our last one while it went well for us it down right pissed off the MMM. They were not to happy that we were there to correct them every time they made false claims. Here are the notes from another member of the Virginia group. These are all statements from the MMM people and their supporters.


Terry (I didn't get her last name, and their web site doesn't use full names) said: (I use the words "you can" as a direct quote here)
- You can carry in a city, county, or state park (she didn't want to hear about restrictions - this was the FIRST time she said words to the effect of "this is my meeting; shut up").
- You can not carry in a church, temple, synagogue, mosque, or the like
- You can carry on school grounds if your gun is in "a closed container" after school activities are finished
- Universities are not gun-free zones (She got one RIGHT); universities regulate firearms just like they regulate beer. (I have to wonder if she really meant it like that.)

Ricker said:

- He owns handguns and "assault weapons" (I wanted to ask what kind of assault weapons he owns, but he wasn't open to questions from me.)

LOGIC ALERT
There are 70 million gun-owning households in America. There are 200 million guns. At most, the NRA has 4 million members. THEREFORE, over 60% of Americans reject the NRA's philosophy.

VT (and I quote) "denied students the ability to bring guns to campus."

You can buy a long gun at 18. Therefore, an 18-year-old can go to a gun shop and buy an "assault weapon".

We can't ban all guns, because it would be impossible to go confiscate them all.

Even after asking "how many CHL holders are there in Virginia?" and being told 135-140,000, he repeatedly referred to "around 125,000" permit holders.

He claimed to have helped in reducing the number of gun dealers in America from 250,000 to 110,000.

Most of these gun stores are mom-and-pop stores that are barely making it, so if someone comes in and wants to buy five $600-guns, he'll sell them because he needs the money. Those of us who were there to intimidate the moms (oops, their web site says "mom's" - guess they're teaching their children the English language the way they're teaching manners.) go in to gun shops and make friends with the workers so they will look the other way when we want to do that.

Ricker acted incredulous when it was apparent we were concerned that a dealer who sold 12 Rugers at one time to a woman who then resold them to criminals should go to jail. (Note: I haven't yet researched that case he spoke of, and he didn't give us many details to go on.)

Ricker took responsibility for "briefing the Washington Post reporter on the law". (I guess any erroneous facts in the Post then belong to Ricker?)

40% of gun dealers at shows are "private" or unlicensed (Again, I have not yet done the research to verify/rebut. He did say "gun sellers" and not just "vendors".)

Then Terry said guns are sold by "unlicensed dealers". (No, dealers are licensed, though sellers need not be.)

MMM wants gun protection laws. (I want to be first in line; I want mine protected.)

[The King]

just gotta say sheetz you signature is awesome

[Blue Midnight]

I never said it was OK to impose gun ownership on anyone.

You are tackling the straw man here.

I also dont believe in banning gun ownership.

I used Kennesaw as a basis for statistics in that the presence of gunowners = lowered crime on the whole.

Dude, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here or anything, but did you read my post above? It just doesn't make sense to use these stats. in the way that you (or the Kennesaw police website, for that matter) are using them. Given the data you site, there is no basis to make the claim that presence of gunowners means lowered crime. Violent crime across the U.S. as a whole lowered by over 50% between the mid-1990's and now. It is far more likely that Kennesaw was caught up in that wave than that gun ownership caused the reduction in crime. Again, you are confusing cause and effect. I tried to explain this above. Just because you have one thing that happened followed by another thing, does not mean that the two are causing one another. Only statistical models that control for other possible reasons why crime rates might be reduced could prove whether or not gun ownership caused the reduction in crime you site. It really isn't that complicated, but please believe me as a former statistician, when I say that you are using these statisitics improperly.

Please see my post above for more info and links. For a quick overview of spurious correlations, please see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_relationship Edited May 31, 2007 by Blue Midnight

[The King]

I never said it was OK to impose gun ownership on anyone.

You are tackling the straw man here.

I also dont believe in banning gun ownership.

I used Kennesaw as a basis for statistics in that the presence of gunowners = lowered crime on the whole.

Dude, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here or anything, but did you read my post above? It just doesn't make sense to use these stats. in the way that you (or the Kennesaw police website, for that matter) are using them. Given the data you site, there is no basis to make the claim that presence of gunowners means lowered crime. Violent crime across the U.S. as a whole lowered by over 50% between the mid-1990's and now. It is far more likely that Kennesaw was caught up in that wave than that gun ownership caused the reduction in crime. Again, you are confusing cause and effect. I tried to explain this above. Just because you have one thing that happened followed by another thing, does not mean that the two are causing one another. Only statistical models that control for other possible reasons why crime rates might be reduced could prove whether or not gun ownership caused the reduction in crime you site. It really isn't that complicated, but please believe me as a former statistician, when I say that you are using these statisitics improperly.

Please see my post above for more info and links.

Yeah there could be other possible factors... but you have to realize that a big change like that law, then the effect of crime going down must have been ONE of the factors...stop using the excuse that well its not 100% sure its the one and only factor