Beserk gunman of the week strikes "Guntown, USA"

**barnesfoto** · January-13-10, 02:08 AM

Beserk gunman of the week strikes gun hugging Mecca: Kennesaw, Ga.

http://www.11alive.com/news/local/st...139611&catid=8

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...6/ai_15729634/

**Pam** · January-13-10, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by barnesfoto

Beserk gunman of the week strikes gun hugging Mecca: Kennesaw, Ga.

http://www.11alive.com/news/local/st...139611&catid=8

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...6/ai_15729634/

So how come all the other gun owners didn't blow him away?

**Sstashmoo** · January-13-10, 09:41 AM

An exception. One idiot does something stupid, and this is conclusive evidence to form an opinion?

From the article above, here is the norm:

"Crime just isn't much of a problem in "Gun Town U.S.A." According to state figures, Kennesaw's per-capita crime rate has remained essentially static [[and low) since 1983 [[since they mandated everyone own a firearm). The most recent homicide, in 1989, was committed with a knife. The last gun homicide, in 1986, involved two young men from out of state who were staying at a local motel. "A little alcohol," Chief Wilson recalls, "had something to do with it. They were daring one another to shoot each other, so one of them did." Aside from that incident, Wilson says, there have been no problems with "anybody shooting anybody," even by accident"

**ghettopalmetto** · January-13-10, 10:09 AM

Yup. And I'm certain a median household income exceeding $60,000 has nothing to do with the low crime rate in Kennesaw.

**Trumpeteer** · January-13-10, 10:30 AM

Please note the referenced article is from 1994. Below is from Wiki.

"10 best towns for families"
The city of Kennesaw was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation's "10 best towns for families". The article appears in the magazine's August 2007 edition. The publication announced the results of its search to identify the best communities across the country that combine big-city opportunities with suburban charm, a blend of affordable housing, good jobs, top-rated public schools [[part of the Cobb County School District), wide-open spaces, and a lot less stress.

**Sstashmoo** · January-13-10, 10:32 AM

Quote: "And I'm certain a median household income exceeding $60,000 has nothing to do with the low crime rate"

Clutching straws. The allegation is that this happened because of gun ownership. This is just some disgruntled loser Ahole, that would have harmed his ex-coworkers in some way, whether he owned a gun or not. Ran them over in the parking lot? you name it.

I'm quite certain, the knowledge to a potential assailant, that the home they are about to illegally enter, is occupied by a person equipped with a firearm is a deterrent. Would be for me.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-13-10, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

I'm quite certain, the knowledge to a potential assailant, that the home they are about to illegally enter, is occupied by a person equipped with a firearm is a deterrent. Would be for me.

There is nothing "clutching at straws" about it. I agree that something like this could have happened anywhere. But pro-gun nut-jobs always propose that the prevalence of guns will prevent incidents like this from happening. It didn't. Where was the Kennesaw militia when lives needed to be saved?

Yet, you casually dismiss the long-established linkage between increased socioeconomic standing and lower rates of crime. On what basis?

More guns for everyone! We'll be just like Yemen!!!

Retroit · January-13-10, 04:48 PM

Gun-related crimes have doubled in Great Britain since they banned them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-a-decade.html

**ghettopalmetto** · January-13-10, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

Gun-related crimes have doubled in Great Britain since they banned them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-a-decade.html

And in the linked article, there's this nugget:

"Some 1,760 gun related injuries or deaths were provisionally recorded for 2008/09, compared with 864 in 1998/99. "

Do you REALLY want to invite this comparison?

**Detroitej72** · January-13-10, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

Gun-related crimes have doubled in Great Britain since they banned them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-a-decade.html

Wow, a report from a right wing web sight, no bias here folks.

Besides, your drinking the kool-aid of the radical right wing fringe if you think Obama is out to steal your guns.

Retroit · January-13-10, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

And in the linked article, there's this nugget:

"Some 1,760 gun related injuries or deaths were provisionally recorded for 2008/09, compared with 864 in 1998/99. "

Do you REALLY want to invite this comparison?

Yes. You do understand what you quoted don't you? Since guns were banned, gun deaths have increased. Hence, banning guns does not reduce gun crimes.

But pro-gun nut-jobs always propose that the prevalence of guns will prevent incidents like this from happening. It didn't.

You are basing a conclusion on one incident. You should compare gun crime trends in areas where ownership was restricted with areas where gun ownership was expanded. Gun-related "crime rates have dropped 31 percent in the United States since 1991, even as right-to-carry laws have been enacted in states around the country." [[source: http://www.mnrepublic.com/index.php/...bal-gun-debate)

"If having guns is outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns."

Furthermore, I love how people try to discredit sources, yet don't provide their own source to refute it.

**Zacha341** · January-14-10, 06:34 AM

At least the bias is upfront in most conservative articles on the subject.

Right wing web site aside, and the dismissal of it therein, it is not just the "right-wing" that is concerned about this current admins contempt for gun ownership.... Nice if it could all be summed up as more "right wing" kook-dom and paranoia. Afterall, and ironically if there is a gun grab where will they be coming to collect the guns first? The urban heavily deep dish "Democrat" leaning areas. They would be first, yet they think its just those NRA types yacking about it. LOL!

Oh, BTW I am not a republican, tea-bagger [[the assumption being that all tea-baggers or republicans) or right-winger. Just an a independent thinker look critically at both sides of the policy makers [[dem and repub).

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

Wow, a report from a right wing web sight, no bias here folks.

Besides, your drinking the kool-aid of the radical right wing fringe if you think Obama is out to steal your guns.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-14-10, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Retroit

Yes. You do understand what you quoted don't you? Since guns were banned, gun deaths have increased. Hence, banning guns does not reduce gun crimes.

You are basing a conclusion on one incident. You should compare gun crime trends in areas where ownership was restricted with areas where gun ownership was expanded. Gun-related "crime rates have dropped 31 percent in the United States since 1991, even as right-to-carry laws have been enacted in states around the country." [[source: http://www.mnrepublic.com/index.php/...bal-gun-debate)

"If having guns is outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns."

Furthermore, I love how people try to discredit sources, yet don't provide their own source to refute it.

Well, Retroit, if you're going to blame the UK gun ban on the increase in gun deaths, why don't you do some math? Take the number cited for the UK, which includes both gun deaths *and* injuries, and compare it to the United States, normalizing for differences in population, of course.

Now tell us which country is "safer".

Retroit · January-14-10, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Well, Retroit, if you're going to blame the UK gun ban on the increase in gun deaths, why don't you do some math? Take the number cited for the UK, which includes both gun deaths *and* injuries, and compare it to the United States, normalizing for differences in population, of course.

Now tell us which country is "safer".

You're missing the point, so I will repeat it with emphasis on the key word:

Retroit: "You should compare gun crime trends in areas where ownership was restricted with areas where gun ownership was expanded."

Translation: You can't simply compare places where there has always been a continuous ban with those where there has always been continuous freedom. You must compare places where ownership has been restricted with areas where ownership has been expanded. And you need to compare the statistics from before and after those changes were made, or how those changes have trended since the time that changes were made.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-14-10, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

You're missing the point, so I will repeat it with emphasis on the key word:

Translation: You can't simply compare places where there has always been a continuous ban with those where there has always been continuous freedom. You must compare places where ownership has been restricted with areas where ownership has been expanded. And you need to compare the statistics from before and after those changes were made, or how those changes have trended since the time that changes were made.

So you take two events--causal or not--and correlate them together? That doesn't sound like a very scientific thought process. You still haven't accounted for the far higher rates of violent crime in the United States, nor have you accounted for the far lower rates of violent crime in places like Canada, where handguns are banned. You may use the word "trends", but I will accurately call it "overgeneralizations" until you can definitively conclude that these two events are causal.

Next, I suppose you're going to tell us that the resulting changes in law due to Heller v. District of Columbia have lowered crime in Washington, DC.

Nor is it accurate to equate lawful gun ownership with "freedom". Non gun-owners are just as "free" as people who waste their money stockpiling arms.

Rideron · January-14-10, 03:40 PM

This is all academic.

The is explicit recognition and acknowledgment by SCOTUS that an individuals right to keep and bear arms [[not a 'militia's right) is specifically noted in the Federal Constitution.

So unless you amend the Constitution, or get SCOTUS to reverse itself, it's an academic discussion

**Meddle** · January-14-10, 04:57 PM

NRA scores again. If it was up to the NRA, we'd all be dead except for the radicals.

**oladub** · January-14-10, 05:18 PM

This is a study comparing the percentage of gun ownership by state with the homicide rate. The extremes are Wyoming with a 57% gun ownership rate and .0425% homicide rate and Washington,D.C. with a 4% gun ownership and a .08% homicide rate. It must be something about cultural differences between Washington, D.C. and South Dakota that has more to do with homicide than the number of guns. The article also mentions that Switzerland has the highest gun poccession rate in Europe but low murder rates.

Gun Crime - A State by State Statistical Approach

Retroit · January-14-10, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

So you take two events--causal or not--and correlate them together? That doesn't sound like a very scientific thought process. You still haven't accounted for the far higher rates of violent crime in the United States, nor have you accounted for the far lower rates of violent crime in places like Canada, where handguns are banned. You may use the word "trends", but I will accurately call it "overgeneralizations" until you can definitively conclude that these two events are causal.

How about if you definitively conclude that they aren't? I presented information that shows gun-related crimes increase when guns are banned and gun-related crimes decrease when ownership is increased. You claim that I'm not being "scientific" enough, yet you presented not one piece of data to the contrary. If you really want to be taken seriously, you ought to take some of your own advice.