posted on April 20, 2007 02:08:47 PM new
Crime rate plummeted after law required firearms for residents
As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.
In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.
The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.
Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.
By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.
This was not what some predicted.
In a column titled "Gun Town USA," Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts. The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as "the brave little city … soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world." Phil Donahue invited the mayor on his show.
Reuters, the European news service, today revisited the Kennesaw controversy following the Virginia Tech Massacre.
Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: "When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area." Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta.
The Reuters story went on to report: "Since the Virginia Tech shootings, some conservative U.S. talk show hosts have rejected attempts to link the massacre to the availability of guns, arguing that had students been allowed to carry weapons on campus someone might have been able to shoot the killer."
Virginia Tech, like many of the nation's schools and college campuses, is a so-called "gun-free zone," which Second Amendment supporters say invites gun violence – especially from disturbed individuals seeking to kill as many victims as possible.
Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 and wounded another 15 before turning his gun on himself.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on April 21, 2007 09:41:51 AM new
Those who want no guns and those who believe more gun regulations will change anything.....are only fooling themselves.
But it's always interesting to watch their responses when proof like this is offered....they just don't want to acknowledge it.
Sometimes I believe it's because they don't want the citizens to be able to defend themselves. We should become more dependent on the gov. to do everything for us....including protect us from the criminals who DO have the guns.
posted on April 21, 2007 09:57:50 AM new"As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms."
Forget guns and focus on universal health care. If Cho's family had access to mental health care when he was a child we would not be dealing with this mass murder today.
posted on April 21, 2007 09:59:42 AM new
"""We should become more dependent on the gov. to do everything for us....including protect us from the criminals who DO have the guns.
"""
Well, these people did as YOU just suggested...became dependent on the government to tell them they HAD to own guns!
posted on April 21, 2007 01:27:49 PM new
Having 'health care' in NO WAY guarantees this mass murderer would have used it...or been treated enough to not still have done this terrible slaughter of students at his own school.
A lot of our mentally ill REFUSE to seek care....and until they do something just like this....nothing can be done to force them to seek out help.
So that's nothing more than speculation on what MIGHT have happened from a biased/pro-socialistic liberal.
posted on April 21, 2007 01:37:31 PM new
And he DID receive treatment..helen....FREE treatment helen.
=====
According to court records, Cho was declared mentally ill by the intake officer who evaluated him on Dec. 13, 2005, at New River Valley Community Services, a public provider of mental health services.
On the basis of that evaluation, a court magistrate issued a "temporary detention order" and Cho spent the night at Carilion Saint Albans Behavioral Health Center in Christiansburg.
The next day Cho was evaluated more fully by a psychiatrist, and met with a special justice.
According to court records, the psychiatrist also declared the future gunman mentally ill but determined that Cho "did not present an imminent threat" to himself and others, and did not require hospitalization.
Maybe there's more to it, but it sounds to us like this was all just guesswork:
The intake officer and psychiatrist agreed that Cho seemed nuts, but the psychiatrist--the more authoritative figure--wrongly concluded that he wasn't an "imminent threat."
It hardly seems enough to disprove that Cho was responsible for his own actions.
posted on April 21, 2007 01:43:19 PM new
"Well, these people did as YOU just suggested...became dependent on the government to tell them they HAD to own guns!"
How invasive!
Telling people what they must OWN!!!!!
============
I have NEVER suggested the gov. 'tell' people they had to own guns.
mingo's hallucinating once again.
And I have no doubt, mingo can produce articles where ALL the people were OBJECTING to being 'forced' to have a gun in their homes were protesting.
posted on April 21, 2007 01:56:01 PM new
Well here it goes again ....linduh denying what she wrote despite proof:
""" linda_K
posted on April 21, 2007 09:41:51 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who want no guns and those who believe more gun regulations will change anything.....are only fooling themselves.
But it's always interesting to watch their responses when proof like this is offered....they just don't want to acknowledge it.
Sometimes I believe it's because they don't want the citizens to be able to defend themselves. We should become more dependent on the gov. to do everything for us....including protect us from the criminals who DO have the guns.""""
QUOTE from the above.....
""""We should become more dependent on the gov. to do everything for us....including protect us from the criminals who DO have the guns.""""
If you understand the written word (eye-roll) you would see that I referred to the government as the entity that PASSED AN ORDINANCE forcing people to own guns.
Although your approval of this government interference in the private lives of citizens is apparent.
posted on April 21, 2007 02:37:53 PM newAnd he DID receive treatment..helen....FREE treatment helen.
On the basis of that evaluation, a court magistrate issued a "temporary detention order" and Cho spent the night at Carilion Saint Albans Behavioral Health Center in Christiansburg. The next day Cho was evaluated more fully by a psychiatrist, and met with a special justice.
I guess this is how Linda believes all mentally ill people should be treated - with an overnight stay.
That is not TREATMENT Linda. That is an evaluation.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 21, 2007 02:48:19 PM new
Try and re-read this REAL SLOWLY ld....
According to court records, the psychiatrist also declared the future gunman mentally ill but determined that Cho "did not present an imminent threat" to himself and others, and did not require hospitalization.
NOW prove he didn't REFUSE treatment that would have been offered IF they felt he needed it.
Linda, I said, if Cho's family had access to mental health care when he was a child we would not be dealing with this mass murder today. And, I should add since he was autistic, such care was needed throughout his life. A one night stay in a mental health facility is not sufficient as we can so clearly see.
Linda, FREE medical care is NOT available in this country. You are exposing your ignorance when you continue to claim that it is.
posted on April 21, 2007 03:44:17 PM new
And I'm saying that is nothing more than a GUESS/ASSUMPTION on your part.
There are millions of autistic children...and they don't grow up to be mass murderers helen.
lol
All Americans have necessary health care for themselves. Anyone who claims they do not....hasn't looked hard enough for it.
They don't all have 'medical insurance' but when they don't have the income to afford it - we ALREADY have programs to see they get their medical needs met.
HAD this idiot doctor...who obviously should loose his license...because he felt cho wasn't a danger felt he WAS....he would have been put into a mental facility....where he wouldn't have had to pay a dime.
posted on April 21, 2007 03:49:01 PM new
I think the liberals just want to change the subject of the PROOF that what the liberals CLAIMED would happen if everyone had guns.....didn't happen.
"This was not what some predicted.
"
In a column titled "Gun Town USA," Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts.
The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as "the brave little city … soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world."
Phil Donahue invited the mayor on his show.
Reuters, the European news service, today revisited the Kennesaw controversy following the Virginia Tech Massacre.
Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: "When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area." Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta.
=========
And then besides Ill. we can also look to what happened in WA DC when all had their guns ILLEGALLY taken away from them.
posted on April 22, 2007 07:21:29 AM new Linda says again, "All Americans have necessary health care for themselves. Anyone who claims they do not....hasn't looked hard enough for it."
Linda, If your claim is not a lie, most reasonable people would expect you to be able to tell the 45 million uninsured citizens of the United States exactly where those "free" doctors, "free" surgeons and "free" hospitals are located.
Don't point these millions to a chat board where you heard about someone who may have been able to find a surgeon who would operate for free in a hospital that was also "free".
posted on April 22, 2007 07:47:17 AM newAnd he DID receive treatment..helen....FREE treatment helen
NOW prove he didn't REFUSE treatment [b]that would have been offered IF they felt he needed[b] it.
Your answer says it all Linda. First you say he DID RECEIVE TREATMENT. Then in your answer to me, you said if they felt he needed.
You are a complete fool. How can he have received treatment even if by your own admission the doctors felt he didn't need it.
IN OTHER WORDS, HE NEVER RECEIVED TREATMENT BECAUSE THE DOCTORS DIDN'T FEEL HE NEEDED IT.
Do you finally see what you have written or are you both blind and stupid?
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
