Kansas town passes law requiring homes to own guns and ammunition

J

Jerrek

Registered Senior Member
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8584-2003Nov23.html

Kan. Town Requires Homes to Have Guns

GEUDA SPRINGS, Kan. - Residents of this tiny south-central Kansas community have passed an ordinance requiring most households to have guns and ammunition.

Noncomplying residents would be fined $10 under the ordinance, passed 3-2 earlier this month by City Council members who thought it would help protect the town of 210 people. Those who suffer from physical or mental disabilities, paupers and people who conscientiously oppose firearms would be exempt.
Click to expand...

And to see the impact of such a measure, lets take Kennesaw, GA:

http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/PoliceDepartment_CrimeStatistics.aspx

FBI Uniform Crime Report (UCR) statistics for the year 1998 based on incidents of crime per 100,000 population indicate:

Overall Crime for the City of Kennesaw is approx. half the state and national rates.

Burglary incidents are approx. half the state and national rates.

Violent Crime incidents are approx. four times less than the state and national rates.


1981 (Year prior to Gun Ordinance)
Population: 5,242
Burglaries: 54
Total Part 1 Crimes: 228

1982 (Year Gun Ordinance Passed)
Population: 5,308 (+1% )
Burglaries : 35 (-35%)
Total Part 1 Crimes: 165 (-27%)

1998 (Compared to 1981)
Population: 19,000 (+275%)
Burglaries: 36 (-33%)
Total Part 1 Crimes: 227 (+0%)
Click to expand...

Good job. All towns should implement such measures.
 
who foots the bill?
out of my pocket?
or raise taxes to fund the shit?
fucking liberal commie bastards. nosey interfering hippy criminals
how dare they!
it is my fucking money! i spend it as i see fit!

just like a scummy canadian to approve of these socialistic crap

more rules! more regulations!
what next? max 2mts on the crapper?
enough!
too bad there aint no frontier where i can go a pioneering and shit. live and let live. forge my own rules! plant my weed! (smoke it too)

edit: condensed 3 posts into 1
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by spookz
more rules! more regulations!
what next? max 2mts on the crapper?
enough!
too bad there aint no frontier where i can go a pioneering and shit. live and let live. forge my own rules! plant my weed! (smoke it too)
Click to expand...
Come on, spookz. If you don't own a gun, what's to stop the king of England from pushing you around any time he wants to?
 
goddamn tax and spend, gun toting fool
oh for the days of less govt. wasnt it madison that said (on a mountain top), "thou shall not maketh unnecessary laws that burden the good citizenry"?

jerreck
(Moderator edit for irony. Oh, yeah, and a minor rules violation concerning profanity.)

ahh nasor
thanks for the timely reminder. i had forgotton about that pesky king

(Further irony, the edit is longer than the text removed. -bd)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your turn, Jerrek

Why are you opposed to lowering the crime rate?
Click to expand...
I'm not.

There, I answered your question, Jerrek. Please answer mine.
 
Re: Your turn, Jerrek

Originally posted by tiassa
I'm not.

There, I answered your question, Jerrek. Please answer mine.
Click to expand...
Now, maybe if you fire an additional neuron you can add two to two and come up with a solution.
 
Mod hat

Jerrek

This is my forum now. Please try to be somewhat polite, or, failing that, please don't make a point of being impolite. To put it simply, the insult should not be the whole of your post.

Spookz

Please, man. Don't make me make you my first edit. Even if I chuckle, well ... you know. There's still some things that shouldn't be said unless they lend to a greater point. You owe it to Jerrek to at least tell him why, on this occasion, he sucks.

It's a stylish hat, I guess. I now take it off.

 
Jerrek

Now, maybe if you fire an additional neuron you can add two to two and come up with a solution.
Click to expand...
Let me know when you feel like answering the question.

I mean, I could presume a whole bunch of stuff that would make your topic post make some sense, but it's not my place to think that poorly of you without provocation.

So then, if you would be so kind:
All towns should implement such measures.
Click to expand...
Why?
 
Originally posted by Jerrek
Good job. All towns should implement such measures.
Click to expand...

All towns should have better stats reporting. The web page makes little sense to me. For 1998, the page reports for burglaries an index rate of 347. If 36 is the number of incidents as you imply, I should be able to use the formula described on the web page (“The [index] rate is figured by dividing the number of crimes by the total population and then multiplying by 100,000”) to convert the number of incidents to an index rate, but it doesn’t work: ((36 / 19000) * 100000) = 189, not 347.

My best guess is that “Total Part 1 Crimes 227(+0%)” is an index rate, in which case Kennesaw did not witness less per-capita “violent crime plus Burglary, Larceny, Auto Theft and Arson” in 1998 than 1981.

Even if the town did witness a significant reduction in part 1 crime after the gun ordinance was passed, you’d need much better stats reporting to attribute the ordinance to the reduction. For example, perhaps the police force doubled in size in the same year the ordinance was passed, and that was the main factor in lowering the crime rate.

You’re going to have to do a lot better than that to make a strong point that all towns should implement such measures.
 
tiassa

:)

go for it. (the edit that is)
pointing out the irony of jer boy advocating big govt is satisfaction enough.
 
I am convinced!

But let the court be known that it will only work if EVERYBODY has a mandatory piece, otherwise , in the current situation where a you have a group of criminals who can seek out some non-gun owning victims.....

The current situation is alarming, you either do something about the availabillity of guns or everybody should have one...


...But wait...Isn't it true that in some parts of Los Angeles allmost everybody carries a piece, but the crimestatistics are written in blood (and crips) nevertheless, but I know, that must be a racial issue ;)caused by the short temper of black/latino gangs, No sir, in a little white inbred Kansas town that wouldn't happen , you wouldn't shoot at your cousin, because he is married to your sister....
 
Last edited:
Japan has some of the tightest gun control laws in the world, and virtually no gun crime. Brazil, on the other hand, also has extremely tight gun control laws but has very high per capita gun crime. The United States has few gun control laws and high rates of gun crime. Switzerland has virtually no gun control laws (anyone can own automatic weapons) but has very little gun crime.

Now can we all agree that gun control laws do not necessarily correlate to crime rates?
 
Last edited:
Now, the gun-nuts like to claim: more guns = less crime.

If that were the case then America would be the safest country in the world.
 
And, on the other hand, some anti-gun nuts like to claim that tough gun control = lower crime. If this were true, Brazil would be one of the safest countries in the world!

I think a much better equation would be: less poverty = less crime.
 
Last edited:
I think that every household should have a nuclear bomb or two under the kitchen sink. I'm sure that the statistics will show that there will be less war and more donations to church.

And more pets will poop on the sidewalk!
 
Originally posted by Nasor
And, on the other hand, some anti-gun nuts like to claim that tough gun control = lower crime. If this were true, Brazil would be on of the safest countries in the world!

I think a much better equation would be: less poverty = less crime.
Click to expand...

No revolt from me on this one.

But, it looks like Brasil has begun imposing gun laws very recently...23 of July by this article. And this was in response to gun violence in ordinary conflict between peple and through road rage.

Anyway, no dobut there is a coorelation between poverty and violence.

Amazing!
Brazil's lower house of Congress has passed a bill to tighten gun laws in a country which saw 40,000 murders last year - one of the world's highest rates.
The legislation, which now goes to the Senate for final approval, restricts gun ownership and obliges owners to register their weapons.
Click to expand...

http://www.brazil-brasil.com/2003/html/news/articles/aug03/p106aug03.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3209999.stm
 
People on both sides of the gun debate seem to forget that correlation does not imply causation. You can't just look at crime and gun ownership statistics and assume that there is any sort of causal relationship between gun ownership/gun laws and crime. Perhaps when more people own guns it causes more crime. On the other hand, perhaps people are simply more likely to buy guns in high-crime areas because they feel that they need protection. If a city with tough gun control laws has a lot of crime, it does not necessarily mean that guns make people safer; perhaps a city with lots of crime is simply more likely to want to ban guns.

The only really effective way to examine the relationship between guns and gun crime is to look at trends in areas before and after gun laws are imposed. Even then, it's hard to be conclusive. Were the gun laws instituted as part of a broader anti-crime initiative? Did gun crime drop but stabbings and bludgeonings increase? You see what I'm getting at.
 
Of course there is a relationship. Look back on history and there is an obvious relationship. People started becoming less and less violent as firearms became more and more common.
And it makes sense, they're the ultimate equaliser, back when you had a sword and the other weaker guy had a sword, there was a good chance you could wreck that little bitch without a scratch. Why not give it a go?
Now that little bitch might have a gun and it suddenly doesn't matter how weak he is, he's very dangerous regardless, better leave him alone.
A society full of guns is a nervously polite society.
People have always been the same animal, we still WANT to beat eachother to death with hammers and crucify people on the side of the road, but we don't want to risk it. Whether you are scared of the victim shooting you, a good samaritan or a police officer, we know guns aren't far away, so we put on a fake smile and keep walking past would be victims.

I would actually prefer, for earth's sake, to go back to the days of horrible violence because there are too many people around, so I wish there was no guns, hell I partly blame guns for there being so many people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top