Quote:
Originally Posted by C-D-P
I am glad you brought that up. From the link.
"In fact, more than 25 years after the ban, not a single resident of Kennesaw has been involved in a fatal shooting - as a victim, attacker or defender. There has been one firearm related murder but not from a resident of Kennesaw. Since the ordinance, no child has ever been injured with a firearm in Kennesaw. Crime dropped after the ordinance and the city has maintained an exceptionally low crime rate ever since, even with the population swelling from 5,000 in 1982 to approximately 30,000 today. The truth is crime has plummeted and population has soared."
|
I doubt the ordinance had much to do with reducing crime. The firearms ownership in this town was probably already high (70-80%) before the ordinance, yet it still had a "problem" with crime. Clearly there is something else at play here.
The economy was pretty bad in 1982 when the ordinance was implimented. My guess for the main reason crime rates improved was that the economy improved gradually since 1982. More people found work, which is crucial for keeping people out of trouble in small working class communities. Plus the city generates more revenue, hires more cops, crime is deterred and goes down. You would probably find the same trend in most comparable towns.
Using the ordinance to explain every crime reduction is wishful thinking. Plus, the statistics aren't that amazing to begin with. No fatal shootings, okay, well plenty of towns can say they have zero or very few fatal shootings, and I doubt we would see a correlation with levels of gun ownership.
This ordinance also tramples on residents' right to liberty and right to regulate their property. The individual is
sovereign, the government has no right to demand an individual to meet qualifications to be able to reside in a free and democratic society. The government should stay out of an individual 's affairs, unless that individual has violated someone elses rights.