Is gun control the answer? After a string of mass shootings culminated in a horrific attack at an elementary school in Newtown, CT, many are wondering if strict gun ownership laws would have prevented the crime. Perhaps the answer can be found in Kennesaw, Georgia.
In the case of Connecticut, the shooter broke at least three existing laws surrounding the use of firearms. Adam Lanza, 20, was not old enough to possess a weapon, as Connecticut law requires a person be over 21. Lanza did not have a permit to carry a weapon as required in the state, and he was not allowed to have a firearm on "public or private elementary or secondary school property." It is possible, but unclear, whether Lanza's Bushmaster rifle is illegal under the state law banning possession of "assault weapons." Would further laws have dissuaded Lanza? The answer is a resounding no.
As Shirley Husar from The Washington Times Communities wisely reflects in her latest must-read piece,
"Laws can govern, but they cannot control. Laws can imperfectly hold evil at bay, but they cannot prevent evil from striking, and they cannot make us good. When the mind has lost stability, when thoughts of hate and pain and harm enter one's mind, no law can control that."
Any Mass Shooting Foreshadows Predictable Calls for Gun Control
As if on cue, Rep. Jerrold Nadler made a telling statement on MSNBC's "The Ed Show," where he said regarding the anti-gun agenda, "I think we will be there if the president exploits it, and otherwise we'll go on to the next [incident]." At least Nadler admits that the goal is to exploit the tragedy.
Sadly, if the circumstances were not so tragic, the predictability of some to use the death of 27 people, including 20 children to promote the anti-gun agenda, would have been almost laughably foreseeable.
Many have discovered that the exploitive concept, "never let a good crisis go to waste," is not a joke. The beloved philosophy articulated as one of several by Saul Alinsky in his book, "Rules for Radicals," a mainstay of the far left. Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel famously used the phrase, Hillary Clinton did her senior thesis on Saul Alinsky at Wellesley College, and President Obama even taught workshops on the methods of the much-admired radical.
The Case of Kennesaw, Georgia
Kennesaw did something quite unusual in 1982. They unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Although the requirement has been largely deemed "symbolic," it made an impact.
The reasoning for the ordinance was a bit strange. Jonathan Hamilton and David Burch of the Marietta Daily Journal reported that Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said the rule was "in response to a law passed by Morton Grove, Ill., outlawing gun ownership within the city limits."
The legislation, of course, was roundly mocked in the anti-gun mainstream media. Art Buchwald wrote a column titled, "Gun Town USA," where he believed that "routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts." The Washington Post referred to Kennesaw as "the soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world." Not surprisingly, the ACLU challenged the law in a federal court just after it was passed. The city responded by adding a clause allowing conscientious objectors to the list of those who could be exempt from owning a weapon.
Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone "went crazy." He said, "People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case." Mayor Leonard Church said of the law, "You can't argue with the fact that Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate of any city our size in the country." Imagine if a potential thief knew that all homeowners were required to have weapons? It is not a stretch to believe that it would be a strong deterrent.
And, the numbers don't lie.
"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."
In comparison, Morton Grove's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban.
Another city, Greenleaf, Idaho, has followed in Kennesaw's footprints, as reported by the New York Times. Another interesting tidbit from the article was that the second Congress passed a statute in 1792 "requiring adult male citizens to own guns". The author Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, noted that "Precisely because an armed populace can serve as an effective backup for law enforcement, the ownership of firearms was widely mandated during Colonial times." A little discussed fact is also that armed neighborhood watches "deterred looting in parts of Houston and New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita."
Thoughts
The Colorado theatre massacre, the Foot Hood shooting, the Virginia Tech massacre, Columbine, and the Norway massacre all happened in gun-free zones. Perhaps instead of limiting people's ability to obtain a firearm, American citizens should be empowered to protect themselves. In situations where a mentally ill or otherwise disturbed individual takes it upon himself to shoot up a class of elementary school students or anyone else, a responsible adult with a weapon would likely save lives.
Photo Source: TavernKeepers
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 124
Your response sounds like you do NOT support responsibility. I can't believe that you would take such a stance so your response must be based on something else.
Is it just that you try to find something to dislike in all my comments and posts?
Is it that you do not want gun owners to be held responsible for the crimes committed using their guns?
Is it that you equate "responsibility" with being the only party blamed for crimes?
Something else?
Or would you rather not explain yourself?
But if you would rather clarify.
From your comment it appears to me that you have correctly understood what I mean. To own a gun is to assume responsibility for what is done with that gun. To be sure it does not fall into irresponsible hands. To learn how to use it correctly and well. To practice its use until one is proficient. To do anything else is to recklessly endanger others.
"The solution is not gun control but gun responsibility."
In other words, more gun control! More restriction to citizens owning firearms.
The gun grabbers have been trying to get these restrictions and "responsibility" laws enacted for years for the sole purpose of making it progressively harder for citizens to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
Janet Reno
U.S. Attorney General
1993-12-10
"What we have got to do is make sure that before a person possesses a gun, they have exhibited by test that they know how to safely and lawfully use the weapon and by experience that they are capable of doing that.
Janet Reno
Associated Press
U.S. Attorney General
1999-03-29
"Gun violence won't be cured by one set of laws. It will require years of partial measures that will gradually tighten the requirements for gun ownership, and incrementally change expectations about the firepower that should be available to ordinary citizens.
New York Times
1993-12-21
"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that... If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime.
Mary Ann Carlson
State Senator (VT)
"[P]eople who like assault weapons, they should join the United States Army; we have them.
Wesley Clark
CNN Crossfire, 2003-06-25
General
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State.
Heinrich Himmler"
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty."
Adolf Hitler
Edict of March 18, 1938, H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944 (London: Widenfeld and Nicolson, 1953, p. 425-426)
1938(9?)-03-18
Ask Renee what I meant. You don't seem to understand the English she and I use.
In fairness to Larry, I don't believe he was talking about legislating responsibility - I think he was simply saying that people should respect weapons and be sure to learn how to use them. ;-) I think you both make valid points and I appreciate your comments. I am glad that we could add this to the conversation, because they are both important.
Well Renee,
I'll disagree and say that if Larry would be in opposition to legislation to "force" responsibility on gun owners he would have posted so by now....Which is why he deferred to you to explain his position.
You see? Dan is not opposed to what I write (if under another person's name) but to me as a person. No matter what position I may take on any issue, Dan will oppose it even to the point of saying it means something altogether different than what the words say. You have a case in point here.
I have commented on several posts that banning handguns or guns in general in civilian hands would be as silly and destructive as Prohibition and the War on Drugs. But Dan cannot accept those simple statements. He has to insist that my position is something else.
You are willing to state publicly that you would oppose forced responsibility laws for gun owners?
I can't be sure what you mean by "forced responsibility laws" since if you shoot someone with your gun you will have to face law enforcement to account for your actions by law. That already exists and I strongly approve of such laws.
If you give a loaded gun to a child and leave them alone with it to play with their friends you will probably have to face the law in that situation, especially if some child is injured in that situation.
You see, we already have many laws that hold people responsible for what they do with guns. Do you consider those laws to be "forced responsibility laws"? I support most of them.
So please make clear to me what you mean by "forced responsibility laws."
> The key to everything is personal responsibility,
> Larry...a trait that "liberals" seem to lack...
What an irresponsible jerk statement ... where do all you Conservatives get off jumping in out of nowhere and just namecalling and insulting like that.
That's what I'm sick off.
Also kind of sick of having posts deleted for no reason by people on the Right, the member of the mob here and elsewhere that just cannot bear to respect free speech.
Evasion/diversion.
I see that my original inclination concerning your position was correct!
If it walks like a duck.
You see? Dan won't even answer your questions. He just accuses.
Not avoiding your question Renee, just trying to get Larry to be honest!
I'll hold off on answering your question for now, just so I don't give Larry any other avenues of diversion to go down.
I know the reason he won't answer and I'm sure you do to.
Consistent, isn't he. :-)
Simple.
The USA's porous border with Mexico and the existence of drug cartels that would be only too happy to branch out into the illegal firearms business ought to be sufficient warning of what would happen were gun ownership restricted.
In Switzerland, like in Kennesaw, a law requires every household to keep and maintain a gun. Switzerland has not had a war in 600 years and has a very low crime rate. I do not mean to suggest that what works for Switzerland would work everywhere, only that passing laws against guns do not eliminate gun crime.
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
Dean William Inge
When the term of service has ended they are given a choice to hang on to the weapon or to hand it in, if they decide to keep the weapons they are sent to have the weapon modified from automatic to semi-automatic or self loading rifle.
This seems a far better system than the one America has you would still have the right to have a weapon but it would be regulated far more than it is today.
Renee, even one grandmother shot by a police officer (not trigger happy, just not well-trained enough in nonlethal combat, a situation too often found in LAPD altercations) is too many for an organization whose motto is "To Protect and to Serve". This includes protecting the irrational against themselves. She was threatening nobody but the officer. The LAPD was quite trigger-happy under Gates; under Beck it has become much better at protecting.
Well, I guess the real question is this, Pete. What is your solution?
Nahhh...I'd simply hoist her up by her Support Hose and give her a massive Wedgie... ;]
ROTFLMAO
I think Graham has covered your question. Ordinary police patrols in the UK do not carry firearms but while the need to call up an armed response team was a rarity twenty five years ago, it is an everyday occurrence now.
In most cases these teams do not have to open fire but are present because there is a high probability the suspects are armed.
Hell's Grannies should be banned from the streets, they're a menace.
Truer words were never spoken. The police have come to the point where they use tasers on everyone. When I read a 15 year old having a tantrum, unarmed, or an old man who is drunk and unarmed is tased it makes my blood boil. These are people who could die and could be easily overcome without the risk of taxing them. When they are misbehaving without any true threat of harm, why are these police not guilty of excessive force? What ever happened to a plain old "collar" or using a little finesse, taking the time to do it right? I am not saying anyone should risk their life to avoid a taser, but it should be resisted if normal bodily force will suffice. I read an account where a teen was running down the road naked (obviously drunk or something) and just jogging along. The police officer tased him because he wouldn't stop fast enough. Why not just drive past, or call ahead? Obviously he wasn't armed. :). Nowhere to conceal one... I just hate violence, and I consider a taser VERY violent.
"These Olde Hoodlums, these Layabouts in Lace!!"
Haahahaahaha!!!!!
"In February 2012, Connecticut Senate Bill 452 (SB452) was put forward to remedy the fact that Connecticut was one of less than ten states in the U.S. to lack an "assisted outpatient treatment" (AOT) law."
But the bill was passed to Connecticut's Joint Committee on Judiciary in March, where it quietly faded away because of opposition by those who viewed it as "egregious" and "outrageously discriminatory."
Why didn't the legislation pass? Because the ACLU and other "civil liberties" groups and individuals cried foul. The ACLU in particular said 452 would "infringe on patients' privacy rights by expanding [the circle of] who can medicate individuals without their consent." They also said it infringed on patient rights by reducing the number of doctors' opinions necessary to commit someone to institutionalization.
Thank you for your comment, Dorothy.
>> It is a trait of "liberals" and the media to used borrowed tragedy to further their agenda...
>Renee Nal Dec 17, 2012, 12:39pm EST
>Thanks, Jo Jo ;-) It certainly is.
Here you go again .... no, no it's not.
What is a trait is unrealistic nonsense of always calling half the population defective in some way, morally, intellectually ... whatever. Clearly people who make ridiculous statements like that, and then get a mob to agree with them are nothing more than internet thugs.
Ron's correct. But then everyone knows that, Republicans are not right or perfect just because they call themselves Republicans. To make such a statement undercuts its own point ... but underneath is just insulting, which is another thing that Conservatives often accuse Liberals of doing.
The country is starting to get that your integrity is lacking when you have nothing to say but stuff like this.
Please watch the video I have linked to. This is in regards to the mass murder that may have been halted if it weren't for a bad law restricting right to carry. It is a sad event .
http://youtu.be/M1u0Byq5Qis
My Hubby would be dead, today, if he had not owned and maintained, for himself easy access to his gun, which he successfully used to save his own life from a violent nutjob trying to murder him.
> My Hubby would be dead, today, if he had not owned
> and maintained, for himself easy access to his gun,
> which he successfully used to save his own life from a
> violent nutjob trying to murder him.
OK, but you can't really count your PMS. ;-)
Perhaps those of the Left and those of the Right might offer solutions from their own respective viewpoints.
Arm the Kids!
Two pretty Swiss women.
Sweet!
"Maneuvers," likely. :)
I wish.
Laws ONLY DEFINE acceptable behavior. Without laws, there would be no way to measure nor enforce what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. Laws without enforcement are useless against anyone wanting to break the laws.
The more that are armed, the less that are killed.
Simple.
You don't see those of the slums of La Hore rushing Aid to the latest Disaster...
In England, the incidence of "hot" break-ins (home invasions of the occupied) is 4-times that of those in the United States...because Burglars are afraid to be SHOT.
The Gun is the "Great Equaliser"...particularly for Women.
...well..Conservative Women, anyway..
Fully automatic weapons are already illegal. The shooters in these attacks are using weapons which have been called assault weapons but they only fire one round every time the trigger is pulled. I think many people are getting the impression that these shooters are hosing people down with fully automatic weapons and demonizing the weapon because it looks like a military issue weapon. Most firearms are semi-automatic. Almost all pistols are semi-automatic.
The other thing people are misunderstanding is about responsibility. In every firearms training class they teach the 4 rules of firearm safety. 1) Treat every firearm as if it is loaded, even if you "know" that it is not. 2) Never point a weapon at anything you are not willing to shoot. 3) Never place your finger on the trigger until you are ready to pull it. 4) Be aware of everything between you, your intended target, and beyond. I like to state this last one as "you own the bullet until it comes to rest.
Every person who carries a handgun legally has taken this course. That is why you do not hear about conceal carry permit holders committing these acts. The ones who are committing these acts are not law abiding citizens and therefore more laws restricting those who lawfully carry will not help the situation.
The two concessions I would make to the anti-gun crowd would be these: 1) All private gun sales must include a background check of the purchaser. 2) Everyone who purchases a gun must take a safety course.
I realize these requirements will be a burden to those who wish to purchase, but they will also take a step to keep guns out of the hands of those who lack the responsibility to use them. These steps also do not infringe on the rights of the People to keep and bear arms.
How would these requirements stop someone who bought a gun and then went crazy later and used it to kill people?
Or someone who stole the gun, as this last shooter did?
If it does nothing, then what is the point of that "concession"?
It does nothing to stop people who are shot by their own guns does it?
The problem with gun control is what is it, how can it work?
How would these requirements stop someone who bought a gun and then went crazy later and used it to kill people a good point....
Sven, thank you very much for your insight.
...Life...is dangerous.
I have yet to meet someone who does not eventually die, so life is VERY dangerous.
Psshhh...you could die tonight making Passionate Love to your Wife in the Shower...
...sometimes even when!...just ask John and Lorena!
Yes Renee, that is one of the aspects of control that the gun grabbers, use to restrict the right of the people to obtain firearms, We have all seen the attempts of the gun grabbers to sue the gun manufacturers trying to blame the manufacturer for the actions of criminals and if we ever allow such law suits to be successful the next step of the gun grabbers will be to focus their law suits against private citizens using the same tactics.
I'm not a big fan of tort reform but having the loosing party pay for all court costs certainly would go a long way in quelling these types of frivolous law suits.
I'm a big fan of gun training and education but not forced by law...Gun grabbers don't want people educated and trained they want to eliminate private gun possession, forced education and training to them is just a step in eliminating guns altogether.
The NRA Eddie Eagle child safe program has reached 25 million children across the U.S. teaching children,
If you see a gun:
STOP!
Don't Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.
Have you ever heard a gun control advocate compliment the NRA on helping to keep our children safe through this program?