They say an armed society is a polite society. We will NEVER prevent or stop all crime involving violence in any form, knives, guns, poison, vehicular assault, etc. Even in countries like Switzerland where every citizen is required to go into the military and serve in some capacity there are acts of violence and crazy people. The Swiss have MUCH less gun crime since EVERY household has a gun provided by the government. Countries like australia have banned all guns and have seen gun crime increase because the criminals did not turn in their guns and it is impossible to keep guns from coming into the country. Banning the 2nd amendment would make things much worse, requiring every good, sane, responsible person to carry might be too extreme because in the US we believe in freedom of choice, so our current system of having the option to carry is the best. Let people who want to survive a violent encounter with a crazy criminal carry guns, those who hope police will save them WITH a GUN, elect to not carry a gun. P.S. don't go to businesses who ban legal guns like Cinemark, you are in a target rich environment where noone has a gun and a gunman like the Aurora guy can do what they please. More guns in the hands of good people would give good, innoscent people a fighting chance, you can't argue with that.
March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.
The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.
With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?
The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.
EDIT: Will Nickel who sent a private email with your rant and nonsense about "Kennesaw's "must carry" ordinance was repealed several years ago. How come you didn't mention that? Oh yeah - it would deflate your straw man argument.":
First of all...you should verify YOUR lack of knowledge before saying such gibberish!
If you'd like to contact the Kennesaw Police Department at (770) 429-4535 and ask them if the law "Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms" is still an active law...they will tell you it is!
Normally, when someone gloats that their brother is a police officer with the Kennesaw Police Department...I'd question their legitimacy! Your follow-up emails have been deleted. I don't respond to ignorance!
It's good to remain quiet and be THOUGHT a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt!
As for Boy Named Sue:
The Constitution as indicated by the US Supreme Court has stated the "Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well."
In law a jurisdiction can "strengthen" a law but not "diminish" a higher law! The City of Kennesaw has done nothing unconstitutional and only enhanced the Constitutional right to bear arms.
Likewise, under 18 U.S.C. §2511(2)(d) federal law recognizes the difference between "One and Two Party Consent" when involving the recordings of others. If a state requires a "Two Party Consent" then recordings of others must involve both the recorder and the recorded consent.
Don't quote laws if you don't know what you're talking about!
interesting question. actual thats a foul concept. If each and every physique had warmth it would make issues WORSE not extra useful. human beings might discover an excuse to apply firearms for any little factor. There are different undemanding how you may shelter your self than killing ppl or attempting to kill human beings. there is mase, razor blades, pocket knives, self-protection, and so on and so on. There are ppl who've had weapons and it did little to help as oppose to actual helping. look on the case that took place years in the past in NYC, a youthful black guy replaced into achieving in his pocket and the cops believed it replaced right into a gun whilst it replaced into purely his wallet he replaced into shot down like a dogs by way of the police 40-one circumstances. What approximately each and all of the injuries ppl get? and crimes committed whilst ppl by risk use hearth hands or little ones who shoot ppl by risk?
At one point in our history, not so long ago, everyone could, and most people did, carry concealed weapons everywhere - even Congressmen and Senators toted handguns into the Capitol building while Congress was in session! And no - there was not less gun violence - it was much higher than today.
I hate your avatar. Did some family membe get shot by a crook? Blame the Crook..
.
It is Obvious what you Want to hear: No.
But, this Isn't the Truth:
I believe, everyone over 18 should be given a gun in a plane. No nut would try anything if he knew 150 armed passengers would jump him.
And, two armed citizens jumped Jarod Dahlmer and prevented him from reloading, They said, if they were not allowed to legally carry, they'd have run, leaving Dahlmer to reload and shoot, and definitely Kill, even more. Showed how "good" Gabby Gifford's security was! That leftist Dem learned something that day about the 2nd amendment! She could have been shot again, fatally, the next time, if not for these responsible gun owners.
'
Guns Save lives. Laws only oppress honest folk. Laws are a piece of paper, not bulletproof. Cops take 5 minutes to respond. A lot of innocents can die in 5 minutes. Scotland's violent crime tripled after their gun ban. When crooks know people disarmed, it simply causes more crime.
KCV: Bull .That ordinance would not be constitutional. GA still must obey supreme court's rulings. GA has bad rep of trying to make filming of cops illegal when public filming of anything ruled 1st amendment right by supreme court years ago, and tried to make scanners illegal when reception of any radio waves, except spooky CIA and cell phomes, has again been ruled 1st amendment right for decades. No one owns the airwaves or light waves.
REF: Had 1st class FCC license when teacher mentioned in class the supreme court and FCC Again overruled backwater court "scanner bans".
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
Only in the world where slippery slope arguments are logical.
They say an armed society is a polite society. We will NEVER prevent or stop all crime involving violence in any form, knives, guns, poison, vehicular assault, etc. Even in countries like Switzerland where every citizen is required to go into the military and serve in some capacity there are acts of violence and crazy people. The Swiss have MUCH less gun crime since EVERY household has a gun provided by the government. Countries like australia have banned all guns and have seen gun crime increase because the criminals did not turn in their guns and it is impossible to keep guns from coming into the country. Banning the 2nd amendment would make things much worse, requiring every good, sane, responsible person to carry might be too extreme because in the US we believe in freedom of choice, so our current system of having the option to carry is the best. Let people who want to survive a violent encounter with a crazy criminal carry guns, those who hope police will save them WITH a GUN, elect to not carry a gun. P.S. don't go to businesses who ban legal guns like Cinemark, you are in a target rich environment where noone has a gun and a gunman like the Aurora guy can do what they please. More guns in the hands of good people would give good, innoscent people a fighting chance, you can't argue with that.
March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.
The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.
With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?
The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.
EDIT: Will Nickel who sent a private email with your rant and nonsense about "Kennesaw's "must carry" ordinance was repealed several years ago. How come you didn't mention that? Oh yeah - it would deflate your straw man argument.":
First of all...you should verify YOUR lack of knowledge before saying such gibberish!
If you'd like to contact the Kennesaw Police Department at (770) 429-4535 and ask them if the law "Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms" is still an active law...they will tell you it is!
Normally, when someone gloats that their brother is a police officer with the Kennesaw Police Department...I'd question their legitimacy! Your follow-up emails have been deleted. I don't respond to ignorance!
It's good to remain quiet and be THOUGHT a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt!
As for Boy Named Sue:
The Constitution as indicated by the US Supreme Court has stated the "Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well."
In law a jurisdiction can "strengthen" a law but not "diminish" a higher law! The City of Kennesaw has done nothing unconstitutional and only enhanced the Constitutional right to bear arms.
Likewise, under 18 U.S.C. §2511(2)(d) federal law recognizes the difference between "One and Two Party Consent" when involving the recordings of others. If a state requires a "Two Party Consent" then recordings of others must involve both the recorder and the recorded consent.
Don't quote laws if you don't know what you're talking about!
interesting question. actual thats a foul concept. If each and every physique had warmth it would make issues WORSE not extra useful. human beings might discover an excuse to apply firearms for any little factor. There are different undemanding how you may shelter your self than killing ppl or attempting to kill human beings. there is mase, razor blades, pocket knives, self-protection, and so on and so on. There are ppl who've had weapons and it did little to help as oppose to actual helping. look on the case that took place years in the past in NYC, a youthful black guy replaced into achieving in his pocket and the cops believed it replaced right into a gun whilst it replaced into purely his wallet he replaced into shot down like a dogs by way of the police 40-one circumstances. What approximately each and all of the injuries ppl get? and crimes committed whilst ppl by risk use hearth hands or little ones who shoot ppl by risk?
At one point in our history, not so long ago, everyone could, and most people did, carry concealed weapons everywhere - even Congressmen and Senators toted handguns into the Capitol building while Congress was in session! And no - there was not less gun violence - it was much higher than today.
I hate your avatar. Did some family membe get shot by a crook? Blame the Crook..
.
It is Obvious what you Want to hear: No.
But, this Isn't the Truth:
I believe, everyone over 18 should be given a gun in a plane. No nut would try anything if he knew 150 armed passengers would jump him.
And, two armed citizens jumped Jarod Dahlmer and prevented him from reloading, They said, if they were not allowed to legally carry, they'd have run, leaving Dahlmer to reload and shoot, and definitely Kill, even more. Showed how "good" Gabby Gifford's security was! That leftist Dem learned something that day about the 2nd amendment! She could have been shot again, fatally, the next time, if not for these responsible gun owners.
'
Guns Save lives. Laws only oppress honest folk. Laws are a piece of paper, not bulletproof. Cops take 5 minutes to respond. A lot of innocents can die in 5 minutes. Scotland's violent crime tripled after their gun ban. When crooks know people disarmed, it simply causes more crime.
KCV: Bull .That ordinance would not be constitutional. GA still must obey supreme court's rulings. GA has bad rep of trying to make filming of cops illegal when public filming of anything ruled 1st amendment right by supreme court years ago, and tried to make scanners illegal when reception of any radio waves, except spooky CIA and cell phomes, has again been ruled 1st amendment right for decades. No one owns the airwaves or light waves.
REF: Had 1st class FCC license when teacher mentioned in class the supreme court and FCC Again overruled backwater court "scanner bans".
Let's put it this way, if you knew everyone carried a gun, would you be likely to try and shoot someone with yours??
If the guns were in the hands of a responsible, smart adult yeah we would.
If everyone drove a car, would accidents be prevented?
anti-gun logic is really no logic at all.