Anectdotal evidence is, by very definition, not a sound basis upon which to build any argument, but it is hard to argue with success:
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.
No “blood in the streets”. No “Wild West shootouts”. Not hotheaded neighbors shooting each other over where the leaves from their trees fall. No citizens accidentally shooting each other while attempting to defend themselves.
Also, no murders. Decreased crime rate. And higher population.
Oh, and to make matters even better, Georgia is a shall-issue state, so you can be guaranteed that some of those people who have firearms at home also carry them around outside, too.
I am not entirely sure if I can agree with a law that mandates firearm ownership for all legally-eligible heads of households, both for the fact that it is unenforceable, and the fact that ownership of firearms should be a choice. But, even the threat of that law seems to be working out quite well for the city as a whole, and, like I said, it is hard to argue with success.
I wonder if we could get a movement started to expand laws like these… you know, to increase the data set and actually perform an accurate statistical analysis. Yeah, that is it…
I’m pretty sure there was a challenge to the law at some point,and they amended it. Wikipdeia says:
Kennesaw’s law was amended in 1983 to exempt those who conscientiously object to owning a firearm, convicted felons, those who cannot afford a firearm, and those with a mental or physical disability that would prevent them from owning a firearm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/02/23/happy_birthday_sec_34-1a/
Ah, good, then with that exception, I can support Kennesaw’s rule without reservation. Furthermore, with that exception in place, it really is just the threat of the outcome of the law that is acting as a deterrent, rather than the execution… interesting.
It also appears that no one has ever been charged with the crime of not owning a gun, leading me to wonder how teh ACLU got standing to challenge the law.
It is the ACLU… for them, finding ways to exploit situations is like breathing.