In response to:

Drunks with Guns: You Loot, We Shoot

Doug5049 Wrote: Nov 05, 2012 8:55 AM
The only gun law that ever resulted in reduced crime was passed in Kennesaw, Georgia in 1980. The law required a gun in every house. The year after the law passed, every category of crime dropped by a statistically significant amount. The crime that dropped the most was home break-ins (Gee, I wonder why?). Crime rates remain lower than before the law was passed. There have ben no gun accidents involving children in the 3 decades since it was passed. There has been one gun-related murder in those 3 decades. Alcohol was involved (Go figure!).
Jerome49 Wrote: Nov 05, 2012 12:05 PM
Remember all the furor several years ago when states began allowing concealed carry? There were fears of shootouts in public places and at every auto accident or traffic tie up. It didn't happen. In fact, violent crime rates went down.
Matt in N.C. Wrote: Nov 05, 2012 8:59 AM
Outstanding post. I disagree with forcing anyone to own firearms as strongly as I disagree with forbidding anyone to own firearms. But the results of the Kennesaw law are beyond dispute.
binc Wrote: Nov 05, 2012 9:20 AM
Males in Switzerland are in fact forced to own a gun and to learn its proper use. Switzerland has a very low crime rate. Coincidence?, I don't think so.
Doug5049 Wrote: Nov 05, 2012 9:22 AM
They don't enforce it; it's just symbolic. There is a provision which exempts anyone who has a conscientious objection to owning a gun. Also exempted are people who cannot legally own a gun, like convicted felons. Even so, crime went down and stayed down. The population of Kennesaw has more than tripled since 1980, but it remains one of the lowest crime cities in America.
Joseph64 Wrote: Nov 05, 2012 9:33 AM
Anyone who does not own a firearm for their own protection should not be allowed the protection of the police after the fact. Why should police resources that we pay for be wasted on someone who refuses to take the first step in preventing a crime from happening in the first place, which is owning a gun?
rwright Wrote: Nov 05, 2012 2:33 PM
Swiss men have rifles and know how to use them, but most of these weapons are stored away and are not readily accessible. The low crime rate results from Swiss culture and ideals, not from guns. Canada has a very low crime rate, and very few guns relative to the USA. Guns are only the answer in a violent society, and neither Switzerland nor Canada are violent.
Jay Wye Wrote: Nov 05, 2012 3:04 PM
the weapons are not "stored away",the Swiss were encouraged to use those rifles in civilian shooting matches (buying their own ammo) to maintain proficiency. Unless by "stored away",you mean "in the bedroom closet". the ISSUED war ammo is sealed and not touched.

After riots swept parts of the United Kingdom last year, I wrote about the moral argument for gun ownership. Simply stated, it is wrong to disarm law-abiding people, particularly when there is a risk of societal breakdown.

The same argument is equally applicable in the areas ravaged by the recent storm to hit the northeastern United States. As you can see from this report in the New York Post, the government is failing in its responsibility to provide law and order.