A case study in the effects of arming the general public?

[Gouranga]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36795216/ns/world_news-washington_post/

The gist is this, one of the few bright points in the afghan conflict, an area that had absolute lawlessness that could not be controlled by the central government, military, or police, came about when the locals were armed and trained on using the weapons.

So you have a place that was far worse than say...Chicago in terms of violence and fear. You arm and train LOCAL citizens (not with particularly sophisticated weapons), and without even major firefights, crime and violence drop drastically. It would appear having an armed citizenry CAN actually deter violence and crime. If it can do it in Afghanistan, imagine what effect such actions would have in US cities where 2A is still law, where we already have a strong police force.

What I find entertaining, even in what was the "Wild West", arming the citizens, resulted in it transforming from that to a microcosm of a civil society.

Also telling the central government (one who is charged with abusing its citizens and heavy corruption) is threatened by the armed citizens.

 

[heron]

I don't recall the details, but there was some town in the U.S. that required every household to have at least one firearm, "with ammunition beside." That would be a good example to look at.

I'm sure someone will be along shortly with the particulars on that.

 

[EddieNFL]

I don't recall the details, but there was some town in the U.S. that required every household to have at least one firearm, "with ammunition beside." That would be a good example to look at.

I'm sure someone will be along shortly with the particulars on that.

Was in Georgia, IIRC.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Kennesaw, GA...and its not the only town like that.

 

[dovedescending]

Yah, Kennesaw. My memory is foggy from the paper I wrote in highschool on gun control, but as I recall, violent crime rates dropped +/- 90% in the first year after the law was enacted. It's one of those blatantly obvious things that anti's choose to ignore completely.

 

[heron]

Thanks, Ridge . . . here's the wiki, with some interesting details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

 

[NelsErik]

Aren't there some others in Idaho or someplace in the Northwest?

 

[searcher451]

It would certainly be a way to test out, once and for all, the theory that an "armed society is a polite society." Then again, there are certain folks I know personally in my town -- some of them neighbors; some of them friends -- who I wouldn't want to see with access to a gun or weapon of any kind. And I'd wager that we could all say the same thing.

 

[rmfnla]

I seem to remember that Florida had some of the highest violent crime in the country until they enacted shall-issue laws for CCW permits.

I don't have access to those statistics but I suspect they would prove illuminating.

 

[One-Time]

Look at statistics for state that are pro-gun, then compare to states that have a lot of 'gun control' and I think the answer will be clear!

 

[rmfnla]

Unfortunately, that's an "apples to oranges" comparison.

Statistics require limited variables to be meaningful.

 

[CWL]

I feel that requiring citizenry to own firearms to be pointless. It should be a personal decision to "keep and bear arms" and kept as a right. Those not interested should be allowed their choice.

 

[BeerSleeper]

I'm with CWL on this one. It should not be mandatory.

Keeping a gun is like voting. I see it not just as a right, but a civic obligation. If you can, you should. If you do not, don't bitch about the outcome.

 

[Hatterasguy]

I don't see much of a parallel, your talking about preventing crime in the US. They are trying to fight an insurgancy. Problem is your arming the civilians to fight one insurgant group, but they could very well switch sides and become another group if you piss them off. Partisan warefare is tricky. Good idea on a local bases, but not a way to win the war.

What has been proven to work in the Middle East is a disarmed public, and a ruthless secret police.

 

[1911Tuner]

Kennesaw was an interesting experiment.
Even though the town ordinance required all households to be armed, I doubt if very many...if any...of the people who didn't have a gun immediately ran out and bought one...just like in the towns like Morton Grove, where they were banned, prompted the people who did to go turn theirs in...at least not in great numbers. They just kept them out of sight. There was no penalty for not conforming to Kennesaw's law, by the way...and nobody was ever charged with violating it. I doubt if the town had any intention of doing so. The law was mainly a slap in Morton Grove's face...along with a big "NYAH NYAH NYAH!"

The most interesting part was in the demonstration that the mere passing of a law requiring everybody to have a gun caused crime to take a nose dive...the same way that having a law in place banning them...as with "Gun Free Zones"...causes violent crime to skyrocket in most places...even though the number of people who possessed guns didn't likely change to any signifigant degree. The bad guys thought that it did...and the ultimate outcome was and is predictable in both instances.

 

[Gouranga]

I don't see much of a parallel, your talking about preventing crime in the US. They are trying to fight an insurgancy. Problem is your arming the civilians to fight one insurgant group, but they could very well switch sides and become another group if you piss them off. Partisan warefare is tricky. Good idea on a local bases, but not a way to win the war.

What has been proven to work in the Middle East is a disarmed public, and a ruthless secret police.

It is a situation where lawlessness and violence have taken over despite efforts of a central government to control it. A local populace is given arms to protect themselves and does without really needing to fire a shot. IMO, this demonstrates that the mentality that arming citizens will turn a situation into a shootout is flawed. I mean this is in the middle east. In what has been a war zone for generations and an armed populace has brought peace locally.

As to the disarmed public and secret police, same thing worked in Europe and the US colonies in colonial times. The Nazi's (Not a comparison to you, just an example of the situation) also believed in the ruthless less than secret police (the SS) to crush dissension. The USSR similarly believed in such a policy.

While these situations in the short-mid term kept the order, I would argue against them working for the general populace. They work for members of the government only and i would submit, that is not the model we would like the United States to switch to.

As for them switching sides, some US government officials would argue that allowing us to bear arms runs the risk of allowing those who would subvert the US (i.e. anti-government militias) to arm themselves. It also can allow criminals (who have not yet built up a record to block their NICS check) to have weapons.

I always joke with my wife that she knows I trust her cause I gave her a gun and training on using it. I would argue for any government, the same is true. IF the central government treats its citizens honorably and honestly they have nothing to worry about with an armed populace. In fact it will be a great asset when the next insurgency comes around. So it also gives that government incentive to not stomp on its people.

 

[REPOMAN]

I'm w/ CWL and Beersleeper..... For my safety and theirs half the population in my city (according to the gene pool standards) does not need a gun in their presence. It should be a choice.......

 

[Gouranga]

It should be a choice.......

I agree. But once the choice is made, you should not have to run an obstacle course, then get on your knees to beg to arm yourself. You should also not be made out like a paranoid hick, or a criminal when you decide to arm yourself either.

 

[rmfnla]

Well said.

The demonization of gun ownership is done mostly from ignorance and fear, but the result is some of America's best are regarded as backward or lawless.

 

[green country shooter]

I read a book once on two mining towns in the west where basically everyone over about 10 was armed. The author's conclusion was that minor crime was almost non existent, but minor quarrels sometimes grew into shootouts. It was by a major historian of the west, i'll look it up and come back.

 

[green country shooter]

I read a book once on two mining towns in the west where basically everyone over about 10 was armed. The author's conclusion was that minor crime was almost non existent, but minor quarrels sometimes grew into shootouts. It was by a major historian of the west, i'll look it up and come back.

Roger McGrath, violence and lawlessness on the western frontier, titled may not be exact

If Roger sounds familiar he appears on the history channel as a talking head sometimes.

 

[Buck Snort]

Searcher451 wrote: "Then again, there are certain folks I know personally in my town -- some of them neighbors; some of them friends -- who I wouldn't want to see with access to a gun or weapon of any kind. And I'd wager that we could all say the same thing."

Yeah, its OK for ME to have guns but not those OTHER people.

 

[xcgates]

There are some people I don't really want to see with access to a car, but this is America, and you just can't pull that kind of thing.

 

[svtruth]

Experiment Underway

The recent liberalization of carry laws in AZ will provide a real world experiment.
And IIRC AZ previously allowed vehicle carry wo any permit. Do any of our members know what happened to carjackings subsequent to that?

 

[Craig_AR]

The Experiment Has been Done - 40 times

The details are already in, and extremely well documented.
Read More Guns, Less Crime, by John Lott.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2egwt5e

Every time a state moved to shall issue CCW laws, the results have been the same - reduced violent crime.

This book is extremely important - should be on all our shelves.