CaP'N GRuNGe Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Ask this guy. He has all the answers Kevin Jennings -Obama's director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools President Obama's "safe schools czar" is a former schoolteacher who has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools, written about his past drug abuse, expressed his contempt for religion and detailed an incident in which he did not report an underage student who told him he was having sex with older men http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/23...-wrong-man-job/ I've never heard of the guy and shouldn't indulge you, but a quick google check I'm sure will lead to many links like this one discrediting your claims. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/03/kevin-jennings/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 seems not unrelevant: http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/kalam...n_rights_picnic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Gun ownership deters crime. Kennesaw, GA has a law mandating that every homeowner own a fire arm. While this looks good, and the stats impressive, I'd need to see the before/after comparison to really get a feel for how the new law contributed to reducing crime. My gut feel: since Kennesaw is a fairly upscale, well-educated suburban community, I doubt their was a significant crime problem before this law was put into effect. Converesely, the idea of requiring every inner-city slum neighborhood to own a handgun is nauseating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 seems not unrelevant: http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/kalam...n_rights_picnic Idiot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 (edited) I've never heard of the guy and shouldn't indulge you, but a quick google check I'm sure will lead to many links like this one discrediting your claims. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/03/kevin-jennings/ Your link says its true. This is the guy you want approving the curriculum in your kids school? Next generation will be generation - F This country has no chance Edited September 24, 2009 by moneymakers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 If you would take time to go back and read, I agreed that a stun gun would probably be a better solution. Thank you for stalking though. Perch, someone needs to keep fact checking your contradictory statements. And if you would take time out to read, you would have seen that my statement directly relates to you comment about "proper training" versus just having the safety skillset to carry a concealed weapon. But thanks for blustering . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 (edited) While this looks good, and the stats impressive, I'd need to see the before/after comparison to really get a feel for how the new law contributed to reducing crime. My gut feel: since Kennesaw is a fairly upscale, well-educated suburban community, I doubt their was a significant crime problem before this law was put into effect. Converesely, the idea of requiring every inner-city slum neighborhood to own a handgun is nauseating. 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. DEMOGRAPHICS: As of the census[1] of 2000, there were 21,675 people, 8,099 households, and 5,782 families residing in the city. There were 8,670 housing units at an average density of 1,027.3/sq mi (396.6/km²). The racial makeup of the city was 81.97% White, 1.90% Black, 5.22% Native American, 2.91% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 2.54% from other races, and 2.45% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 6.20% of the population. There were 8,099 households out of which 40.4% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 57.7% were married couples living together, 10.3% had a female householder with no husband present, and 28.6% were non-families. 22.2% of all households were made up of individuals and 3.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.65 and the average family size was 3.12. The median income for a household in the city was $60,404 and the median income for a family was $67,778. Males had a median income of $45,253 versus $33,660 for females. The per capita income for the city was $24,757. About 3.1% of families and 4.5% of the population were below the poverty line, including 4.8% of those under age 18 and 12.5% of those age 65 or over. Edited September 24, 2009 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 The median income for a household in the city was $60,404 and the median income for a family was $67,778. Males had a median income of $45,253 versus $33,660 for females. The per capita income for the city was $24,757. About 3.1% of families and 4.5% of the population were below the poverty line, including 4.8% of those under age 18 and 12.5% of those age 65 or over. Not a lot of poverty, and a relatively high median income . . . . Yup, not having a lot of crime must be because people are packin heat . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Wikipedia: [edit] Gun law On May 1, 1982 the city passed an ordinance [sec 34-1a] requiring every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition. It was passed partly in response to a 1981 handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois. 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. It mentions no penalty for its violation. According to the Kennesaw Historical Society, no one has ever been charged under the ordinance. so it took this place 2 years do decide not to mandate that convicted felons carry a weapon as well? why not have a police officer in the school with some guns in a cage and names of trained teachers to call when needed? it might not stop the immidiate killing of a teacher - but it would keep larger events more contained. it would also keep a teachers gun from ending up in the wrong hands (teacher jumped, teacher out numbered, gun simply taken by surprise, gun drawn and teach does not have strength to use it, gun drawn and teacher misses, etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Perch - Actually the world would probably be much safer if everyone that hasn't been convicted of a violent crime had a psychological test showing they weren't crazy had a gun. It would be one hell of a deterrent if thieves or car jackers knew that there was a high probability that the person they were thinking of targeting was armed. "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson ‘To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...’’ — Richard Henry Lee ‘The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.’’ — Patrick Henry DJ looking to for his answer from Perch - Is that what most gun lobbists want? Psychological tests and background checks? Whatever the case, I didn't see any distinction between who should and who should not own guns in your quotes. Please explain. Sounds like serial rapists/killers are good for gun ownership in those snipets. How about guns on airplanes seeing as how we all have the right to protect ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 (edited) Not a lot of poverty, and a relatively high median income . . . . Yup, not having a lot of crime must be because people are packin heat . . . . Check this out, Higher Income, higher crime rates, not a lot of people packing heat... Legally, anyway. http://homes.point2.com/Neighborhood/US/Ge...mographics.aspx Edited September 24, 2009 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 DJ, I don't know what most gun lobbyist want, you'd have to ask them. You are correct, the quotes do not make a distinction between who should and shouldn't be allowed to the right to fire arms. The quotes are by those that knew the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and argued for their ratification. Currently neither limit ownership. I am in favor of some reasonable limitations, but in order to make those limitations, I think we should follow the proper procedure and incorporate them in a constitutional amendment, rather than ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 DJ, I don't know what most gun lobbyist want, you'd have to ask them. You are correct, the quotes do not make a distinction between who should and shouldn't be allowed to the right to fire arms. The quotes are by those that knew the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and argued for their ratification. Currently neither limit ownership. I am in favor of some reasonable limitations, but in order to make those limitations, I think we should follow the proper procedure and incorporate them in a constitutional amendment, rather than ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Are you a member of the NRA? If so, I'd figure that you'd know what they are looking for. If not - then please excuse the question. As for the founding fathers - it seems to me that they are talking about EVERYBODY having guns - no restrictions. Airplanes, churches, government buildings, hospitals, Obama speech, schools, etc. The quotes could certainly support anybody and everybody shooting in the air or where even and whenever like cowboys whenever they like - but to apply those quotes to an argument where you restrict people's right to have weapons is intellectually dishonest. Either they knew what they were talking about or they didn't. I would not go so far as saying that they did not know what they were talking about - but I will say that times have changed. These people used to own slaves as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 Either they knew what they were talking about or they didn't. I would not go so far as saying that they did not know what they were talking about - but I will say that times have changed. These people used to own slaves as well. Which was change the correct way, by amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Check this out, Higher Income, higher crime rates, not a lot of people packing heat... Legally, anyway. http://homes.point2.com/Neighborhood/US/Ge...mographics.aspx Sooo you found one exception to the rule? The point is that there are WAYY too many variable for you to point to "everyone owning a gun" being the reason why crime is low. This aint the wild wild west partner . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 Sooo you found one exception to the rule? The point is that there are WAYY too many variable for you to point to "everyone owning a gun" being the reason why crime is low. This aint the wild wild west partner . . . Which is more than you've posted to counter it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Which is more than you've posted to counter it. And what I should I post to counter a looney claim that associates gun ownership as a direct causal reason that crime is low in a predominantely white, affluent suburb? Would you like a link to a "common sense" website? The point is that there are way too many variables to make such a silly claim. No "footnotes" required . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 And what I should I post to counter a looney claim that associates gun ownership as a direct causal reason that crime is low in a predominantely white, affluent suburb? Would you like a link to a "common sense" website? The point is that there are way too many variables to make such a silly claim. No "footnotes" required . . . When are you going to quit being a racist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Sooo you found one exception to the rule? The point is that there are WAYY too many variable for you to point to "everyone owning a gun" being the reason why crime is low. This aint the wild wild west partner . . . The exception to what "Rule"? You seem to be insinuating that there is a "rule" that you have knowledge of that states something to this effect: "if an area gives the rights to it's citizenry to lawfully carry weapons or have weapons in their domicile there is an inceased incident of firearms deaths or firearms crimes". I would like for you to back up your claims so that I can be corrected and my ignorance be washed away... Just an excerpt from Wikipedia: Some research comparing various countries' violent crime rates, murder rates, and crimes committed with weapons, have found that legal ownership of guns, including concealed carry guns, generally reduces crime rates.[43] University of Washington public health professor Brandon Centerwall prepared a study comparing homicide rates between Canada and the U.S., as the two countries are very similar, yet have different handgun ownership rates. He reported "Major differences in the prevalence of handguns have not resulted in differing total criminal homicide rates in Canadian provinces and adjoining US states."[44] In his conclusions he published the following admonition: "If you are surprised by my findings, so are we. We did not begin this research with any intent to "exonerate" handguns, but there it is – a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where NOT to aim public health resources."[44] Don Kates has observed: "Scholars engaged in serious criminological research into "gun control" have found themselves forced, often very reluctantly, into four largely negative propositions. First, there is no persuasive evidence that gun ownership causes ordinary, responsible, law abiding adults to murder or engage in any other criminal behavior—though guns can facilitate crime by those who were independently inclined toward it. Second, the value of firearms in defending victims has been greatly underestimated. Third, gun controls are innately very difficult to enforce. "Therefore, the fourth conclusion criminological research and analysis forces on scholars is that while controls carefully targeted only at the criminal and irresponsible have a place in crime-reduction strategy, the capacity of any type of gun law to reduce dangerous behavior can never be more than marginal."[45] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 (edited) Sooo you found one exception to the rule? The point is that there are WAYY too many variable for you to point to "everyone owning a gun" being the reason why crime is low. This aint the wild wild west partner . . . And another exception to the rule compare the two. And please compare the county rates of crime as well. You'll see something interesting there. http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Kennesaw...community-info/ http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Birmingh...community-info/ Edited September 24, 2009 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 very compelling, SEC. Just curuious....what are the rates of accidental shootings in cities that require/legalize guns verus, say, London, a city that prohibits gun onwership of any kind? JMHO: i'd rather no one in my neighborhood have a gun, than know that everyone has a gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 very compelling, SEC. Just curuious....what are the rates of accidental shootings in cities that require/legalize guns verus, say, London, a city that prohibits gun onwership of any kind? JMHO: i'd rather no one in my neighborhood have a gun, than know that everyone has a gun. If the net difference between crime and accidental shootings was in favor of gun ownership would you still feel the same way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 If the net difference between crime and accidental shootings was in favor of gun ownership would you still feel the same way? I don't think its ever OK for someone to be shot accidently. I'd rather the crime rate be a tad higher than to have tell a mother someone shot her kid. In a recent year, there were over 5,000 teen and adolcent deaths attributed to "accidental" shootings in the USA. In Great Britain, there were 19. 19. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 (edited) I don't think its ever OK for someone to be shot accidently. I'd rather the crime rate be a tad higher than to have tell a mother someone shot her kid. In a recent year, there were over 5,000 teen and adolcent deaths attributed to "accidental" shootings in the USA. In Great Britain, there were 19. 19. Not sure what those rates are and honestly, not ambitious enough to dig them up. Anecdotally, though, we recently had and accidental shooting/killing here in a suburb of Atlanta. A young woman was at her friend's apartment, they were playing board games that night and by all accounts not doing anything illicit or illegal. Evidentally the same can not be said for the person who lived under them or next door to them at the apartment (sorry that detail is a bit fuzzy to me). Some people decided to pull a diveby on the neighbor's apartment, a shot went through the window of the apartment in which the young ladies were minding there own businees and doing nothing wrong. They have classified this as an accidental killing. My question would be, exactly how is an accidental killing defined... To me this case is not an accidental killing (and maybe it has been revised since the initial reports came out) it is murder. But, if a crime like this is classified as ""accidental" then I think the "accidental" killings may be over stated. For instance, Plaxico, accidental shooting. Boy shoots dad while hunting, accidental. Wife shoots me while bedding down an 18 year old hottie.. well, bad example. But, some dudes pulling a drive-by and killing a hard working 22 year old girl, even though she wasn't their intended target, not accidental. As a side note, there are probably more illegal weapons in the apartment complex in which tis young lady was shot than there are legal one's in the city of Kennesaw and it did not deter this crime from happening, crazy, ain't it. Edited September 24, 2009 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 I don't think its ever OK for someone to be shot accidently. I'd rather the crime rate be a tad higher than to have tell a mother someone shot her kid. In a recent year, there were over 5,000 teen and adolcent deaths attributed to "accidental" shootings in the USA. In Great Britain, there were 19. 19. What were the per capita deaths due to crime in each country? What were the per capita accidental deaths in each country? Do you have a link to that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.