Exceptions? Maybe. But even those who don't fit in that category cling to their guns even though they know it means lightly educated bigoted gun owners are standing next to our kids in public, and passing their gun crud down to their kids.

Do you think these Colorado jerks did this for the right/moral reasons?

You won't find much diversity, or folks pushing liberal ideals.

Look at NRA convention, check out the Prez Elect Big Jim Something.

now stinking up this one too?

And welcome to DU.

Note to self...ignore Hoyty-Hate.

It appears that this law says, "If you want to own a gun, you must own a gun. If you are legally prohibited from owning a gun, or, if you don't want to own a gun, you don't have to, but if you have any desire to own a gun, you must do so."

That's stupid beyond belief.

-Laelth

I'd love to challenge my local police department to arrest me for non-compliance. It might happen, too. Nucla is just up the road a ways.

They'll pretend that this regulation isn't an infringement on 'liberty.'

BTW, I'm not totally awake.

Like this law, they made exceptions for those who couldn't afford one, or who were conscientiously opposed. IOW, nobody really had to buy a gun. The law was a publicity stunt after Morton Grove, Il, (a suburb of Chicago) outlawed all handguns in the city. Kennesaw is a suburb of Atlanta.

Kennesaw has not had a gun death in 25 years. I don't know about Morton Grove. BTW - They lifted the ban after the Heller decision.

gsc: Kennesaw has not had a gun death in 25 years. I don't know about Morton Grove. BTW - They lifted the ban after the Heller decision.

During morton grove's handgun ban period, it consistently had a lower violent crime rate than kennesaws (& later both kennesaw's zip codes) by about 30%, & consistently had a lower property crime rate than kennesaw, sometimes parity in one zip.
Evidently you are correct, I thought it was after mcdonald that MG lifted handgun ban.

gsc: Like this law, they made exceptions for those who couldn't afford one, or who were conscientiously opposed. IOW, nobody really had to buy a gun. The law was a publicity stunt after Morton Grove, Il, outlawed all handguns in the city.

Just a publicity stunt? gunworld sure strutted a lot how the burglary rate fell in kennesaw right after the 'publicity stunt', assigning the stunt's gun requirement the reason for the drop in burg.

wiki: Gun rights activist Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984. Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999. A 2001 media report stated that Kennesaw's crime rates continued to decline and were well below the national average, making citizens feel safer and more secure. Later research claims that there is no evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burglaries [in Kennesaw], even though the overall crime rate had decreased by more than 50% between 1982 and 2005

A law that is not enforced and designed to be unenforceable, amounts to nothing more than a publicity stunt. Their goal was to flip the bird to MG, and by extension to gun banners, nothing more.

I said nothing about crime rates. Many factors go into a local's crime rate such that gun ownership is impossible to isolate as a factor. I simply noted that they haven't had any gun deaths. However, most small communities don't have gun deaths in any given year, or decade for that matter. Outside of large cities gun deaths are fairly rare.

gsc: I said nothing about crime rates.

That's immaterial. If you say it's a publicity stunt then gun guru kopel has no right to claim it was a reason for a drop in burglary rates in kennesaw soon after implementation. Nor does the kennesaw cop I cite below, nor anyone else.

gsc: A law that is not enforced and designed to be unenforceable, amounts to nothing more than a publicity stunt. Their goal was to flip the bird to MG, and by extension to gun banners, nothing more.

I don't disagree it wasn't some kind of hocus pocus, perhaps to counter da grove, but here is what an apparent kennesaw cop said back then: Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: “When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime {untrue, burg rates went down} … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.”a progun link tho, mostly propaganda: http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/

gsc: I simply noted that they haven't had any gun deaths. However, most small communities don't have gun deaths in any given year, or decade for that matter. Outside of large cities gun deaths are fairly rare.

City crime comparison tables prior to 2008 heller, are pretty much gone now, & only list post 2008 stats, but I had followed the comparisons for about 10-15 yrs & Morton Grove consistenly outperformed Kennesaw in violent crime (~30% lower) & property crime, & parity in murder (as you say so little it was under 2 or 3 in each city yearly, iirc).
The crime rate stats between the two cities have been similar to the 2010 stats below, for the whole time I've been observing, with the exception that kennesaw has since split into 2 zips & for one property crime about parity (but MG slightly better), the other MG about 30% less property crime:
2010 Crime Rate Kennesaw, GA Morton Grove, IL US
Total Crime Risk ...56 ..........35 ........100
Murder Risk ........27 ..........15 ........100
Rape Risk ..........46 ..........42 .........100
Robbery Risk .......38 ..........15 .........100
Assault Risk .......16 ..........47 .........100
Burglary Risk ......54 ..........41 ........100
Larceny Risk .......64 ..........83 .........100
AutoTheft Risk .....67 ..........33 .........100
http://www.clrsearch.com/Kennesaw-Demographics/Ga/Crime-Rate?compare=morton+grove+illinois

A law that is passed for one reason can have unintended results. It is possible that the hollow gun ownership requirement may, or may not, have also caused, a drop in crime, even though the intention was as a publicity stunt.

As a publicity stunt it worked, as Kennesaw has been talked about for that law for the 31 years since then.

It is impossible to prove that the law had any effect, one way or another, on crime. I will not get sucked into that discussion.

gsc: Your logic is in error. A law that is passed for one reason can have unintended results. It is possible that the hollow gun ownership requirement may, or may not, have also caused, a drop in crime, even though the intention was as a publicity stunt.

How convenient. So gun gurus can give credit to guns when crime rates drop, then contend the law was not intended to improve anything, if crime doesn't drop. How convenient.

It is impossible to prove that the law had any effect, one way or another, on crime. I will not get sucked into that discussion.

You just called gun guru kopel (amongst others) a liar. He can't give credit to guns if it's impossible to tell, right? thank you.

Gun rights activist Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65* before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984.
Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999. A 2001 media report stated that Kennesaw's crime rates continued to decline and were well below the national average, making citizens feel safer and more secure. Later research claims that there is no evidence that reduced the rate of home burglaries , even though the overall crime rate had decreased by more than 50% between 1982 and 2005

* It's alleged (& likely true, see previous post) that this 65 (other source says 55) burglary figure was inflated by the town's mayor, an avid supporter of the gun law, to transmogrify comparison 'before-after' figures.

I get to think for myself.

life, and home I think laws like this are just plain dumb.

Everyone who cares about self defense and safety of their family already invest in personal protection devices without local agencies telling them to.

Guns are not personal protection devices, they are tools designed to kill. They may be used for personal protection, but so may a hammer.
I agree that all should have the means to protect themselves and their family and, under certain circumstances, I can see a gun, or a hammer, being used for that purpose. However, neither one is designed to be a "personal protection device".
Let's aim for a little more honesty and less euphemistic bullshit.

Seatbelts, airbags, PFDs, pepper spray, bug spray and sunscreen are personal protection devices. Capisci?

We who support RKBA should back off from using euphemisms. We should state the naked truth boldly.

Nothing sounds more ridiculous than calling a gun a "safety tool", or "self protection device". A gun is a gun, not a fucking condom.

Check out the other group.