I can say that regardless of stats, the law is a valid and a good law and it is one tiny example of the local city government working WITH the citizens instead of lording over them. The city government in the tiny hamlet Kennesaw would back you up rather than hand you over to the jackbooted Feds. You are also never going to see any video of a mistaken drug raid resulting in an innocent person being killed by the police, or the police doing door to door checks for guns or other typical harassing measures.
Mass murderers have gotten away with killing millions of people, and it has happened in every decade. You think it would be impossible to kill 20 million people without being overthrown, yet that is exactly what Stalin did. Pol Pot did much the same thing. Idi Amin, Pinochet, Hitler, and Mao all mass murderers and they put their armies against an unarmed citizenry and won every time. That is the single difference in the US population and the rest. Oh and how the powers that be are trying to change it.
Stop bickering amongst yourselves and wake up.

"But I think the onus should be on the naysayers to disprove the stats not the other way around. "

That's only in the event that the stats given are complete enough to be meaningful. To say "We only had 3 murders in 15 years" is all well and good, but if you didn't have a single one for the previous fifty, it's not exactly an improvement, is it? It's up to the author to make his case in the first place, if he/she wishes to be taken seriously. Only one year's worth of data prior to the law? And that year smack dab in the middle of a recession? You bring that to the table in the gun rights debate, and everyone will dismiss it as empty propaganda. You want to be taken seriously? Show crime trends from the '60s and 70's to establish a significant baseline. Then also show them for the entirety of the 80's and the 90's.

It's also interesting to note that even according to your own source (badly outdated as well-2001), not even the NRA or the SAF were willing to sign off on this story.

-SG

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

Frankly I'm wary of any pro-second Amendment advocates who are un-familiar with this story. Unless maybe they're new converts or perhaps under 30. But I think the onus should be on the naysayers to disprove the stats not the other way around. This information can easily be found (and perhaps some stats to disprove the basic premise) with any search engine. Also to help in the search don't forget about Morton Grove, Ill. Because the Kennesaw law was merely a "statement" and a protest against a law in Morton Grove, Ill which banned all handguns. And to add to the story home invasions and other crimes went up in Morton Grove after handguns were outlawed. This basic view of gun laws (looking at the same area immediately before and after strict new gun laws) is pretty solid. Restrict gun ownership for law abiding citizens and crime goes up. This isn't rocket science.
http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/NewsMax2001.html

This kind of article drives me crazy. It reminds me of the untruthfulness (lying) of Christians in the ID/Evolution argument.

There are probably 10,000 small towns across America who had DROPS in murder during this period, with no gun laws of such ridiculous merit on their books. (I say probably, but I have no data. But I bet I could weed out 10,000 towns and produce this kind of dubious data...)

Going from five murders to four will produce a 20% decline. It isn'y even worth spitting in a cup over...

Requiring someone to possess a gun, though, is Unconstitutional. What kind of a nutjob town inflicts that kind of law on its citizens?

I am embarrassed this kind of article even exists in the modern world...

This is an article from 1998. That explains how baldy outdated the data is. Doesn't change, of course, the original article's deceptiveness. The gun-ban folks would eat you alive. Try finding some data from this century, why don't you?

-SG

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

The Grackle's Nest

It is extremely selective about how it provides statistics. For instance:

-It claims the murder rate as something extraordinary following the implementation of the gun ownership requirement. But curiously, it does not say a damned thing about what the murder rate was before that measure was adopted. How is one to make a comparison?

-It claims drops of 75% and 45% in the first few years of the requirement, but as the figures indicate that there are only 55 or so crimes a year in the first place, simple chance and economic factors could account for a great deal of the fluctuation.

-The article also significantly omits what the trend has been since 1983. That doesn't appear to be an accident: why does the article not touch on the crime rate trends over the most recent 15 years on record?

-The most recent figures are 1998? What moron is compiling the data, Barney Fife? That's 10 years ago!

I am a strong supporter of both gun ownership rights and concealed carry. But this article stinks to high heaven: it's either badly outdated or it's a propaganda piece. And if propaganda is all you've got, don't enter the debate. Any gun control advocate with three brain cells to rub together could punt this crap through the uprights without breaking a sweat.

-SG

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

The Grackle's Nest

because it runs contrary to their cherished beliefs as socialists.

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone; and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.--John Quincy Adams