MARK SMITH MORE COLUMNS Advertisement

In a letter published in this edition, Vince Bogdan outlines a variety of ideas regarding guns, etc. In doing so, he illustrates the danger of taking an issue and then making grossly overdrawn declarations about it.

He mentions the law put into place in Kennesaw, Ga., in 1982, which requires that every household have a usable firearm in place. That's right, it's the law -- you can look it up on the town's own Web site.

Now just off the top, it seems to me that criminals would love visiting Kennesaw. Watch and see when a family leaves its house, then break in and steal a gun. Hey, according to the law, there's got to be at least one in there.

Bogdan ignores, however, that the law was deliberately made so full of loopholes that literally anyone who chooses to ignore it can do so with impunity.

If you can't afford a gun, no problem. If you're physically handicapped, no problem. If you just don't want to have a gun around the house, no problem. (If you're a felon, however, no guns. But of course, as they say, it's the felons who will have the guns. There is a joke waiting to get out there.)

More important, no one knows how many households in Kennesaw actually pack a gun. The law includes no enforcement provisions, so the cops have no way of checking on who actually obeys it. And anyway, since its inception not one human being has been charged with violating the law.

That's a law?

As one gentleman in Kennesaw put it in the Atlanta Constitution-Journal years ago, "The only people subject to the law were the ones who agreed with it."

Bogdan nonetheless says in his letter that Kennesaw's "successful law" has resulted in "virtually a crime-free community -- the bad guys fear being shot." Bogdan offers no backup for that statement, and he doesn't cite any polls of criminals in which they explain why they avoid the place.

Actually, Kennesaw is not at all crime-free, and any assumption that it is because bad guys fear being shot is laughable. Let's look at Pahrump and Nye County, with no such law, and Kennesaw.

Here are some comparisons between Nye in 2000, when the population was just under 25,000, and Kennesaw in 2003, with a population at that time of barely over 25,000:

Murder: one in Nye, one in Kennesaw. Forcible rape: none in either. Robbery: six in Nye, seven in Kennesaw. If one compares the two places in those respects, neither is any more "crime-free" than the other.

Likewise with larceny or theft: 482 in Nye, 455 in Kennesaw; car theft: 29 in Nye, 47 in Kennesaw.

Aggravated assault: Now here there is a considerable difference -- 100 in Nye, only 15 in Kennesaw. Burglary, too, indicated a big difference: 383 in Nye, 89 in Kennesaw.

But let's go back farther and look at the period during and immediately after Kennesaw passed its law. You'd assume, if the law were so effective as Bogdan suggests, you'd see a noticeable change in the statistics.

Here are the data for burglaries in Kennesaw: 1982, the year the law was altered -- 35; 1983, a year later -- 35; 1984 -- OK, down to 29; but in 1985 -- back up to 32; and in 1986 -- 70 burglaries. After that, due to explosive population growth, the stats become wildly skewed, but the point is clear: Even after the law was in effect for four years, there was barely any change and then a sudden leap up.

Why should Nye County boast so many more aggravated assaults and burglaries? Why the huge disparity in those numbers? One hint may be found in the 2000 demographics.

As one example, in Pahrump the median family income was, at last official report, $39,800. In Kennesaw at the same time, $67,800. That is a hefty difference.

As another, in Kennesaw the percentage of those living below the poverty line was at 4.5 percent. Here in Pahrump it was more than double that, at 10.7 percent.

Perhaps even more important, in Kennesaw, of those 18 and under, just under 5 percent are below poverty level. By contrast, in Pahrump three times that number -- just under 15 percent -- are living below poverty level..

Gee, could those stats also have an effect on crime?

I'm just guessing, but I expect higher family incomes and fewer folks living below the poverty line would tend to diminish crime rates. No one would deny, for instance, that Summerlin has less crime than, say, West Las Vegas.

Now I'm no demographer, and for that matter neither is Bogdan, but I'm guessing there are a lot more reasons for Nye County's relatively high assault and burglary rates than the fact that it doesn't have a mandatory gun law. Simply pointing to the most superficial aspect of a situation and then announcing a successful law is, well, just that -- superficial.

What amazes me the most, however, is that Bogdan would even suggest the worth of a law that requires that you, I and everyone else must have a gun in the household. The Flagman proudly waves the flag and carries his iron, but I can't believe he would try to force anyone else into necessarily carrying one. He is working to protect your right to carry a gun, not shove a requirement that you do so into your face.

The Constitution and freedom and liberty, Vince -- remember those?

It seems to me that those who really do support the Constitution ought to be opposed to the Kennesaw gun law on those grounds alone.