GUN OWNERSHIP: It’s not just a good idea — it’s the law:

Noncomplying residents would be fined $10 under the ordinance, passed 3-2 earlier this month by City Council members who thought it would help protect the town of 210 people. Those who suffer from physical or mental disabilities, paupers and people who conscientiously oppose firearms would be exempt. . . .

Kennesaw, Georgia was, I believe, the first place to pass such an ordinance in recent history. Here’s Kennesaw’s webpage on how it impacted crime rates there. I wonder if we’ll see more of these? (Via TalkLeft.)

UPDATE: Tim Lambert, unsurprisingly, says that the Kennesaw ordinance makes no difference. But I don’t understand why this should be true:

There was also a large increase in the population of Kennesaw, which meant that by 1998, although tthe number of burglaries had not changed, the burglary rate per 100,000 population had decreased greatly. It is hard to attribute this to the ordinance since the large increase meant that the people living in Kennesaw in 1998 were almost completely different from those living there in 1981.

I don’t think that burglars check resumes, and I don’t see why duration of residency should make any difference at all here. And if the number of burglaries stays the same, while the population grows, that means that burglary is getting less common. Doesn’t it?