Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And East NY definitely doesn't need any more guns than it already has either.It's already one of the highest(if not the highest) guns per capita neighborhoods in the city, which might be why it still has a high crime rate.Guns really do breed crime.More guns will breed more crime.
Totally not true. The criminals have access to all the guns they want anyways.
Not sure about that at all.I think that if we all could buy guns at the bodega and everyone in NYC carried a gun around all day(increased the gun supply),homicides and other crimes would increase dramatically.If you successfully banned the manufacture,sale and posession of guns and totally eliminated the gun supply, homicides and other crimes would drop dramatically.
Well that's just the thing isn't it. Of course, in a perfect world no one would have any guns. But in the context of present day USA, guns are ubiquitous; you would never be able to get rid of them all. Gun control laws are great in theory, but the reality is that if some nut job wants to get a gun and go postal in the workplace or some other public area they can, regardless of the law. The problem, however, is such a rampage would go unchecked until the police arrive, since law-abiding citizens can't carry. I just fail to see how allowing law-abiding Ny'ers to carry concealed would increase crime.
I've never committed a real crime in my life but if I had a gun with me all day I might be tempted to use it,even if just to get someone to give me their seat on the subway or to get to the front of the line at the ATM machine.Post offices would become the most dangerous places in the city
Gimme a break. That argument is totally bogus. If that is true, you must have some serious psychological/emotional/impulse control issues. I have been carrying a .45 concealed for the past 9 years and have never felt even remotely tempted to use it in such a situation (Long post office or ATM line etc). No rational human being would, especially since even making the threat of using a gun in such a circumstance would be automatic prison time (aggravated assault). Of course, in all states that allow citizens to carry concealed, you are educated on the dire consequences of threatening to use or actually using deadly force, especially if unjustified.
NYC's administrative code obviously infringes upon a United States citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Excessive fees, delays, and now even the slightest mark on ones record (debts, poor driving record, etc), heavy restrictions on permits, and a "May-issue" policy support this notion.
The 2nd amendment supercedes NYC's administrative code, period. Arguments based on the antiquity of the constitution are irrelevant. If there are so many people who want to ban guns then petition for a constitutional amendment.
Just because "YOU" think people shouldn't have the right to be able to carry a firearm, or that "YOU" think there are too many people concentrated in NYC for citizens to be able to carry, or that "YOU" think there will be more crime with an armed citizenry, or that "YOU" think all firearms should be banned are irrelevant.
The constitution is the law of the land and applies to NYC whether the mayoral dictatorship believes so or not.
If I was extremely wealthy I would take NYC all the way to the Supreme Court to see an end to this infringement.
Then I, along with many other NYers, are glad you are not extremely wealthy. We don't need guns, and it is a gross misuse of the 2nd Amendment to have people armed and ready to kill at the slightest provocation (which means someone stepping on your new addidas, or giving you a look you didn't like, or cutting in front of you in line, or taking "your seat on the train, etc) in today's society. There is no doubt that there was a time that citizens needed guns for safety/war, but that time is LONG past and the amendment is outdated, and an amendment it needed.
And I along with a majority of the country and plenty of NYers are glad we have the 2nd amendment.
Thankfully, You're belief that "We don't need guns" does not supercede the 2nd amendment.
If people are going to react to any provocation in the deadly manner as you suggest (stepping on one's new adidas) then nothing is going to stop the onslaught of violence that would ensue in your perception of society regardless of gun laws.
It is nearly impossible to rid the world completely of firearms, even if you could people with mal-intent would find a suitable replacement.
Instead, you would probably have the United States take the example of every oppressive and genocidal totalitarian state that has ever existed in the disarming of its citzens, or more appropriately, subjects.
Do you also believe that having a government, made up of people, that has an arsenal powerful enough to destroy the planet with law enforcement and military personnel all armed is acceptable while the average citizen should not even have a handgun?
NYC's administrative code obviously infringes upon a United States citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Excessive fees, delays, and now even the slightest mark on ones record (debts, poor driving record, etc), heavy restrictions on permits, and a "May-issue" policy support this notion.
The 2nd amendment supercedes NYC's administrative code, period. Arguments based on the antiquity of the constitution are irrelevant. If there are so many people who want to ban guns then petition for a constitutional amendment.
Just because "YOU" think people shouldn't have the right to be able to carry a firearm, or that "YOU" think there are too many people concentrated in NYC for citizens to be able to carry, or that "YOU" think there will be more crime with an armed citizenry, or that "YOU" think all firearms should be banned are irrelevant.
The constitution is the law of the land and applies to NYC whether the mayoral dictatorship believes so or not.
If I was extremely wealthy I would take NYC all the way to the Supreme Court to see an end to this infringement.
Maybe one day
as far as i heard so far they never enacted the criteria that was planned if they reduced fees.
my buddy got his permit and ill tell ya, your a lot safer with him with a gun in his hand than in his car as a passenger. so i guess things are still status quo.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
