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.
Who would notice? Wall St is expecting a few excellent years, and finance jobs drive the ultra high GDP NY State via the even higher per capita GDP NYC.
It does have a benefit for the rural areas, as the urban area's tremendous wealth creation subsidizes rural America, with it's typically below US median GDP and income per capita.
If some of the rural regions of NY lost population, economically, it would further strengthen New York.
What do you plan to eat if rural Americans decide not to send you the food they raise?
Wall street produces nothing except the misery of this recession they caused.
Because more improvement is achievable. Despite being America's safest large city, NYC would rank poorly worldwide. It is far ahead of every Texas city, Chicago, Philly, etc, but globally none are good.
Every day in every way we should seek to improve.
First of all, I was hoping (but not expecting) a response with a bit more substance, and less cliche' like "America's safest large city" and "we can always do better" type of stuff. But let's just tackle this rather ridiculous nonsense about NYC being America's Safest Large City ... now I cannot imagine why anyone would believe such total crap for a second, but then again, it's not surprising since the vast majority believe a lot of BS that has no resemblance to the truth.
The first point that must be understood is that statistics really can be very deceiving, and particularly as it relates to violent crime and murder. New York City is a classic example, since it is over two times larger in population than Los Angeles, which is the second largest city in America. The truth is, violent crime rate statistics can be predicted based on the ratio of population residing in high crime areas such as the inner city and low income areas which account for the largest percentage of crime in any city, compared to the size of the outlying suburbs which have traditionally low rates. New York City is credited with having a population of 8.1 Million, while Los Angeles is 3.7 Million. The murder rates of these two cities are 6.3 (per 100,000 pop) for New York City, and 7.7 for Los Angeles. But since NYC is over twice the population of LA, the number of murder victims is actually more than twice that of LA .... so it's actually not safer in New York at all, unless you are strolling around in one of the outlying wealthy suburban areas where violent crime is almost nonexistent. The truth is, as city jurisdictions are mapped out (often for the purpose of maximizing City Tax revenues) the larger the suburban portion of the city's jurisdiction is compared to the inner city, the lower the statistical rate becomes. New York could instantly lower it's crime rate by simply redistricting it's jurisdictional boundaries, adding more low crime areas to the tally ... while the number of crimes didn't drop at all. In fact, crime rates could be increasing while the statistics show a drop. So, as the saying goes, figures lie, and lairs figure.
But to claim that NYC is the safest large city in America is preposterous crap .... Austin Texas is in the top 20 largest cities, (14th to be precise) and we have a murder rate of 3.5 per 100,000, compared to NYC's 6.3. Now that shows that NYC has almost double the murder rate ... but the actual number of murder victims is almost 20 times higher in NYC .... 28 murders in Austin in 2010, and over 500 murders in NYC. So, I'll take Austin over America's safest large city any day .... I've been to both, and I can tell you that the worst areas of Austin are at least as safe as any part of Downtown NYC, and 90% of Austin is almost as safe as being at home.
Even more telling is the fact that about 90% of the violent crime in Austin occurs in a specific area (East Austin) comprising about 5% of the total population. So, if you are in any other area of the City than this small area, your chances of being a victim of violent crime is not much greater than being struck by lightening in a summer thunderstorm.
So I wouldn't pay much attention to the statistics being offered by known liars, because you can make statistics say anything you want them to. When it comes to crime, the vast percentage of it comes from inner city areas, and low income-high drug-gang activity areas. We don't have a gun problem in this country .. we have a criminal problem ... both the street criminals and those bribe taking Suits who call themselves government.
As a side note ... London is the European Union's violent crime capitol ... and there is a total ban on firearms there, and more CCTV surveillance cameras than any other city on earth.
that and other stuff also. A seven shot limit basically bans all semi auto handguns which includes relic handguns that are 50 to 100 years old like a Luger or Czech .32 CZ pocket pistol. These guns were made to hold 8 shots. THERE NO SUCH THING AS MAGAZINES FOR THEM HOLDING LESS.
So basically the only handgun you'll be able to buy or own is a revolver.
Yeah, "we aren't going to trample the 2nd amendment for citizens" my azz. Glad I don't live there or I'd be getting ready to move out. Hope gun manufactures in NY move out so the anti's in NY can pay for the unemployment checks.
Well lionking, I can speak from experience as you'll note from my location. Nothing in life worse than being a traditional values conservative who supports the Second Amendment fiercely and is a gunowner, than to live in the liberal cesspool. Most all of my best friends are in the South and in TX, OK and GA and NC and here I sit incapacitated economically by the bottom having fallen our in the housing market. Here, if you can believe it, home values have fallen by some 30 to 45% from the high prior to the collapse, but I digress.
Now as Goobernor we have "Son of Mario". They, the leftarded citizenry, never learn up thisaway. As if Andrew Cuomo's old man wasn't bad enough, and then to finally get a reprise with George Pataki, a Republican, well...it didn't last long.
So it was almost predictable, that when the first national tragedy in close proximity to NY involving guns took place on his watch that our current loose liberal cannon, Little Andy-boy would finally have that issue to elevate him into the national limelight. That is what it's really all about. So he got his demonRATic gang up here together and just beat Obozo to the punch with his new legislation, improperly crafted I might add, to implement their agenda as they generally have NO KNOWLEDGE about guns, so what else should one expect. The hypocritical libs up have 'hired guns', y'know the "private" paid security for the politically connected and the well-to-do like NYC Mayor 'Little Napolean' Bloomsh*t. Common folk shouldn't have guns. How do you deal with that illogic! I do applaud them though, because they do certify again why liberalism is the sole political mental disease that is incurable. Some may get better, but none ever get well.
They had one vote/person, as do I. 50% plus 1 is the basis in a representative democracy. If you live where you have, for example, 2% of the vote, it is prudent to build coalitions. We do not base representation on geographical miles; land has no vote.
Congratulations ... you have illustrated the root cause of all our problems and why we're in the mess we're in now.!!! Sadly, we can never hope to enjoy a legitimate and proper game of Baseball when half the players think they are playing dodge ball.
Unfortunately, I must break some bad news to you ... you're in the dodge ball group. The facts are, WE ARE NOT a Representative Democracy ... we are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, for which the constitution guarantees a "Republican form of government". Now, since you don't even understand what form of government we have, it's likely you don't understand the differences either, even though they are massively significant. And it is my opinion that those who don't understand the basics such as what form of government we have, shouldn't be allowed to vote, or participate at all in the decisions affecting the nation and we the people, because we cannot allow such ignorance to play a role in those important decisions affecting all of us.
As a constitutional republic, we are governed by the laws established in the constitution, and not by whatever hair brained ideas might be implanted into the minds of 51% of the drooling masses through television news propaganda and political sound bites from career criminals. And in order to change those laws, you need 75% of the 50 States to agree with any change, and not a simple 50.1% consensus in the District of Criminals, or Kingly decrees from some con artist liar in the White House. This is a good thing, since half the population already seems to be close to flat line brain dead, and none of the politicians can be trusted any further than you can throw a pickup truck .... particularly the Liar-In-Chief, who is working on a Guinness Book of World Records for dishonesty.
Luckily, all we need to do is make sure at least 26% of the population remain functionally intelligent, reasonably educated and properly informed, in order to prevent that small majority of knuckle dragging imbeciles from destroying the country and us along with it. The moment that critical mass of universal stupidity reaches 75%, that's when the 2nd Amendment will become most important to the remaining 25%, and the very reason for why it was put there in the first place. It is there to defend liberty, be it from nefarious evil governments, and from the deluded masses who might support it.
This is why the oath to the constitution includes the command to defend it from enemies "Foreign and Domestic".
There are three groups who enthusiastically support disarming the law abiding citizens of America.
1) Liberals --- because they never met a bad idea they didn't immediately fall in love with. That's a prerequisite for being a member of the left wing club.
2) Street Criminals --- because they may be dumb, but they are not stupid, and they prefer to have their potential victims unarmed. The unarmed are much safer targets.
3) Politicians --- because all criminals think alike, whether they are wearing stocking masks, or three piece suits.
The reality is, the American people, by and large, are law abiding decent people stuck in the middle between a small but dangerous element of street thugs at the bottom, and a smaller but even more dangerous set of criminals at the top.
Why doesn't Carl Marcellino simply switch to the (D) party if he is going to vote for this tyranny? Unbelievable.
So let me ask the following question, as the legal owner of a very nice Remington 22 rifle with scope - the magazines I have for this gun are supposed to hold 8 rounds, but I have never been able to successfully load more than 6 bullets at a time. I found it annoying when I went to the range to have to stop and reload every time after only 6 shots, so I bought myself a few extra magazines which I pre-load so I can merely switch out the magazine and keep shooting uninterrupted. Is there anything in this law that limits the NUMBER of magazines a person can have?
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.
