DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Zhgrlpil** · 03-02-2010, 07:33 PM

Criminals tend to commit crimes in high density areas. More opportunities, and easier to disappear into the landscape.

The ratio of police to population is comparable to that of cities where carrying handguns is permitted.

No, NYC, even with it's large population has a higher density of police than any other large city. A while ago I found a website who's author did a per capita analysis of gov't employment. NYC had about twice the police per 100,000 residents than anywhere else on his list (which included all the major cities in the US).

People get victimized everywhere. If anything, you could make a case for less guns=less crime.
Maybe, theoretically, on a national basis. But on a national basis guns aren't going away. We have full democratic control of Washington, and gun control isn't even on their agenda (at least for the moment).

This means that NYC has to deal with the guns situation as it currently exists. This means that criminals have essentially unfettered access to guns, while people who wish to respect the law are essentially defenseless.

Also, on any kind of statistical basis, it's not the legal gunowners that ar the problem it's the criminals. States that had strict laws on legal carry, than then loosened those laws to allow easier permitting, have not seen an increase in gun related crime.

Owning a handgun in areas where police response is delayed or nonexistent isn't the same as carrying a handgun into a retail establishment in a city. I have a place in the Adirondacks. By NYC standards, it's isolated. When the kids were little, I kept a rifle and handgun. Why? Are the cops likely to walk into your store as it's being held up? It's right at the point/time of attack that you need the gun (witness the incident at the restaurant supply house in Harlem).

03-02-2010, 07:33 PM	#8
Zhgrlpil Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 456 Senior Member	Criminals tend to commit crimes in high density areas. More opportunities, and easier to disappear into the landscape. The ratio of police to population is comparable to that of cities where carrying handguns is permitted. No, NYC, even with it's large population has a higher density of police than any other large city. A while ago I found a website who's author did a per capita analysis of gov't employment. NYC had about twice the police per 100,000 residents than anywhere else on his list (which included all the major cities in the US). People get victimized everywhere. If anything, you could make a case for less guns=less crime. Maybe, theoretically, on a national basis. But on a national basis guns aren't going away. We have full democratic control of Washington, and gun control isn't even on their agenda (at least for the moment). This means that NYC has to deal with the guns situation as it currently exists. This means that criminals have essentially unfettered access to guns, while people who wish to respect the law are essentially defenseless. Also, on any kind of statistical basis, it's not the legal gunowners that ar the problem it's the criminals. States that had strict laws on legal carry, than then loosened those laws to allow easier permitting, have not seen an increase in gun related crime. Owning a handgun in areas where police response is delayed or nonexistent isn't the same as carrying a handgun into a retail establishment in a city. I have a place in the Adirondacks. By NYC standards, it's isolated. When the kids were little, I kept a rifle and handgun. Why? Are the cops likely to walk into your store as it's being held up? It's right at the point/time of attack that you need the gun (witness the incident at the restaurant supply house in Harlem).
	Quote