Manhattan Mean Girls Worry People From Free States May Bring Liberty to NYC

One right is more important than the other? If we are going by order in the bill of rights you lose. LOL

 

But we are not. Next.

 

Oh good. Because I was totally serious. LOL

 

1.6 million people in 23.7 square miles speaking over 150 languages. The largest number of possible terrorist targets in the country. Most world leaders visit. The president lives there. Why not have everyone in Manhattan cc - what could go wrong? Let's start at Times Square on New Years Eve. Two million people packed in a few blocks. With alcohol.

And hi there from the tri-state area!

 

Subway rides would be like Mad Max

 

With a new ending: the heroes escape from a subway station and are crushed by rampaging tourists. Or carriage horses. Rampaging carriage horses with screaming tourists.

I would love to see that movie, but would not want to be an extra.

 

It's typically against the law to CCW and be intoxicated. Also typically, terrorists don't care that NYC doesn't allow CCW.

 

It would be a nightmare

 

Who's going to do the sobriety check on all those people? And if millions of people in a very small geographic area are armed, then everyone is a threat in a place that is already under high alert. This doesn't even take into account the reality of panic in an area that crowded with that many people from all over the world, and that's the main reason why universal cc in Manhattan is crazy as a concept.
Someone gets scared, even justifiably, and hundreds of people are crushed to death in minutes.

 

Yes, definitely.

 

I'm trying to understand your scenario. Lawful person carries concealed firearm in NYC. Bad guy draws gun on supposedly unarmed victims near CCW holder. Jaded New Yorker don panic. Bad guy shoots good guy. Jaded New Yorker don't panic. Cops show up, fire dozens of rounds, hit bystabders, jaded New Yorkers don't panic. Civilian draws gun and fires in self defense against bad guy with gun, New Yorker panic?

How do other cities get away with allowing CCW without daily riots and panicked crowds? Is there something special about New Yorkers?

 

Any business has a right to refuse you bringing arms into their establishment, just as you have a right to, or not to allow them into your home.

 

Yeah, no offence, Criminals don't give a Rat's rear about anything, and Federal Agents and other assorted mixed LEOs are exempt....
Gun free zones encourage Deaths at the mercy of Criminals.

Businesses that post no Guns / barring legal conealed carry, also have a Right to go Bankrupt and get sued if someone gets victimized as a result of their policy.

 

Many New Yorkers are professional sheep.
Guns are Baahhhhhddd !!!!!
Guns are Baahhhhhddd !!!!!
Baahhhh !

 

I suppose you also claimed that we would have the Wild West when concealed carry became popular.

 

Plenty of Wild claims about Concealed Carry.
Criminals carry illegally, and not all of them are killing everybody in sight.

 

Unsupportable.
Millions of law abiding gun owners all around the country carry every day w/o incident -- why do you believe this would change if they were able to legally carry in NYC?

 

There is something special about New York. Typical scene from Times Square on a typical day:

.

A couple of years ago, an unstable man ran in and out of traffic in Times Square. In the ensuing melee, two bystanders were accidentally shot by the police. NYC police are some of the most highly trained officers in the country, but in that kind of crowd it's extremely difficult to shoot a weapon and not hit innocent bystanders. In someplace like Rockefeller Center at Christmastime, as a pedestrian you might not even be able to reach your gun - but a little kid pressed up against you might. It's that kind of density that makes it very difficult to responsibly carry a loaded weapon. The people of NYC are not fools and it doesn't take much imagination to know what could happen in that kind of crowd, or worse what happens if the crowd panics (and Times Square is mostly tourists).

Typical subway platform:



That's a sheer drop between those people and the subway. People die on occasion falling onto the subway tracks. What do you think would happen in that kind of a crowd if a gunshot went off?

 

And yet, NY issues concealed carry permits.
Exactly how many people with carry permits have had/caused an issue with their firearm?
Exactly how many plain clothes or off-duty police officers have had a kid do something with their gun?

 

Less than half of one percent of concealed carry holders have lost their licenses for ANY reason in the past 20+ years. That includes doing stupid things like forgetting you're armed and walking into a post office.

What's the crime rate on the non-concealed carry portion of society? Yeah. Bad.

Statistically the more concealed carry holders around you, the safer you are....and not just because they're carrying guns.

They're the most law-abiding group in our society. They commit fewer crimes than police.

Besides, at your little events, there are plenty of people carrying guns. They're just doing it illegally beneath your nose.

 

If NYC officers are "some of the most highly trained officers in the country", we're screwed.

The RAND findings had this to say about NYC officers ability to use firearms:

The average hit rate for NYPD Officers involved in a gunfight between 1998 and 2006 was 18 percent. For every five shots, four bullets missed the intended target and went somewhere else. And that hit rate is consistent with the "normal" hit rate in armed encounters which hasn't changed much for years and years.

 

Rivers of BLOOOOOOD I tell you!

 

Where your logic fails is that what you cite above is called "Prior Restraint", and you may not place restrictions upon the Constitutional rights of American citizens without due process. Certainly, we can state that someone who is a convicted felon or legally adjudicated mentally ill to the point of being a threat to themselves or others can be denied the ability to own firearms; but you cannot restrict the types of firearms or require the person demonstrate need or anything else before they can own and use firearms. Certainly, if one remembers that rights require RESPONSIBLE EXERCISE then they would willingly seek out appropriate training in safe handling of firearms, but it is their RIGHT to make that choice for themselves. If and only if they prove to be negligent or irresponsible may the government act to place restrictions upon their rights. Sadly, the People have allowed the government to put Prior Restraint on individual rights without Due Process in many ways; mainly due to an ignorance of how individual rights and freedoms under the Constitution were meant to be exercised.

My ownership of firearms is no danger to the community. I am better trained than most and practice regularly. As such, why should I accept ANY restrictions upon my individual rights when I have committed no offense to deserve restrictions placed upon me??

 

In your opinion. Many far wiser than either of us disagree with you.

 

Where does it say you can strip someone of their right to self-defense just because you think there's too many people?