NYC gun purchases

[GEM]

NYC residents still concerned about crime, Siena poll finds

A quarter of city residents surveyed say they’ve taken a self-defense class in the last year.

gothamist.com

A larger share of New York City residents said they had taken steps to keep themselves safe, compared to people elsewhere in the state. A quarter of the approximately 345 people surveyed in New York City said they’ve taken a self-defense class in the last year. More than a third of city residents told pollsters they had bought a personal safety device like a Taser in that timeframe, and 17% said they had bought a gun. For each of those categories, the city surpassed the statewide average

Interesting turn on the common conceptualization of NYC being antigun. Perhaps, the regular folks don't meet the expectations of their politicians.

 

[Styx]

NYC residents still concerned about crime, Siena poll finds

A quarter of city residents surveyed say they’ve taken a self-defense class in the last year.

gothamist.com

Interesting turn on the common conceptualization of NYC being antigun. Perhaps, the regular folks don't meet the expectations of their politicians.

Our definition of being "antigun" is extremely liberal. You support even one gun control measure and those heavily vested in gun culture refer to you as being "antigun." It's not that everyone in NYC is antigun, but rather some support gun ownship AND regulations, e.g., AWB, capacity limits, registration, mandatory training, red flag laws, permit schemes, background checks, no carrying outside of the home in busy areas, etc.

 

[twofewscrews]

I don't believe that NYC has become less anti gun. 345 out of 8 million people is a useless poll. The sample size is nowhere near large enough to be of use.

 

[GEM]

Our definition of being "antigun" is extremely liberal. You support even one gun control measure and those heavily vested in gun culture refer to you as being "antigun." It's not that everyone in NYC is antigun, but rather some support gun ownship AND regulations, e.g., AWB, capacity limits, registration, mandatory training, red flag laws, permit schemes, background checks, no carrying outside of the home in busy areas, etc.

Good point - the gun world tends towards absolutism. That's a topic for a different thread. As far as the sample size, that's a technical argument. Let's just down play what might be positive news if it makes you happy.

 

[Styx]

Good point - the gun world tends towards absolutism. That's a topic for a different thread. As far as the sample size, that's a technical argument. Let's just down play what might be positive news if it makes you happy.

I'm not downplaying anything. I'm adding context to what's mentioned in the OP from someone who was born and mostly raised in NYC, and whose majority of family members still live there.

What I stated wasn't necessarily negative either. I simply stated that IMHO the majority are NOT antigun, but rather support gun rights with limitations. They maybe willing to buy a gun for the first time for home defense, but will still support their elected officials when it comes to some gun control measures.

Yes, it's a good thing that others in NYC are finally exercising their 2A rights for the first time.

 

[GEM]

A study a few years ago found that the modal gun rights position (asked at that time) was:
1. Most agreed that people had the right to own guns for self-defense
2. However, they wanted guns to be restricted to law abiding citizens and thus were ok with shall issue permits and background checks. Restrictions on felons was acceptable.

That was about 70% of the sample. They didn't ask about AWBs and mag limits, IIRC. I would have to dig to find the reference.

There is a tendency of some not to see some progress if not absolute as not progress. There is also a tendency to down play increased participation by new demographic groups while the industry thinks it's great news.

 

[AlexanderA]

A substantial part of the "antigun" movement wants guns for themselves, but not for other people. That is, once they have their gun(s), they are quite happy to slam the door shut after themselves. They also believe that whatever rules are adopted, won't apply to them.

This is the result of thinking about guns as a "zero sum game." You are stronger if you have a gun, but your potential opponent doesn't.

Very few people are antigun absolutists in the sense that they would willingly disarm themselves.

 

[herrwalther]

A substantial part of the "antigun" movement wants guns for themselves, but not for other people. That is, once they have their gun(s), they are quite happy to slam the door shut after themselves. They also believe that whatever rules are adopted, won't apply to them.

The same people that are in favor of waiting periods get upset when they have to wait for their own purchases. Anti-gun people are some of the biggest hypocrites I have ever encountered.

 

[P89DCSS]

I don't believe that NYC has become less anti gun. 345 out of 8 million people is a useless poll. The sample size is nowhere near large enough to be of use.

Nothing wrong with the sample size. Probability and Statics is not intuitive, your's is a common misconception.

 

[Speedo66]

Since meeting the requirements for obtaining a handgun permit in NYC are onerous, i.e., expensive, time consuming, and basically a bureaucratic nightmare, it’s very possible the ones getting them are the wealthy or well connected elite, as has always been the case in NYC.

These are the “okay for me, but not for thee”, who while getting their guns are outwardly anti-gun. Back in the Lindsey days they were the so called “limousine liberals”. Robert DiNiro, while posturing as anti-gun, has one, as do other “celebrities“.

I’d be interested to see economic data as to who are getting these guns.

 

[AlexanderA]

The NYC mindset is more "European" than just about any other place in the US. Part of that is a great deal of hypocrisy about guns. In other words, "ban them, except for me."

 

[reddog81]

Nothing wrong with the sample size. Probability and Statics is not intuitive, your's is a common misconception.

Yeah, The sample size is valid assuming the sample was completely random. Sampling people outside a gun store, self defense course or an anti-gun rally or many less obvious methods would discredit the sample much more than the size.

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

Our definition of being "antigun" is extremely liberal. You support even one gun control measure and those heavily vested in gun culture refer to you as being "antigun." It's not that everyone in NYC is antigun, but rather some support gun ownship AND regulations, e.g., AWB, capacity limits, registration, mandatory training, red flag laws, permit schemes, background checks, no carrying outside of the home in busy areas, etc.

As a former resident of NYC that went through the paperwork for the rifle/shotgun permit and the old target handgun permit, none of what you listed would make the city safer in any way.

A "busy area" like the subway is where you actually need to carry. I know this cause I was mugged at gunpoint on the G train years ago. NONE of what you listed would have done anything to prevent the 2 men from mugging me.

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

To add some context, neither of the 2 permits that I had allowed me to keep a loaded gun in my home or allow me to legally carry concealed.

 

[Styx]

As a former resident of NYC that went through the paperwork for the rifle/shotgun permit and the old target handgun permit, none of what you listed would make the city safer in any way.

A "busy area" like the subway is where you actually need to carry. I know this cause I was mugged at gunpoint on the G train years ago. NONE of what you listed would have done anything to prevent the 2 men from mugging me.

I guess you didn't follow the conversation therefore you didn't comprehend my post.

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

I guess you didn't follow the conversation therefore you didn't comprehend my post.

To be honest I didn't bother reading you post. It wasn't worth the effort.

 

[Styx]

To be honest I didn't bother reading you post. It wasn't worth the effort.

I can tell you didn't. You took it completely out of context. Enjoy your day sir.

 

[stonebuster]

I don't think a lot of NYC residents are "anti gun" and do want to be able to protect themselves. It's encouraging 17% bought guns. Some regs are too restrictive What good is gun ownership if you're restricted from carrying in many of the most dangerous places in the city? Red flag regulation allows anyone that may have a grudge against you to make a phone call to PD and they come take your gun pending an investigation. At least that's my understanding. NY prosecutors practice catch & release for many violent offenders while severely restricting the law abiding to defend themselves. That's where the NY anti gun perception comes from IMHO.

 

[Will Munny]

Our definition of being "antigun" is extremely liberal. You support even one gun control measure and those heavily vested in gun culture refer to you as being "antigun." It's not that everyone in NYC is antigun, but rather some support gun ownship AND regulations, e.g., AWB, capacity limits, registration, mandatory training, red flag laws, permit schemes, background checks, no carrying outside of the home in busy areas, etc.

There is a compelling argument that that definition is the correct one. Rights actually tend to be nearly absolute in many senses or they cease to be rights and become privileges.

Suppose you support freedom of speech, but you want it regulated, bans on certain kinds, limits on how much people can post, registering your forum with the government, mandatory writing and speaking training, red flag laws to revoke your freedom of speech if you say things that might be harmful, permits to speak in public squares, background checks before you are allowed to post or give speeches, not being allowed to speak outside your home in crowded areas where it might bother people etc.

Now, that does sound awful stupid doesn't it?
This is usually where someone says something to the effect of "speech has limits too!", which while true, obviously does not turn the point.
The limitations on speech are similar to the legitimate ones on firearms. Ie. not shooting in a dangerous fashion, not allowing children to access them unsupervised, not shouting fire in a crowded theater, etc. Ie. where the action has an immediate result of endangering life and property. So shooting in the public square (in normal circumstances) is a no go, but carrying there is fine because it does not endanger anyone by doing so.

So it is quite reasonable to say that someone supporting those things does not actually consider bearing arms a right. Certainly if they wanted the same "regulations" on speech we would conclude that they don't support speech as a right. I would say someone who does not support the right (at least for those eligible) is anti-gun even if they support it as a privilege with stipulations (and in NYC those stipulations are basically wealth/power).

 

[Weflyfast]

All gun control laws (all arms infringement) are unconstitutional
The right is protected by the 2nd - it is unconstitutional for a state to turn a right into a privilege and legislate or tax it.....and

 

[230RN]

Deleted by poster.