So then people will have to be quicker on the draw. Old school, like Wild Bill and the OG cowboys. More guns mean more practice. Duels at high noon would start popping up all throughout the city, like food trucks. This could eventually have a positive effect. Like increasing tourism. /s

In all seriousness, there are ways to allow for responsible and reasonable gun ownership. I don't think everyone should own an AR-15 or a tank. I also don't believe that it should be super easy to get a gun. I do think people should have a right to keep themselves, their family, and their possessions safe. Law enforcement can not be everywhere all the time and all at once. In some cases, they are completely useless and will end up hurting the victim instead. I also believe that if rights can be taken away, then they are privileges, not rights.

I do, however, understand that rights come with responsibility. There must also be reasonable conssessions made. For example, you have the right to free speech (and all that it entails). You don't have the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded space and cause a stamped. Your right to do something shouldn't infringe on someone else's rights. My right to own a firearm shouldn't infringe in your right to be alive. Were I to abuse that right, then I should be made to deal with dire consequences.

We allow for responsible vehicle ownership. This is despite the fact that vehicles can be two ton heavy metal death machines. We force people to learn to drive and prove that they can drive. We require individuals to register and insure their vehicle. We require mandatory annual inspections and renewal of registration. We have infrastructure in place (not perfect) that influences the way people drive (speeding cameras, stop lights, etc). I believe this could be done for firearm ownership, just in a more stringent way.

If you believe that all it is taking for people to go completely ape shit is access to a weapon; then we already live in a terribly unsafe and deranged society. That would make me feel that I NEEDED a firearm even more. I understand the nature of this subject is sensitive. I wish these conversations could happen in a more reasonable way. I also understand what you are saying and the point you are trying to make. Or at least I think I understand.

I am just trying to bust balls now. I was genuinely asking in my first question, but I understand that this is a tricky and complicated subject.

By lowering the population and damaging property.

>And, funny enough, the criminals who are already carrying on the subway don't really get into confrontations on said subway. It's odd, but that's how it shakes out. I guess they even know not to piss on their typical form of conveyance.

Do you think that it's because they have a gun, and nobody wants to get themselves shot?

>I dunno dude, I suppose its the question on whether you want to see this kind of shit in the news or ' 2 teens airholed by straphangers trying to break up fight between said teens '

I know that this won't be popular, but I think sometimes you bring it on yourself. I hear about shootings and violent crime all the time on the news. Usually, it's about a victim of it who couldn't defend themselves. I grew up in this city, and anyone who did (especially during a certain time in certain places) knows how violent things can get. You can't fight off everyone. You know that some people are batshit crazy. I don't think it's alright that it's culturally acceptable in NYC to just accept that on occasion, you could get jumped on the train. You are just expected to deal with that or watch yourself more. I don't like relying on some cop (who is probably hiding out in a room in transit) to come help me out. I only see police show up after the fact in many cases. You know that's how it works. I personally think more citizens having the ability to keep themselves safe is more of a positive than a negative. Especially after hearing another story about an autistic kid who got jumped and stomped out by a bunch of shit heads. Of course, no one tried to help since they didn't want to get hurt. It could also be because some people don't care what happens to you... So I think people should be able to look after themselves. Even if it means every now and then you could turn into Swiss cheese.

Edit: spelling

I think it would balance itself out eventually. I also think it would bring rent prices down.

I understand what you are saying. I agree.

>Deadly force is a last resort where your life or the life of another is in danger of ending and you or they cannot get away.

Yes, I understand.

>The problem with this is that people with guns get it in their head that anything can put their life danger - “that guy called me an asshole and is staring me down, what if he punches me and I hit my head on the pavement and die? Time to pull out the gun and start blasting!!!”

This definitely can occur, but I don't think it's fair to assume that every gun owner is a hypersensitive cowboy that is ready to shoot first. But I do understand that can be the case with certain types of people. I also knew guys that pulled out boxcutters or hammers as soon as they felt threatened. But I am also aware that a gun can do much more damage in a much shorter amount of time.

>There is also the issue with population density and the fact that bullets don’t care about your intent. NYPD cops know this first hand as a number of police involved shootings have harmed innocent bystanders. More guns in this city, legal or otherwise, will result in more gun deaths.

True. More armed people up the chances of shootings. That's a very major problem in our country currently. I know that the NYPD used certain types of bullets ( I think hollowpoints ) since they tend to break apart in the body and not go through people as easily.

I just think there should be a middle ground between making it impossible for reasonable, vetted, and regularly trained individuals to have access to a tool that can keep them safe in a violent altercation. It just seems to me that criminals and cops can easily get access to guns in NYC.

I am aware of the issues with gun control in this country. I am aware of the problems that unreasonable gun laws cause. I am not a gun nut. I am not asking these questions to troll either. NYC has some of the most strict firearm regulations in the entire country. It's just that I have personally been a victim of violent crime on more than one occasion. There was a very big difference in the outcome when I was armed vs. When I was unarmed. I think being armed can keep people safe in situations like this. I don't think you always have to shoot. Sometimes just the threat can be enough.

>As shitty as this situation was, it doesn’t look like anyone ended up in the hospital.

Do you think there is a limit to the amount of damage you should receive before you can use a gun?

>But introducing a gun in this situation may have put someone in the morgue. That would absolutely be a worse outcome even for assholes like these.

At what point do you think that someone should not be concerned with the well-being and safety of their attacker?

I understand. This has always been an issue in densely populated metro areas. I wish there was a better way for people to keep themselves safe and be able to help their fellow citizens, all without coming into harm's way.

What do you think about having more armed citizens? With background checks, psychological checks, registries, etc. Do you think that would be more of a negative or a positive in situations like this in our city?

Love on the R line?

Shouldn't have left the apartment.

The thing about S/A jokes is that they are like your dad's cock. You don't want it, but you get it anyway.