NEW YORK — Gangs, drugs, easy access to guns and a disturbing tendency among young people to pull guns to demand respect were among the causes authorities cited in trying to explain this year's increase in murders in New York and many other major cities after years of decline.The above is from the artcile: Murders Are Up In New York, Other Cities found at: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Dec28/0,4670,MurderToll,00.html
I believe the truth of the matter to be that young thugs would not be quite so ready to pull guns on good citizens, or to try to rob them or otherwise commit acts of violence against them, if they believed the good citizen was likely to be armed for self defense with a handgun. It only makes sense, and it has been proven correct in many communities wherein the good people are allowed to carry concealed firearms for self defense.
Of course there can be a reason other than unarmed good citizens, in places like New York, that account for this so called spike in violent crime. New York, according to this same article, which almost immedaitely seemingly contradicts itself as to the cause of the spike in crime, has reclassified a large number of deaths as homicides.
- The spike mostly reflects an unusually large number of "reclassified homicides," or those involving victims who were shot or stabbed years ago but did not die until this year. Thirty-five such deaths have been added to this year's toll, compared with an annual average of about a dozen.
This is a purely ultra leftist ploy to try to get people to think that gun violence is on the rise. You see what New York City officials are doing is, in essence, saying: 'Hey Joe Schmoe was shot 35 years ago, and he just died this year. Let's say that his death was directly due to the wounds he received 15 years ago." Now mind you, as far as I am aware, there is no direct cause and effect over this 35 year period. It is not like Joe Schmoe was in a hospital in a coma all that time directly because of a gunshot wound. Rather my understanding is that: Joe Schmoe developed some form of physical ailment after being shot, and he later died, as a direct result of that ailment, and that ailment was maybe indirectly (and I mean indirectly in a big way) related to the wounds he received back then.
Let's say Joe Schmoe, typical NYC working guy, lost a lung when shot many years ago by some thug during a robbery. Yesterday, he died of some breathing related disease that killed off his remaining lung. Aah, there it is says New York, he died due to being shot 35 years ago, because if he still had his other lung he would be alive. They do not consider that if he had his other lung, it too would most likely have been effected by the malady from which Joe really died. They try to make this death out to be directly related to the gun shot, which it is obviously not. I may have that wrong, but that is how it was described to me. This is typical New York City balderdash, and is probably supported whole heartedly by that ultra leftist Democrat (except when it comes to his making money) in Republicans garb, Mayor Bloomberg. What insanity, what rabid anti-gun lunacy, what out and out balderdash, but I expect little more from the rabid anti-gun crowd!
All the best,