Now this seems funny, in a very depraved sort of way.
"The argument erupted again the other day on the Internet: Chicago or New York? Which city is better?"
Lemme see - a city which has an expensive & nigh impossible permitting system to own a firearm or a city that forbids it outright? Seems about as useful as arguing the difference between poking a sharp stick in your eye repeatedly versus poking a sharp piece of glass in your eye repeatedly.
"Chicago magazine got into the debate in its February issue with a statistical comparison of the USA's largest cities: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia. The bottom line: Chicago has more per-capita murders, burglaries and bars than NYC, cheaper homes, higher property taxes and more golf courses."
Philly ain't that much better. Pa. isn't nearly as bad as some of its neighbors (New York, New Jersey) but it still requires a license or permit to carry outside of your home or business. & Philly is a little stricter than the rest of the state if memory serves me. Los Angeles is not as bad as NY but no where as cool as, say a city in America. Out of those 5 cities Houston is the only one that's close to livable. At least in Texas you don't have to beg permission slips to carry a pistol in your car (though the lack of open carry annoys me to no end).
But still - New York or Chicago? Why not add D.C. to the mix so you can have the "repeatedly stick a sharp piece of aluminum in your eye" option as well.
I would add a vindictive "New York, Chicago & D.C. can go to hell" but to my way of thinking they are hell. Never mind the crowding, excessively large local governments or the traffic - effective self defense is all but forbidden in those places. & if you can't at least try protect it then how can you build a life worth living?
"New York is New York, and there's no competing with it,' O'Connor says. 'But what you can get in Chicago that you cannot get in New York is continuous, high quality of life."
Again, how high a quality of life can you have when you're denied the most effective means at defending it?
NY & Chicago & L.A. are great places for musicians. In fact in some circles you hit a glass ceiling real fast if you don't go to one of those cities (especially L.A.) but for me it's not worth the trade of being able to take care of myself. Even though odds in any of those cities are slim that I'd be a victim of any sort of violent crime, the idea that the government (state or local) forbids me from being able to repel an attack is too insulting for me to contend with. I'm all for capitalism (beats the hell out of the alternatives) but money is just money. Some things it cannot compensate for. For me it's better to make less & have my dignity as well as my defensive capabilities than to go for the cash at the price of my self reliance. Or to go for the cash & know that someday I'd be facing a S.W.A.T. team because they wouldn't disarm me while I was awake.
New York or Chicago? I'd opt for none of the above.
But hell, if news is so slow that they think an internet debate is worth writing about, why not have a series on 1911's v. Glocks? At least then you'd have some intelligent arguments for a clear winner. :)Posted by Publicola at January 27, 2006 10:35 PM | TrackBack