[mvpel]

I hear you, but I think his answer, that the issue should be decided locally, is reasonable.

It's not reasonable. Not in the slightest.

My fundamental human right to effective defense of myself and my family is not up for debate, not a proper field of discussion for any local decision-makers or authorities except for my wife.

What other parts of the Constitution is Rudy willing to disregard as inconvenient or bothersome?

What Rudy doesn't seem to realize is that New York City's crime rate could be lower still if law-abiding people (other than celebrities and the über-rich) could defend themselves against criminal attackers without fear of malicious prosecution - if the criminals were deeply afraid of their intended victims, rather than the other way around.

[SJackson]

What Rudy doesn't seem to realize is that New York City's crime rate could be lower still if law-abiding people (other than celebrities and the über-rich) could defend themselves against criminal attackers without fear of malicious prosecution - if the criminals were deeply afraid of their intended victims, rather than the other way around.

Statistics would tend to bear that out. But even if that weren't the case, rising criminal activity doesn't trump my right to defend myself from criminals.