Not surprisingly, these gun owners live predominantly on the Island's suburban South Shore neighborhoods, where deer are prevalent and crime is low.
Some see a correlation:
"Gun advocates are aware of the irony at work here. They point to the perennial pattern in the borough's crime rate, where statistics show the South Shore's 123rd Precinct is one of the city's quietest. It accounts for only 3 of the borough's 43 shooting murders over the past five years. In contrast, the North Shore's 120th Precinct handily leads the borough in gun violence."But does gun ownership alone account for low crime rates on the borough's Southern shore?
These overwhelmingly white neighborhoods are safer because they are free of conflict, high on home ownership, and consist mostly of one and two-family dwellings.
According to Census results from 2000, the South Shore is monolithically white - 89.1% white/non-Hispanic. Add in Hispanic and Asian and you have about another 9%. That leaves the figures for black non-Hispanics on the South Shore at 0.9% - that's about 1,300 out of the total 152,000.
Compare these demographics to the North Shore neighborhoods which in contrast stand at only 50% white non-Hispanic and 21% black. In addition, owner-occupied homes stand at only 52% compared with 48% rented.
Income-wise the percentage of families living under the poverty level stands at only 2.5% on the South Shore. The North Shore is at 13% - with some Census tracts earning a medium income as low as $17,019.
There is no magic bullet theory to explain low crime rates on the South Shore. But taking in to account the various statistics relating to demographics and income goes a lot further than simply saying that gun ownership alone alleviates the problem of crime.
Relying on guns to explain the discrepancy in crime rates is dangerously simplistic and myopic. This view leads to the mistaken belief that both ownership and carry permits should be allowed anywhere including bars, churches, and political rallies. It's doesn't work - just ask Arizona.
