NYC: Why should you need a firearm?

Judge nixes New York City gun permit for firearms dealer | Fox News:
(May 24, 2015)

A judge won’t let a traveling firearms dealer carry a concealed weapon in New York City to protect himself and his wares from “criminals and terrorists.” Cavalier Knight applied for a gun permit from the New York City Police Department in 2014. He went to court when the application was denied. He claimed the NYPD violated his Second Amendment rights. But in a decision posted Friday, a judge rejected that claim while upholding New York’s tough gun control law, the New York Daily News reported Saturday.

The judge's decision was based on the premise that it was "pure speculation" that he might be subject to attack, and;

1. why should he be any more at risk than others in his business, who haven't asked for similar 'rights', and;
2. he has been selling guns for years and he has not been attacked yet, so why should he now be concerned?

Am I missing something here?

If I was a person whose job was to sell legal firearms in a state where almost NOT "private citizen" was legally allowed to purchase a firearm, I think I might legitimately be a little bit nervous about travelling in guns.  

New York State is like  ... for example ...  New Jersey and California, in that they only see the down-side of firearms possession by honest citizens.   It's difficult to tell whether they (the law-makers) legitimately think that keeping firarms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens is going to reduce "gun violence", or is this just another way to impose the Will of The State over the Will of The Citizens.

(okay, I'm choosing Door Number Two, if only because I'm very willing to think the worst of Politicians who are all about CONTROL!)

Bottom Line:  People with legitimate concerns about being subject to criminal actions are not allowed to defend themselves.

Criminals are also under the same constraints, but they will probably not "de facto" feel constrained because ... hey, they're CRIMINALS!  That is their nature.

This kind of shit only makes it difficult for honest people to remain honest, and defend their rights.  It doesn't have ANY effect on dishonest people, except that it makes every street a GUN FREE ZONE, which means that they (criminals) can rob, maim and kill without concern that somebody might pull a gun and defend themselves.

For the crook, the worst that can happen is that they get shot, so if good guys have a gun, it's bad for business; if good guys are too good to have a gun, it's Business As Usual.

For the good guys, this kind of law-making tends to make criminals of honest people.  Criminals have nothing to lose; honest folks, however, are subject to being arrested and put into prison, which is NOT an item in their Bucket List.

I do NOT understand the thinking of the legislatures who allow this kind of disparate thinking to become law.  Why is it that felons who have previously been convicted are often convicted of a 'new crime' but all violations of Gun Control laws are usually dismissed during a plea-bargaining arrangement ... but Honest Citizens who have never been charged with a Felony are often convicted of firearms-control laws.  

The Honest Citizen who defend themselves with guns are sometimes facing more jail time than the crooks who robbed them.

Even worse, Honest Citizens who have never been involved in any confrontation with Law Enforcement People can find themselves guilty of a New Crime simply because they .. do nothing!

America .. what a GREAT country this once was.

The best we can do is sometimes to simply to do nothing.

PS: Anybody named "Cavalier Knight" just naturally deserves to travel armed!