Hard to say if it would be safer. Personally, I don't see "safety" as a compelling issue. I am more concerned with the ability of individuals to be able to defend themselves in whatever manner they choose. So, according to the issue that I see as important, the individuals in NYC would be better off.
Nobody has a problem with one's lawful defensive use of a firearm. People have a problem with one's unlawful offensive use of a firearm. As go devices and systems that can be used defensively, retaliatorilly and/or deterrently, personal firearms are retaliatory/offensive and may, under certain conditions, accord one a deterrent capability, but rarely, if ever, are they defensive devices.
I think also that too many people conflate retaliation/offense and defense with deterrence. They're related, but they aren't the same things.
- Deterrence is a function of the nature of information an aggressor has about an opponent's capacity to retaliate -- A firearm can establish for one a deterrent capability. Deterrence is largely a mental thing; it relies exclusively on one's opponent's tolerance for and understanding of risk, namely the risk that their efforts will adversely affect them, regardless of how their actions affect their opponent.
- Defense is the capacity to withstand an actual attack that hits it target -- A firearm is very unlikely to provide any defense capability. In hand-to-hand combat, a rifle, say, might be used to parry a blow, but in the main, a ranged weapon of no stripe is conceived as a defense device/system.
- Retaliation is an action one can take in response to a another's action against him/her -- This is a form of offensive use -- it differs from offensive use only insofar as what motivates the system's/device's use -- and firearms are quite effective for this use. Retaliation is all about repelling an aggressor, not defending oneself from their aggression(s). Generally retaliation is exacted upon a person or group thereof, but in certain instances, retaliation can be exacted upon a device, as when an aggressor fires a missile and one uses one's own missile to retaliate against the missile the aggressor fired. What be the target of a specific retaliatory action doesn't alter the fact that one has retaliated.
It's certainly useful to have deterrent and retaliatory capabilities; however, insofar as few folks have an affinity for "up close and personal" bellicosity, it stands to reason that minimizing the availability of ranged forms/means of offense will reduce the incidence of aggressive actions against one's fellows. I mean, really. How many folks are keen to batter another? Not many in my estimation. I wouldn't just approach someone and hit them, for whatever reason, be it with nefarious intent or just on general principle. Cats and other beasts will at times "swat" at something simply because it comes in range, but people rarely do. Yet the risk that that might happen forms a material share of the basis for the "guns for so-called defensive purposes" argument.
Aside:
It's probably worth nothing that just as beasts are able to suss their odds of success (risk of incurring self-harm/failure) against an opponent, so to can humans. If one wants to deter would-be assailants, get fit. People can tell by one's gait, posture and other visible cues whether one is a relatively easy mark. What's "easy" is relative -- I don't mean "pushover" easy -- but in the context of what I'm getting at, I think the following images illustrate it....
Looks like an easy mark:
Does not look like an easy mark:
I think that were we to restructure our society so that matters of personal aggression operated using the constructs and tools with which "Mother Nature" imbued us all -- a being's natural physicality that communicates "find a different mark" and the brains that allow one to accurately receive that message -- there'd be a lot less interpersonal violence, injury and death. I know that's a hard thing to achieve, but it's not impossible to achieve it.
