pro gun culture vs. population density

in places where people cluster together, they must do so because generally they're not self reliant and must count on someone else for certain aspects of their own survival. there are a few exceptions, very few.

in rural areas people are (again) generally more self reliant due to necessity or choice.

the wall street types can't change the oil in their car or replace the float in their toilet tank, let alone hunt, kill, skin, gut, process and cook their own food.

but the guy in the cornfield isn't any good at deciphering the prospectus and future yields of the silk industry in Paris.
 
Even in my short lifetime I can remember at least twice reading some very well regarded source claiming we would hit a max population soon. Both times technology enabled us to breach the max. I believe the simple reality is the population will expand until the planet is gutted to an extent it can support no one. The human race has repeatedly shown it is incapable of considering 50 years in the future when making decisions. We aren't like other animals because we can strip mine, clear cut, damn, drag net, etc.

I don't believe the open space will become all that more restricted. Right now it is incredibly popular to live 30 miles from work, 15 miles from a grocery store, 20 miles from the kids soccer practice, and 10 miles from the nearest Starbucks. Transportation cost almost have to rise even if we don't hit peak(supply) oil. Demand is climbing at an incredible rate. More cars worldwide every year and more and more products made from petroleum. Corn ethanol is incredibly inefficient and absurdly subsidized. There are major bars to even 25% of the population switching to all electric vehicles, and even then range limits the spread of the population from city centers.

Most people would limit their behavior now if they realized how much money they were spending driving. Most people don't think about anything more than the cost of gasoline. Gasoline isn't even a fourth of the price of driving a sedan. The federal government reimburses at 57.5 cents a mile and that is usually considered a joke. Most Sedans only cost about $.07 a mile for gas.

There is a book called $20 a gallon. I don't agree with it in detail, but there is a lot presented which made me think about the way Americans live. I think it far more likely the majority of our planets population will be living in planned mega-cities than significantly increased sprawl.

Those outside the cities will be those working in industries outside cities like agriculture, mining, energy, and those who can telecommute.

in places where people cluster together, they must do so because generally they're not self reliant and must count on someone else for certain aspects of their own survival. there are a few exceptions, very few.
Click to expand...
I know a lot of people who live in the country who can't take care of themselves if the power goes out for more than a couple days. I may not like dealing with going to a show on Broadway, let alone paying $10+ for a beer plus $10+ for my wife's wine before/after and $50 to park, but I like living ten minutes from a theater that has touring Broadway productions at reasonable prices with little to no traffic.
I'm drinking a Mountain Dew bottled by someone somewhere, on a couch made by someone much farther away, posting on a laptop made by someone even farther away, cooled by an air-conditioner drawing electric arriving via magic wires. Far less than 1% of the population is anywhere close to self-sufficient, and I doubt any of those people have the technology to regularly post on this forum. Must people everywhere rely on someone else for some aspect of their own survival.
 
Last edited:
Is it possible? Certainly. Is it likely? I don't think so. Its not the density of the population so much as it is the density of attitudes.

People being able to take care of themselves has been mentioned, and I think that's the telling factor. Now, I won't argue about how virtually none of us could survive (let alone live to even close to current standards) without other people. That's a red herring.

I think the difference is that rural people understand that being able to take care of yourself is the ideal, and the expected standard. Yes, we don't all grow our own food, we shop at the markets, but a high percentage of the people understand what it takes to do it, and many could if they needed to.

Likewise taking care of other things, like personal protection. Because there is seldom anyone else around to do it.

In the major urban areas and inner cities, we have huge numbers of people who have been taught since birth that its not their job to take care of themselves, it is the job of their govt. In ALL things.

The people in the govt want to take care of them, and its always easier for the govt to do that when the populace is disarmed.

Sure, it's an over simplification but essentially we have major cities of grasshoppers able to live as they do because of the rural ant farms.

I think any right to arms beliefs in a hyper crowded society would probably be a sci-fi story secret society. A tiny minority, "worshiping" in secret.

Consider that even when not a democracy, what the mass of the population believes they want, they get. And in a world of shoulder to shoulder people, believing you have the right to be armed, and defend yourself is an intolerable expression of individuality.

Mankind, in general (and look around the world there's plenty of proof) only allows that kind of individuality on the frontier, not in the civilized cities.

Also prevalent is the attitude or belief that "the nail that sticks up, gets hammered flat".

Look at all the fine work they have been doing, with ever greater results in the last half century. Guns are evil, bad, dangerous, only used by criminals and the deranged, etc. Only a uniform or a badge can protect good people from the corrupting influence of the gun, having a gun as part of your job is the only way you can keep from being turned into a raving mass killer. ETC.....

This is the mantra, repeated endlessly. The Big Lie. When there is no counter allowed, it does work...
 
I read that, he says he doesn't support semi-auto weapons in big cities, but had no problem if you live in the country.

But semi-auto covers lots of firearms, even though he probably meant rifles.

The problem is the population centers are making law for entire states.

I believe in trying to take care of myself, even making my own soap. Intending on eventually being able to go off the grid if needed.... I have a long way to go.

There's plenty of open space in this world yet.
 
The funny thing is Portland State University students were protesting the planned arming of campus police.

One protester explained that the portland police bureau was just five blocks away....
 
For someone not being able to enjoy any kinds of shooting sport because of travel time and the possible cost of shooting at indoor range . I would say many city dwellers may very well support a anti firearm person for public office if they had other reasons to support them . 2nd amendment would most likely come way down on thier list of priorities .
Like the singer the gang picked up on O Brother where art thou . Clooney ask , sowhy did you sale your sole to the devil George ? George answered . Well I wasnt using it .
 
RickyRick, I'm wondering what the logic was behind that student's protest. I guess if the police have to show up from five blocks away, won't they be armed? If it's appropriate for the police to show up armed, why isn't it appropriate for campus police to show up armed?

Big disconnect there somewhere.
 
I know right, many campus police are real police officers. I'm not sure of this school in particular.

I know of a state college in Texas, the officers are state trained police officers with the same standards of state peace officers... Several instances where the campus officers provided response into the local community to assist in non campus related incidents. The local community was small.

I think any mass gathering of people should have an armed contingent available.

Heres a link to one of the many stories.

http://www.kgw.com/story/news/local...dents-dont-want-armed-campus-police/72571022/
 
While I understand the original contributor's point and that it is a good one, one unhappy fact is there are places in this country that are becoming depopulated. That is a different issue, to be sure, but I believe it is something of a problem, if a minor one. So, no, small towns do not necessarily grow to be large cities. If you were in one of those once booming small towns 50 or 60 years ago, you'd understand what I mean. However, it has nothing to do with the question of population density. In fact, it contributes to it.

Lots of small towns dry up because the mines are worked out, the factories close (that is a serious problem) or the interstate bypasses the town. So the leading export of those places becomes the young people. They move to where there's work, just like I did. So even without a growth in population. the population centers become more dense or more crowded, at least here it does.

That does not necessarily happen everywhere. India and China remain more rural than urban but that's changing (what doesn't change?). Most of Europe is relatively densely populated and shooting is still popular in many places, even hunting of "big" game (deer, just like here). It's highly regulated, though (just like here). But there is something of a gun culture in Germany, Switzerland, possibly Austria and even Russia, but not exactly like it is here, which is probably an understatement. There was also in the U.K., but it was more of an upper class thing. But the U.S., like Russia and China, has vast lands that are seriously under populated. Anyway, over-population (the surplus population of the Christmas Carol) is not necessarily an issue that has anything to do with guns and shooting. Gun control in China, Japan and the U.K. have nothing to do with population density and it doesn't here either. But it's certainly a factor in finding a place out-of-doors to shoot.
 
rickyrick said:
I know of a state college in Texas, the officers are state trained police officers with the same standards of state peace officers... Several instances where the campus officers provided response into the local community to assist in non campus related incidents. The local community was small.
Click to expand...
I don't mean to start an extended thread hijack, but FWIW every major public TX university I've ever visited has been like this – the campus police are sworn peace officers, they're generally armed, and they have mutual agreements with the police force(s) in neighboring communities to allow each force to respond to calls, pursue suspects, and conduct investigations in the others' jurisdiction under certain conditions.

Frankly, I've never heard anyone on a TX campus express any sort of alarm or surprise at this arrangement, and I assumed it was like this everywhere in the US!

Without branching too far into unnecessary (and predictable and unproductive) speculation, I surmise that the OR debate has a lot to do with recent political events and little to do with the population density and/or the political views of the neighboring community. College campuses are frequently political "islands" where students and faculty hold views that differ drastically from much of the surrounding population.
 
Not intending any kind of slur against anyone, there are places where campus cops are the low cost un/undertrained rent-a-cop variety, including some with the mall ninja outlook.

I would not be in favor of arming these folks, particularly knowing that the people paying the bills won't be eager to spend money on proper training.
 
This does indicate the political ideologies of islands such as portlandia.
Living in the area has taught me that they simply follow the trend set by the media.
Not saying that any trend is bad. Or am I degrading any population center. But portland can be an interesting study.

As far as campus police, my belief, due to where I was raised, was that they were real police
 
carguychris said:
College campuses are frequently political "islands" where students and faculty hold views that differ drastically from much of the surrounding population.
Click to expand...
IMO, not in Portland. PSU sits in downtown Portland sort of integrated in the heart of the downtown city and Portland as a whole is the most anti-gun part of the state. When I heard of this protest it was no surprise. The article Rickyrick shared said guns make them nervous yet only 4 campus police officers were armed, .... but the entire heavily armed Portland police dept is only a few blocks from campus! ....meanwhile last week a PSU student was kidnapped at gunpoint in a campus parking garage and bravely escaped to call.... campus police who arrested the guy. The anti-gun logic here fits right in with the trustfund hipster sipping gluten free organic coffee at the independently owned shop creating album art on his apple laptop for an emo band he doesn’t even play in... we’ve earned the nickname "Portlandia", where young people go to retire. ( <--- warning, bearded man in speedo singing...but thats normal here)
 
Haha, my favorite clip from the show.

Yes I don't mean to disparage portland... I love the place and the northwest. But it's a perfect example of Antigun population surrounded by strong pro-gun remainder of the area
 
Actually, The population in Developed countries is decreasing. At least it was before the immigration crisis.

Its the least who can afford to have more kids that are bloating the numbers.

As soon as we get above 8 billion and we have 3 or 4 billion who can not be gainfully employed or feed them selves.

I predict a sharp drop in population will ensue. We are more like rats than you might think.
 
The anti-gun logic here fits right in with the trustfund hipster sipping gluten free organic coffee at the independently owned shop creating album art on his apple laptop for an emo band he doesn’t even play in... we’ve earned the nickname "Portlandia", where young people go to retire. ( <--- warning, bearded man in speedo singing...but thats normal here)
Click to expand...
That's funny right there... :D I have to confess that I've basically ignored Portland, OR for most of my adult life, so I don't really know enough about the local culture to comment on the armed-police debate there.

Did anyone else notice that the guy in the Speedo looks remarkably like Tim from Military Arms Channel? Weird coincidence, unless he's got a sideline he doesn't discuss on Youtube. ;)
 
My late father-in-law said he used to go shoot crows where the Pentagon is now but he didn't elaborate on any of the details.

It is true, however, there are fewer open spaces where you can go shooting for free, never mind that it was always someone else's land. When I was in school, I would go out to an old strip mind to shoot. Once, when shooting a .47-70, a man quickly appeared, wondering if I was shooting his cattle. But I wasn't even on his land, although I wasn't exactly on my land either. That was when beef prices were going sky-high.

Since then, all those old abandoned strip mines have been fenced off for any purpose (in theory). There were some dangerous places on some of them. I never did know who the land belonged to but they were great places for four-wheeling. I also think more people live around there now, too.

I don't think the population is decreasing in many countries. Research it if you want. But in many American urban areas, the population is less dense than it used to be. People have either moved out to the suburbs to have a little more elbow room or they've left town altogether. Because the populations live under denser circumstances, that is, in cities and towns with smaller pieces of property, there are actually more open spaces than there often is around some American urban areas. In Germany, for instance, if you don't live in the city, you live in a tight little village where you're closer to your neighbor than you might be here. One could get the impression that Americans don't like their neighbors that much.
 
Used to be that guns were primarily associated with hunting, and kids that grew up in rural areas learned how to use them and understood them. City kids were limited to what they saw on TV, and the only people carrying handguns were cops and criminals.

There has been a huge change in that trend over the past 20 years to where citizen carry for self defense has become a lot more accepted and widespread. This aspect of firearms has been changing in urban areas as well, though they have a lot of catching up to do. This trend has also been slowed by a whole host of other issues that lead urban voters in a certain political direction to vote for anti-gun politicians based on other issues, and there are more urban voters than rural ones. In places such as New York, viewpoints vary greatly between Upstate NY and NYC, but NYC has the population to control the rest of the state.

The trend has been evolving in our favor, and will continue to do so, but things have to happen one small increment at a time.

As for population, you have to consider where it's on the rise, and where it is declining. If you do not include those in the US illegally, our population has been almsot flat for a couple decades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top