"In many states, as the big cities vote, so goes the state."
It stinks, but, the 'big cities'
are the state. Lion's share of money, lion's share of voters, lion's share of problems needing attention--why
wouldn't a democratic or even properly representative government be dominated by city politics?
Through the diligent efforts of folks from every walk of life and every aisle, the "conventional wisdom" has become not that guns are
bad, it's even worse that that; that guns have no place in a populated environment.
That's where we need to be working hardest.
Who cares if guns are "good" or "bad," if the only people who can actually use the dang things are thugs, because there are no good firing ranges around? If there's no acceptable use for them in a city besides boring paper-punching and inflicting injury? America has done an excellent job making its city-dwellers' lifestyles completely incompatible with the shooting sports since antiquity--is it any surprise they want nothing to do them to this day?
I don't think it has to be this way. People used to lament that children in crowded slums had nowhere safe or decent to play, so land was set aside to be used as parks. If cities had anywhere near the shooting facilities needed to keep up with demand (without turning away vast numbers of shooters with long lines and high prices) and they weren't crammed into noisy cellars, there'd be a lot more people shooting, and a lot more people enjoying shooting. And a whole lot more people who know the first thing about guns.
Instead, we're stuck paying expensive membership fees to exclusive gun clubs, hunkering down in cellars like criminals, and putting up with the most unprofessional and dangerous of public ranges because there's nothing better within a two-hour drive. With the number of new shooters, you'd think there would an equal growth in facilities to take their money, lead, and brass. My area of DFW is experiencing unprecedented growth and firearms sales have been running full tilt for years--
--two new ranges within 20 miles in the last few years. That's it. And one of the largest public ranges in the region (Garland Public Gun Range) has been essentially shut down to riflemen by court action of the now-sprawling suburbs surrounding it. I swore that place off long ago for its huge crowds, dangerous lack of R/O control of new shooters, and generally unkempt facilities (lawns are a perpetual ankle-twisting wreck because of constant brass/lead mining). In another couple years, it won't matter, since some excuse will be found to shutter the place permanently, anyway (well, except for a sub-basement that will be dug for pistol shooters to cower in while they punch paper as pale as their sun-deprived skin)
Fortunately, more people than ever seem to be at least vaguely aware that cities aren't the utopias they have been touted as by politicians, and that bad things can and do happen to good folks through no fault of their own. More importantly, they seem to be regaining (though slowly) the feeblest of wills to take their lives into their own hands, and prepare some type of defense. The proliferation of pepper spray and tasers has probably done more for the cause of urban gun ownership than anything in this respect. With the desire for self defense, there is now at least
that reason for guns to be needed in cities in the minds of urbanites, and that's a place to start.
I think shooting sports is the next place we need to focus; specifically, getting them back in schools. I know, I know, that's one hell of a long road to how, but even getting air-rifle teams back on middle and high school campuses in the cities would be huge. A city is
never going to build or maintain a public shooting range themselves unless it can be a focal point for their district's State Champions of Marksmanship. And kids will never learn to shoot inside the confines of cities in real numbers without cooperation of schools. If we get two generations of kids trained in even the most basic
rules of shooting (let along skill), no range will have to worry about rounds being sent over the berm
"Set it up so that regardless of how many people reside in a given county or metro area, that county or area is limited to one representative in Congress."
That sounds great and all, but how will you convince those city-slickers to go along with it? After all,
there's a lot more of them than you. We used to let State Legislatures elect our Senators since they theoretically did a better job representing
all the State's interests than a simple popular vote. We've done this little dance all the way back to the Revolution (3/5ths compromise) and the only time the rurals win representation is when they have the money (plantations, and now oil/energy resources; the urbanized North gained its present authority as a direct result of the wealth gained through the Industrial Revolution).
All our rules do is slow down this transfer of power, giving the losers time to regroup. It's inexorable; there's no use trying to fight them. Instead,
convert them to your side, by making them desire your goals, rather than emphasize incompatibilities.
TCB
