Why does urbanization lead to an anti-gun mentality?

[lions]

In cities or counties where a hard workin' person pays taxes to said city or county to render such services . . . I want my money's worth.

I agree, but I'd rather do it myself and keep the money...

Anyway, for a portion of the urban population there seems to be a sense that they are more cultured than their rural counterparts. Guns and gun owners sometimes receive a stereotype of being redneck among other terms that are less than 'high society'. And there is my baseless postulation for the day.

 

[paperwork351]

I would look at the influx of people moving to the area. Fleeing high tax and soaring crime rates, they bring the mindset that helped create the high tax and crime rates. Urbanites move to the rural areas and then complain about hunting season or a farmer spreading manure in his field. I call it Democrat creep. Could be the mindset alone. An example I noticed was Martinsburg WVa. The area has experienced explosive growth the last few years and has gotten on the "no guns policy" on govt property/parks and the issue of a shooting range nearby. I am not from that area, just the local newspapers that come to the office..

 

[Brass Rain]

I always thought of it as being the way people most see guns used in respective areas. In the country one might depend on their gun to fend off snakes, or the occasional wild dog or bear or whatever. And in the city you've got all these programs run towards bringing down gang violence, people in bad parts of neighborhoods hearing gunshots first and then sirens. And in the paper the next morning is the story of more kids killed, be them gang-members or innocent bystanders. Pretty soon people start associating guns with crime, violence, and death and fall into the fallacy that somehow regulating guns regulates crime.

 

[Mp7]

Many people are not made for living in dense populated environments,
but have to due to economic reasons.

The agression/crime-violence caused by that does multiply with the easy access to guns.
And don´t come telling this isnt true. I am a Pro RKBA european.

But every single big city i know here, is safer in general than
a big city in the US.

I am not saying that a anti-gun attitude makes sense in a society
that cannot take the guns out of the wrong hands - but will only regulate
the options of the non-criminals.

But the stats do show, that big cities and guns result in more shootings.
Maybe it´s a human problem in the first place.
We are not made for living in too big herds.

 

[killchain]

BS.

There was a time, decades ago, when your statement was true. Not any longer.

I see that you've made similar allegations before.Both are either pretty amazingly uninformed statements or outright propaganda. Especially this one, specifically claiming that the NRA stays out of self-defense and right to carry issues. It was made right between the two highest profile self-defense/firearms rights cases in the last several decades. Both of which the NRA most certainly did NOT stay out of. It was heavily involved in both cases.

A few thoughts.

• Every NRA periodical has a section dedicated to self-defense called the Armed Citizen.
• NRA supported the McDonald case as it did the Heller case, both of which were primarily related to handguns and self-defense.
• NRA has repeatedly fought and defeated municipal handgun bans in CA.
• NRA supported the concealed carry laws during the "concealed carry movement" which aided in getting "shall issue laws" passed in many states. In one 6 year period 11 states passed NRA supported right to carry laws.
• A third of the NRA certified courses are about handguns, self-defense or self-protection.
• One of the two NRA television programs is exclusively self-defense related.

If you're going to make statements like the ones quoted above then you should at least make a token effort to support them with facts.

NRA v Chicago flopped. The Second Amendment Foundation was the main push behind McDonald v. Chicago, not the NRA.

 

[ZCORR Jay]

It's called <deleted - Sam> of America and is probably due to weaker and weaker generations that are heavily dependent on govt to make their choices and remove all the big bad scary things.

If only people realized that gun control laws are like a locked car door... they only keep honest people honest.

 

[22-rimfire]

I think it relates to population density and the fact that folks that grow up and live in cities no longer feel they need a gun except for self protection. Cities are also where the lower income level folks tend to concentrate. Misery loves company. Folks hear about or see crime taking place and one of the first things they think of is "let's ban those evil guns" and everything will be okay. This is especially true for women, I think and they are at least half the population. I want to drive to work, go to the grocery store, walk through the projects without being worried about my safety, go to the shopping mall, visit bars or clubs, go to church, and raise my kids iand send them to good safe schools.

The problem is that crime follows population density and income distribution. Those that don't have a reasonably good job see what those other people have and crave the "good life". However, they often are unwilling to make the effort to get the education that those other people have living the "good life". Life is very discriminatory and seemingly unfair, but if you don't make the effort yourself, you won't succeed unless you win the lottery or get lucky.

Those "living the good life" see and hear about the problems. The usual fix that politicians make is restrict access to firearms and increase policing efforts in the higher crime areas. But we know this alone does not fix things but we all have to live with the restricted liberty.

 

[shockwave]

I reject the premise of this post entirely. I think it is mistaken, and it's led to a lot of the usual chestbeating nonsense. There are some replies here that are on the mark, however.

Urban areas have larger gang populations and gang bangers do bad things with guns.

That's probably 90-percent of the answer right there. In my case, I live in a city with over a million people, and we have very relaxed gun laws, a number of convenient indoor and outdoor ranges, private ranges, handgun, rifle and shotgun facilities, and shall-issue CCW licensing.

So the OP has begged the question that urbanization leads to anti-gun legislation. In fact, it does not. What we might do is look at each urban locale as an individual entity, and look at its history, migratory patterns, demographics, economy, etc., and see how those might result in the kinds of laws that take shape over time.

Also, the Golden Age of restrictive gun laws and gun control is thankfully over. Like the aftermath of a major wildfire, there are still hot-zones here are there, but the majority of the battle has been resolved in favor of private ownership and shall-issue CHLs. Parts of California and New York and much of New England remain restrictive, but they are mostly fighting defensive actions now. The odd exception only proves that rule.

 

[leadcounsel]

Shooting sports are less common in the city

Hollywood and media contribute to only showing the BAD acts by people with guns, but rarely show the GOOD acts. In fact, GOOD acts are the passive ownership/concealed carry, which goes unnoticed but has a deterant effect.

Storage space for guns and ammo is more limited in areas where property is more pricey.

Less places allow concealed carry in cities, such as sporting arenas, government buildings, corporations, post offices, etc. Much less convenient to CCW in big cities.

I also think that urban areas attract certain people. Among those are those that are predisposed to a 'victim' mentality and those that desire a lot of government services and intrusion, folks that focus on 'fashion' and 'fads' and 'superficial' stuff rather than fundamental core values like the Constitution and what it represents.

 

[KBintheSLC]

I think you are mistakenly attributing causality. Do you have any hard evidence that urbanization does, in fact, lead to an anti-gun mentality? I'd like to see it.

You're engaging in a sloppy generalization.

I think we can all agree that urban areas tend to be more "anti" than rural areas. We don't need to conduct a formal sociological study to confirm this either... just look at the laws and the legislators. Despite your subtle change in wording, I think you are asking the same question as I am... why?

 

[KBintheSLC]

Anyway, for a portion of the urban population there seems to be a sense that they are more cultured than their rural counterparts. Guns and gun owners sometimes receive a stereotype of being redneck among other terms that are less than 'high society'. And there is my baseless postulation for the day

You are dead on there. I believe that the so-called "intellectuals" of urbanite societies stroke their egos by being "above and beyond" such "barbarisms". Little do they know that there is nothing "progressive" about a weak and helpless population.

 

[KodiakBeer]

It's all part of a bigger picture. If you live in an urban environment you are relieved of responsibilities for many things that you did for yourself in a rural environment. This would include everything from plowing your own snow, to taking your trash to the dump. And of course, this includes relying on the police to deal with thieves, intruders and so on.

I think many people get lulled into thinking the gubmint is responsible for their safety and welfare, since they taken responsibility for everything else.

 

[floydf]

a. there are far fewer routine applications for guns in an urban environment. For example, we live in an rural area without cell service, and my wife knows that if I'm out working and she hears three gun shots about a second apart to come out looking because I've fallen and broken a leg or something. The same thing if she needs me right now and I'm out of earshot. To say nothing of shooting coons and critters and feral dogs and hogs and such. A gun in the city is not needed on a similar routine basis for most normal people. Hopefully.

b. the higher density of people in an urban environment means that stray bullets have a much greater chance of doing harm. Even if a stray bullet is not doing harm, it is whizzing by larger numbers of people who will take offense at such, and will ask their city councilman to pass a law to make things safer.

c. the larger number of people also means that there are more people "on the fringe"; on the edges of the distribution curve. Anyone living in an urban area knows that besides thee and me, there are quite a few oddballs that make both of us nervous even without a gun in their hand. Solution: contact the city councilman.

So, not needed frequently for routine tasks, a much higher risk profile for negligence and accidents, and constant elbow to elbow contact with folks you wouldn't feel comfortable inviting into your living room pretty much makes a recipe for much stricter gun laws than in the country. And so it has been all the way back into the 19th century in frontier America.

 

[FourteenMiles]

Maybe it is because there is just no room for guns in big cities. If you are in a multi story building for example, you basically can't shoot in any direction and expect to be safe.

You simply don't see guns for recreational purposes in cities. No room for hunting, plinking; shooting ranges require a lot of space and may be too loud for a city. But city folk are still exposed to guns in the media, usually wielded by crazed killers or the like, even the "good guys" with guns usually have a devil may care attitude.

In cities cops are ubiquitous so firearms may be viewed as less crucial to defense. In a city you usually can't scream without someone hearing you. We just gotta hope they react, a few times I have been walking down a city street and heard a woman scream at the top of her lungs, I would look around anxiously to find the source and see no evidence of a mishap or anyone acting worried so I'd ignore it and go back to my sheep mindset. Remember Kitty Genovese?

Also a city is basically a collective of people who specialize in a profession and practice it nearly exclusively. In the country people are more self-sufficient, including in their defense.

 

[rainbowbob]

I believe that the so-called "intellectuals" of urbanite societies stroke their egos by being "above and beyond" such "barbarisms". Little do they know that there is nothing "progressive" about a weak and helpless population.

Have you been talking to my relatives?

Most of them (and we are mostly "urbanites") have swallowed the "violence-begets-violence" mantra. Owning a defensive firearm is only contributing to the "problem" of violence.

They seem to believe (hope?) that there is some kind of social contract that violent criminals will adhere to if you just "give them what they want" (e.g., your wallet). I can only assume that also applies to rape.

Several ranges that used to be out in the sticks - but are now surrounded by new development - are under assault by the folks that moved out next to them.

You definitely can't discharge a firearm in the city, so using one for varmint control is verboten.

As pointed out, unfamiliarity with firearms breeds fear and contempt. Only "bad" people use guns for bad things.

Often, the types of people that are elected or appointed to positions of control around here (mayor, police chief, council-persons, etc) are transplants from places like L.A. and Chicago. They are much more adept at hardball politics than the locals, who seem to believe they must be "smarter" about big-city problems - having come from a big city with problems.

These control freaks want to ban guns in parks and all public places, and their mass-audience messages can be cost-effectively presented to large numbers of people in a crowded city-setting. These folks are members of VPC, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and all the other gun control/ban organizations.

Their audience, who have probably never fired a gun, and who are convinced that only bad people do, lap it up.
If it will just save one child...it's all worth it. Anybody that isn't interested in making the children "safe" is a mouth-breathing barbarian.

And so it goes...

 

[JohnBT]

I think there are more guns in the cities than in the coutryside. That's been my experiecne. The difference seems to be that the farmers have long guns and the city folks have .25 Baby Brownings and such. Of course, the primary cities I have lengthy experience with are only Baltimore, D.C. and Richmond.

Lots of ladies at the bus stop with a little handbag gun. And they aren't real worried about the law getting them. Just working folks protecting themselves.

Now if you're talking about city politicians all bets are off. They're either the people who were in the student governement in high school or the ones who lost the election and were determined to win an election for something sooner or later. These are the idiots passing our laws. The laws that get passed are the ones that the politicians think will get them elected to a higher office.

 

[rainbowbob]

floydf: Welcome to THR...great first post!

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

Lemme see if I can explain:
When I was growing up out in the country we had hogs in a fairly large pen. I noticed one thing the thicker in numbers those hogs got the more tails got bitten off.
Translated: A different mentality takes place when cities get crowded.

 

[chaplain tom]

Original Quote by dmancornell
I personally don't think it's a gun issue per se. Urban societies attract government money due to voter concentration. Government money promotes statism and the desire to extend government control to all private matters. Anti-gun sentiment is just a byproduct of statism.

I have to agree with that premise. I believe that "statism" is another way of displacing our need to be responsible for ourselves and our own actions. "Statism" takes that away from us and places that resposibility on the government. I'm an ordained minister, and I study religion and how to be a good pastor all the time, and quite frankly, our churches don't stress that we are to be responsible for our own actions as much they use to. Our country is evolving more and more into a "nanny state" everyday. Psychotherapy is a booming business today because it promotes the idea that we act as we do because it's someone else's fault.

Urbanites see no need for self protection, therefore no need for a weapon (a gun in this discussion) because they have the government to protect them.

 

[Shytheed Dumas]

Chalk it up to experience (or lack thereof) and perception.

The only news urbanites ever hear around guns involve gangs, robberies, murder, suicide, murder-suicide, etc., which leads to a perception that guns are inherently bad. Join that with little to no experience handling or using guns for anything positive and throw in a little "country folk are red-necks" mentality and it's a Brady wet dream in the making.

 

[KBintheSLC]

Some great feedback so far. There seems to be a combination of several factors that continue to come up... experience, perception, statism, common use, fear, mistrust, politics, etc.
This leads me to another pressing question... how in the heck are we supposed to all live peacefully under a single flag when we have such fundamental differences in our core values?

 

[Ben86]

One of the main reasons I think this happens is because humans feel safer when living amongst a large group, like most animals. And so they may feel they can rely on others for their safety. To me this is naive. When I am around a large group of people I feel more threatened because there is more of a possibility that one is a malicious person. This is in contrast to rural life, whereupon your nearest neighbor may be a mile away and it is very clear that YOU are responsible for the safety of you and your family. You don't have the comfort of a well staffed metro police station 5 to 10 minutes away. This would make for an interesting sociological study.

 

[Rshooter]

My family was from a lightly populated area and guns were part of the family tradition.

My wife grew up in an urban area and her only experience with guns was on the news. If it is on the news it is TRUE.

After my wife joined the USMC and learned to shoot and not be afraid of the gun she became more open to gun ownership. If more folks joined the military or were taken shooting they might change their attitudes. That's where we come in, take someone out to shoot and create one less gun hater.

 

[rainbowbob]

...how in the heck are we supposed to all live peacefully under a single flag when we have such fundamental differences in our core values?

The Founders addressed that pretty well with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Of course we still had to endure a horrific Civil War to rid ourselves of slavery. Hopefully, we won't need to do THAT again.

 

[JohnBT]

"Lemme see if I can explain:
When I was growing up out in the country we had hogs in a fairly large pen. I noticed one thing the thicker in numbers those hogs got the more tails got bitten off.
Translated: A different mentality takes place when cities get crowded."

Good observation. There were classic research projects that we studied in college back around 1970. To summarize, you can only pack so many lab rats in one living environment before they begin acting differently - severely differently.

John

P.S. - John B. Calhoun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun