pro gun culture vs. population density

[Koda94]

Is it possible for a pro-gun 2A culture to exist in an over populated environment? In the last 100 years alone the population of the United States has tripled. If this trend continues we will lose more of our open spaces and communities as the urban growth expands... in another 100 years small towns will be large cities, large cities will be major metropolises. Already in my suburban area single family homes with backyards are giving way to attached townhomes with no yards, they are not developing homes with yards here anymore. Maybe if we're lucky way out in the "country" will be tomorrows "backyard suburbia" in 100 years from now... and probably only for the wealthy.

We talk here about gun rights with no infringements, ideally.... We all should be able to own military weapons, and carry them at will. At least in my state we "technically" still can... AR15s, AKs, large capacity pistols, concealed or open carry.... not to mention target shooting on public lands, (although I imagine in the distant future there will be no more public lands...).

if the pro gun community had their way, how would it work in such an urbanized congested environment? Maybe like what New York city is now if we magically removed all second amendment infringements there.

 

[g.willikers]

Didn't one of the founding fathers of this country (Jefferson?) warn of the loss of rights as cities grew in size?

 

[Mosin-Marauder]

Predictions via the UN as well as other sources state the population should even out at between 8 Billion and 10 Billion. That's not enough to justify a gross loss of space I don't believe. Especially with all these conservation groups about these days.

 

[longspurr]

Koda
more to your point about population density. I think that is directly linked to transportation, how to get to work. As long as the individual vehicle is the primary means of transportation, the population density will likely stay about the same. Yes the towns will grow, but the density will not.

Politicians like high density population, it is easier to control. Many politicians are anti-weapon as that decreases their control of the sheep (population).

I see Pro 2A linked to individuals who think and are responsible for themselves. Training like Boy Scouts is a good thing. Having a free media ( not the pablum of commercial TV) but the internet is very positive.

Target shooting on public lands needs help from us in the shooting community to help police the activity. Slobs, uncaring folks, and idiots are destroying our ability to enjoy that public space. (same can be true for city parks).

 

[Mokumbear]

G. Willikers wrote:

"Didn't one of the founding fathers of this country (Jefferson?) warn of the loss of rights as cities grew in size?"


I would be interested in reading more about that.

Do you have any idea where I could find that?

 

[Koda94]

more to your point about population density. I think that is directly linked to transportation, how to get to work. As long as the individual vehicle is the primary means of transportation, the population density will likely stay about the same. Yes the towns will grow, but the density will not.

thats an interesting theory, but they way I see it is in high density environments individuals rely more on public transportation, like NYC, its too cost probibitive to own a car let alone drive it anywhere there.

 

[Gunplummer]

I won't live to see it, but the population will not get to the point you are talking about. Nature will take over. I used to trap a lot when younger. Populations would get out of hand with certain animals and then they would develop a disease or starve out and drop to a small percentage of what they were. Take a good look at the kids now days. One out of ten have this, three out of ten have that, and so on. As fast as modern science stops one health problem, two more pop up to replace it.

 

[DaleA]

Predictions via the UN as well as other sources state the population should even out at between 8 Billion and 10 Billion.

Kudos to you Mosin for knowing this information. Also, as others have mentioned, for writing so well. But *lots of folk, myself included, just flat out don't believe these predictions because we've been burned so much in the past. Take the books 'The Population Bomb' or 'Super Tanker' or more recently the 'Y2K' scare. Or famously Newsweek magazine which in the 1970's predicted the Earth was going into another ice age and by now our summers would be significantly shorter than they were then. Sigh.

Where to shoot IS a problem. Growing up a kid could strap a .22 to his bicycle and in about 30 minutes be out in the country shooting tin cans in the ditches or gophers.

Slobs, uncaring folks, and idiots are destroying our ability to enjoy that public space. (same can be true for city parks).

This is a HUGE problem in my opinion---but my opinion is getting more and more suspect as I get older and older. I'm starting to sound like an old fogey---'Why in my day when you shot a deer you not only picked up the casing, if it was a through and through shot you went and looked for the BULLET so you wouldn't POLLUTE the ENVIRONMENT. (I actually read this in an SF short story once...some wildlife management on a new planet was necessary but pollution...that is all bullets, had to be accounted for. If you missed you had to go searching till you found the spent bullet lest it pollute the planet.)

 

[g.willikers]

Mokumbear,

I did find the actual quotes from Jefferson on the risks of big cities:
http://www.planetizen.com/node/18841

"The mobs of great cities add just so much to support of pure government as sores do to the strength of the human body."

"I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America.
When they get plied upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe."

 

[g.willikers]

As far as how much unoccupied land there still is in this country, just take a cross country trip.
It's mind boggling how much of it there is.

 

[DaleA]

There was an old SF story, 'Stand on Zanzibar' that got the title from the fact that the 7 billion people he imagined would be on the Earth in 2010 would all fit on the island of Zanzibar, a small island off the east coast of Africa, if they stood shoulder to shoulder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_on_Zanzibar

 

[kilimanjaro]

Recently read a science tome, postulating that the earth can support in reasonable lifestyle between 8 and 10 billion people. More than that, and living standards will decline, and regional famines/resource wars will become commonplace.

The problem with looking at land area alone, much of the US, or anywhere else, is simply not arable. Either the soil is bankrupt, the water isn't there, or the climate just won't produce decent crops.

Our problem is our population is becoming too urban, losing it's touch with nature, self-sufficiency, agriculture, and some will say it's sanity itself. Crowd the rats in the cages and pathologies become rife.

If anything, we need to return to the concept of suburban and semi-rural sprawl, where folks could have a plot of their own, even a few acres, instead of cramming ourselves into high-rise warrens surrounded by green belts. On your own land, you can be an individual, with inalienable rights. In your apartment, you get to be part of the hive.

 

[Koda94]

Predictions via the UN as well as other sources state the population should even out at between 8 Billion and 10 Billion.

do these sources say why the population will "even out"?

 

[Koda94]

so basically most everyone here has missed the topic, its not about population growth its about a hypothetical situation if the population growth exceeded living space. Its not to far out to imagine that in another say 100 years urban growth will encroach on open spaces and cram more people into urban environments even if the total population "tops out", even that statistic is much larger than where we are now...

here is the original question:

Is it possible for a pro-gun 2A culture to exist in an over populated environment?

 

[Mosin-Marauder]

do these sources say why the population will "even out"?

Because of Earth's carrying capacity for the Human Race.

There is limited oil,water, land, food, housing, and many other resources (just about all) are limited. Things just even out naturally, that applies to every species.

I don't want to write much more for fear of the thread being locked, feel free to PM me if you like.

 

[Slopemeno]

More importantly, did they say how they will even out?

It'll end up being Air pistols shot into clay backstops across your apartment, and turn up the music to cover the sounds.

 

[tirod]

To accept the OP's point you have to accept the idea that America is somehow overpopulated, and that high density urban areas need to be disarmed.

Two assumptions that are highly debated.

 

[g.willikers]

Sure, the Second Amendment and the gun culture can survive and even thrive in a high population density environment.
Some of the best shooting ranges and gun clubs are in or near big cities.
It's less about how many people live closely together than it is about philosophies, ideas about government and personal responsibilities.
The very definition and ideas of what is considered overpopulation have greatly changed over the centuries.
It might be easier if there's personal room enough for everyone to have their own backyard range, but hardly necessary.

 

[Koda94]

g.willikers, thanks for that reply thats what Im wondering about. I think for those philosophies, ideas, and personal responsibilities to cultivate and grow its important for 2A rights to not be infringed upon, in a high density environment.

 

[Skans]

I think the OP's premise is valid. The more densely populated a city, the more gun restrictions they tend to have. In the not-to-distant future people likely will not enjoy the same gun freedoms we do; barring any event that drastically reduces urban populations.

I also think that in the not-to-distant future, some simple "device" will be invented that will replace guns as a more efficient lethal or disabling weapon. So, I'm not going to worry too much over it. In less than 50 years, I'll either be dead or so old that I don't give a hoot anymore. The only gun of mine that I might outlive would possibly (but not likely) be my Jennings J-22.

And, when I'm 90+ years old, I won't worry about then president Natasha Obama or Chris Christie III on the warpath for my old guns - ain't turning them in; the'll have to come and take them.