Why big cities want gun control

March 23, 4:04 PMDenver Gun Rights ExaminerDan Bidstrup

Previous Next

9 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Denver Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

In the last article I noted the strong interest in America's big cities for tight control on who has guns.  Today I am going to try to explain why.   Surveys in large cities typically show strong support for gun control.  During the Clinton administration, they even dabbled with a program of sweeping housing projects in Chicago at random times, entering all the apartments looking for illegal guns.  Aside from the incentive to keep your house presentable for unexpected guests, I fail to see the usefulness, and it is blatantly illegal under the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. The bad guy's guns were not effectively stopped, and the program ended.  Why would folks who live in cities be so supportive of gun control when folks in rural areas and small towns are mostly opposed?  Is it something in the water? 

I grew up in a small town where my family didn't buy something until the old one wore out to the point it could no longer be fixed.  We didn't use any city services except water and power. The mindset was that we took care of ourselves and our friends, and the city ran in the background, keeping the power on and the streets repaired. We didn't even think about what government could do for us.  It was invisible to me as a child and young adult.  Our schools were good and  the town was peaceful. If we needed something, we figured a way to do it ourselves. 

On the other hand, I think it is self-selection that over time people who want to do for themselves tend to do for themselves while people who would prefer someone provide services for them gravitate to population centers. People naturally seek their best situation, and if you are poor or have special needs, the larger cities can help you more than small towns. Rural areas struggle to provide social services because the populace is so spread out.  It isn't cost effective to open a counseling office or a jobs center where there are too few clients to justify the office rent and full-time staff. The tax base is also pretty thin to support such services.  It works much better where people are aggregated together.  Job banks and other social services are better organized and are more prevalent in population centers.  Larger school districts, like in big cities, often have better programs for handicapped students which parents might seek out.  Over time, this attraction for services draws to the cities those people for whom those services are appealing.  When one state begins to pay more welfare than those surrounding, they experience an increase in their rolls for example. Over time, this creates a mindset that the government can be mother and father, meeting the most basic needs of the people.  I truly believe that for the majority of those city folks,  the belief is that the government actually is able to keep them safe in their homes and on the street..  So each time it fails, they call for increasing the presence of government rather than seeking alternatives.  It's a mind-set issue.  Am I responsible for myself or is someone else responsible for me? Hmmmm.

  {9348405-hgmg84j]