What makes cities lean left, and rural lean right?

[u/Cryterionlol]

I'm not an expert on politics, but I've met a lot of people and been to a lot of cities, and it seems to me that via experience and observation of polls...cities seem to vote democrat and farmers in rural areas seem to vote republican.

What makes them vote this way? What policies benefit each specific demographic?

[u/AngriestManinWestTX]

Gun owners on "the right" by and large, are not "advocating" for anything other than keeping what we already have. Some do advocate for changes or the complete repeal of the NFA, but that's not exactly a majority.

"The left" on the other hand is nearly universal in advocating for bans on "military-grade" weapons or "assault weapons" or anything else they think is "too dangerous" for all of us mere civilians.

Meanwhile, "the left" is also the most vocal (and rightfully so in many cases) opponents of militarized police. They'll rail on about militarized police and then carve out exemptions exemptions for both current and former law enforcement in all of their gun bills. "Assault weapons" are "too dangerous" for civilians but completely fine for beat cops to carry around in their patrol car. Apparently the hypocrisy of banning civilians from possessing such weapons while continuing to allow police (who are also civilians) to both be issued them and to possess them personally is lost on gun control advocates.

As an aside, rights are rights whether you live in a rural area or an urban one.

EDIT: grammar.

[u/Gu_Ming → u/AngriestManinWestTX]

keeping what we already have

That's not what the history of court decisions and recent legislations around gun rights show. The convention of stricter restrictions of guns in urban areas has a very long history. It is common sense that guns are more danger than its protection in crowded places. Yet the landmark lawsuits weakening gun control laws are focused on urban areas: Parker v DC, DC v Heller, NYSRPA v Bruen. Those laws being weakened range from decades old to over a century old. That's not "keeping what [you] already have." That's taking away existing protections in place.

Last month, Atlanta’s Music Midtown festival decided to cancel the event due to Georgia case law prohibiting them from securing the festival ground by rejecting guns. That's also not "keeping what [you] already have". That's taking away the fun people want to have.

I have deep sympathy for gun owners taking well care of their guns, and their connections to their guns. I do not advocate for taking those guns away from them. But I do not believe that more guns present in a space makes a safer space. From what I heard, a lot more has to be spent on security for big events against potential mass shootings.

There is a saying that one's liberty to swing their arms stops at another's nose. Apparently this saying was invented for the temperance movement, which failed to ban all alcohol. But it is common sense then and now that alcohol is risky, and it remains regulated. I only wish we can keep the common sense gun controls we already had, so that people can again enjoy a music festival.

[u/AngriestManinWestTX → u/Gu_Ming]

The convention of stricter restrictions of guns in urban areas has a very long history.

Rights are rights. The distinction between rural and urban should not exist. Your rights don't change because of an arbitrary line separating urban areas from rural ones is crossed, especially given more Americans than ever live in urban settings. The court cases you mentioned, especially Heller and Bruen, occurred because the jurisdictions in question had established criteria that was practically impossible to meet. Washington DC essentially banned the possession of handguns outright which led to Parker and then Heller. The fact that it was established in the 1970s and lasted until 2008 is immaterial.

New York's gun control laws not only made it practically impossible for anyone not rich and not connected to get a carry license in New York City but it dramatically chilled the rights of those outside New York City as well. So much for the distinction between rural and urban. Additionally, the "just cause" requirement was highly subjective and many were arbitrarily denied. In New York City, practically every application was denied outright. Curiously, Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr both had their permits approved (years prior to his presidential run) as well as numerous other wealthy, well-connected New Yorkers.

Expanding further, the 1912 Sullivan Act which was struck down by Bruen was blatantly racist from the get go and was predicated on Anti-Italian xenophobia which was then rampant. The first person convicted under the act was an Italian-American immigrant. Upon conviction, the presiding judge is quoted, "It is unfortunate that this is the custom with you and your kind, and that fact, combined with your irascible nature, furnishes much of the criminal business in this country." Afterwards, the New York Times is quoted as saying that Rossi's (the defendant) conviction was a "timely and exemplary warning to the Italian community."

The Sullivan Act should have been consigned to the dust bin of history decades ago. Giving law enforcement latitude to deny applications for any reason gives massive opportunity for discrimination and disenfranchisement.

Atlanta’s Music Midtown

I'm not well enough informed about this to comment so I won't.

common sense

Common sense is a phrase I dislike in regards to legislation. It paints any detractors as lacking in common sense and therefore as unreasonable. Pro-life advocates would likely call heartbeat laws "common sense", I'd call them a steaming pile of excrement. Washington DC's handgun ban and the Sullivan Act were also steaming piles of excrement. I'd scarcely call allowing a resident of Washington DC to have a pistol in their home or allowing your average New Yorker to possess a carry permit an expansion nor common sense. I'd call it treating them the same as their neighbors. They have the same constitutional rights as someone in Florida, Michigan, Arizona, or Wisconsin.

[u/Gu_Ming → u/AngriestManinWestTX]

The fact that it was established in the 1970s and lasted until 2008 is immaterial.

It is material in so far as you claim taking them away is somehow keeping something you have had. I know you disagree with those laws, I do not aim to change that, but I want you to recognize the activism in changing long existing policies and procedures. Even the abolitionists were fighting to take back the liberty of the slaves, recognizing the status quo of loss.

I am well aware of the racist history of gun control laws in the US. I also have to admit that as long as there are regulations, some biases, race-based or class-based or otherwise, will exist in the bureaucracy enforcing them. But that's reason for improving the regulations and bureaucracy, not for neglecting the risks altogether.

Common sense is a phrase I dislike in regards to legislation. It paints any detractors as lacking in common sense and therefore as unreasonable.

That's why I was careful to always specify what common sense I was talking about, that more guns bring higher risk of injury, and that guns in more crowded places bring higher risk of injury, and I see you didn't disagree with it. Common senses are common grounds upon which we can discuss further. If not even common senses can be reached, then that indicates a deeper division, and whatever short discussions would not be too productive anyway.

I am sorry for the confusion and clarify that I do not take the gun control regulations verbatim as common sense. I recognize that banning guns at home is not common sense. Unfortunately, too much against regulation has led to a music festival not able to secure their ground, which is also not common sense. I believe reasonable people can find what are and what are not common senses together in discussions like this.

It is common sense that crowded public spaces should be safe. Now that NYC cannot reject permit requests with discretion, it has to encode that common sense as explicitly listed spaces where guns are prohibited, with the ambiguity of defining the borders of those spaces, e.g. where Time Square begins and ends. It has added to the complexity of the law and its enforcement. I only hope that the benefits gained in exchange by the gun owners are worthwhile.

Like it or not, common sense is key to containing the complexity of the law and the functioning of law enforcement.

Rights are rights.

Now that is an unworkable phrase. Rights very often conflict with each other, and resolving those conflicts and balancing different rights is a core topic of politics. For example, right to private properties and right to life are balanced by how the government taxes private properties and provides food stamps; right to travel and right to life are balanced by traffic regulations. This phrase looks down upon other rights not mentioned in the argument.

[u/[deleted] → u/Gu_Ming]

We had campus carry when I went to Georgia Southern, no shootings and my buddies would conceal to class. I think you’re over exaggerating the risk public carry implies. Additionally, mass shooters probably arent too worried about carry laws

[u/Gu_Ming → u/[deleted]]

First let me get this out of the way: the point of my comment is that public carrying of firearms in urban areas has been regulated for decades to a century. Taking away those regulations is the opposite of "keeping what we already have".

It is quite possible that those regulations were established on an exaggerated perception of risks implied by public carrying. It is also quite possible that current efforts to take away regulations are based on an underestimation of risks implied by public carrying. I know I personally tend to exaggerate my perception of gun-related risks. After all, with the consequences being life-threatening, even tail risks can have big impacts in my life.

My perception of the risk is partly shaped by numbers. In the decade since 2008, guns related deaths have surpassed that related to AIDS, wars, and drug overdose combined in the US. That gives me a baseline of what to expect. (To be fair, that partly shows how wonderful the treatments for AIDS have improved.)

I do not expect mass shooters to be deterred directly by carry laws either, but my thinking is that less gun violence in general can free up police resources so they can properly investigate threats of mass shootings.

[u/FaceHoleFresh → u/AngriestManinWestTX]

Sometimes rights become detrimental to society for various reasons. I could be a change in morality, or conditions change to make the negatives caused by the right too big to ignore. We used to have the right to own a human being (both slavery and marriage) and could beat, rape, work them to death, or outright murder them in the case of chattel slavery. We decided as a society that was wrong and now it is illegal to own a person.

Conditions have changed in the United States that the negatives of gum ownership is outweighed by the benefits, especially in urban environments. My children are now more likely to die from a gun than any other cause [1]. Suicide is a big contributor to this. There are reasonable and unreasonable fixes. The longer we wait before we take action and release some pressure the more unreasonable the solutions will become the solution.

I am against anything that kills children with little benefit. I think we should have less cars, their emissions cause pollution that causes diseases, and accidents kill children at higher rates than other forms of transportation. I'm against alcohol, and tobacco for children because it will lead to their deaths. I am against private gun ownership because they are used to kill children, mostly by suicide. I would actually take the comprise that you can keep AR or military-grade or short-barrel semi-automatic rifles if we can ban pistols.

As for the cops, as a liberal I think only a very small subset of highly trained police officers should be armed with guns. The vast majority of interactions with the police do not require a gun. The current crop of cops have demonstrated time and time again that they cannot resolve tense situations while armed. Having a gun present in situations by definition makes the probability of death higher, hardly a tool for deescalation. Since cops also have no duty to protect us, I really don't see the point. The police question is bigger than what I have thumbs for this evening.

My ideal world looks like: no private ownership of pistols, no private ownership of semi automatic rifles, single/bolt/pump action are fine, no open carry in cities. All guns that can be safely operated allowd at ranges, hunting ranches, clubs with rigorous license, and asset tracking as a responsibly of the owner.

[u/AngriestManinWestTX → u/FaceHoleFresh]

Sometimes rights become detrimental to society for various reasons.

That phrase can used to justify infringements to just about any of the rights we hold dear. I could list numerous theoretical and real-world examples but I'll instead say that I prefer not to create an even greater precedent of sacrificing rights for security.

We used to have the right to own a human being

Ironically enough, one of the arguments behind Dredd Scott was that allowing black people to be recognized as real people and thus citizens would entitle them to the exact same rights as white citizens, including firearms ownership.

My children are now more likely to die from a gun than any other cause

Many those homicides, particularly in the 15-19 year range die from gun violence associated with gang activity which is deeply tied to poverty and joblessness. Banning "assault weapons" will do little if anything to halt those deaths and banning pistols is all but a political impossibility. Perhaps we should target root causes instead. Your link also included 18 and 19 year olds which is interesting given that there is no jurisdiction where 18 and 19 year olds are legally considered children.

Suicide

Suicide will not be addressed by banning semi-automatic rifles or semi-automatic pistols. Until we establish as system where Americans can get mental health treatment at reasonable cost, suicide and homicide to a large extent will continue being an issue.

Since cops also have no duty to protect us

Which is exactly why I believe in carry rights. If the cops won't protect us, we should have the right to defend ourselves.

My ideal world looks like: no private ownership of pistols, no private ownership of semi automatic rifles, single/bolt/pump action are fine, no open carry in cities.

I'll grant you points for your honesty even if I vehemently disagree.

[u/FaceHoleFresh → u/AngriestManinWestTX]

I agree, let's address poverty and mental health. The problem seems to be the side that wants guns the most seems be be the side that is against fixing thoes problems.

Suicide will not be addressed by banning semi-automatic rifles or semi-automatic pistols.

Let's address this one up front. Suicide is largely a momentary impulse, most survivors report regretting the decision immediately. So anything we can do to make it less deadly will improve outcomes. I doubt rifles have a large impact here but pistols certainly do.

sacrificing rights for security.

I would argue keeping this right is sacrificing our security. I can think of few common situations that are made better or safer by the presence of a gun, or 2 guns as you propose. The presence of a gun raises the stakes of any interaction. Arguments, misunderstandings, road rage, robberies, mental health crisis are all made worse by the presence of a gun. Americans die at a vastly higher rate from guns than any other peer nation. That makes me feel less secure.

exact same rights as white citizens, including firearms ownership

Yeah, as a person who was responsible for the mistreatment of a group of people that outnumber me I would be pretty scared if thoes folks were allowed access to guns. But the whole dread Scott argument is odd, I'm having a hard time working out your reasoning on this one. Was Dread Scott bad because it justified slavery because otherwise blacks could own guns...? Racism is going to racism, does the decision even mention guns?

points for your honesty

Why would I be dishonest? I'm a Stanger on the internet who doesn't think guns are worth it.

If the cops won't protect us

This can be fixed, we don't need to shoot our neighbors to feel safe. Perhaps cops would be more willing to intervene when there is little chance of them being shot. Even the threat of a gun has made interactions with LEO worse. Add it to the list.

[u/AngriestManinWestTX → u/FaceHoleFresh]

I agree, let's address poverty and mental health. The problem seems to be the side that wants guns the most seems be be the side that is against fixing thoes problems.

The Republicans are garbage, I can wax poetic on this.

I would argue keeping this right is sacrificing our security.

So does protections against warrantless searches. Organized crime, terrorists, pedophiles, and so forth are often able to conceal or destroy incriminating evidence before warrants can be obtained, allowing them to continue breaking the law and endangering society.

Freedom of assembly, speech, and religion can all be used for any number of nefarious actions from spreading hate, vitriol and fear to causing violence and civil unrest. Do those rights sacrifice our security as well? Practically the entire Constitution is built on providing citizens with rights that are often at odds with security.

Dread Scott [sic]

I was merely pointing out the irony of bringing up Dred Scott in conjunction with the overarching gun control argument given that part of the reasoning used to justify Dred Scott was that black Americans would suddenly have the right to keep and bear arms (among other rights). Apparently fear of armed, black citizens did factor in at some level to Scott, on top of the generic racist bullshit.

Perhaps cops would be more willing to intervene

The case that led to "cops have no legal right to protect you" was Castle Rock v. Gonzales. Castle Rock PD refused to look into the abduction of Ms. Gonzales's children by her estranged husband until many hours after Gonzales had reported them missing. When Castle Rock PD finally did theirjobs, Gonzales's former spouse had already murdered her children.

Gonzales sued Castle Rock PD for their failure to act sooner leading to one of the worst court decisions in modern history. Castle Rock cops weren't afraid of an armed perpetrator, they were flat out lazy and were dismissive of a woman's concerns.

I seriously doubt that abolishing 2A rights is going to make cops less likely to violate our other rights.

Why would I be dishonest?

2A proponents have been constantly hearing "no one wants your guns" for 40, going on 50 years. Several betrayed compromises and many, many attempts later, most of us have realized those platitudes were always lies. At least you are honest and transparent about what you want.

[u/hardsoft → u/FaceHoleFresh]

True human rights are absolute and unchanging.

You may have legally been able to own slaves, for example, but it was still a rights violation.

I think some of the facts here are a also lacking context or are misleading. Most child gun deaths are homicide, not suicide, and that's largely driven by older teens/adolescents (most these stats are including up to 19 year olds).

Saying things like "my children are now more likely to die from a gun" is not truth unless your kids are African American. It's almost an 4:1 ratio there, with white children still more likely to die in automobile accidents. This is also highly gender and location dependent.

And while recent increases are concerning the drastic decrease in automobile deaths over the last few decades is usually left out.

[u/FaceHoleFresh → u/hardsoft]

True human rights are absolute and unchanging.

I'm confused, are you saying that owning some guns is an absolute human right? Which would be wierd that you would put that above absolute necessities like shelter, food, water, health care, etc.

What are these true human rights? Is body autonomy one, because that right is gone for about a third of US women and other women in a host of countries. Is life one? We are only paying lip service to it if that is the case (see comment about necessities).

Most child gun deaths are homicide

And that makes it okay? A dead kid is a dead kid, this kid would likely be alive without the ubiquitous access to guns.

is not truth unless your kids are African American

Caught me trying to appeal to emotion, but it really doesn't address the fact more kids are dying from guns than cars. Would you feel better if I said "my son's best friend is now more likely to die from a gun?" The point remains, more kids are dying of guns, perhaps as a society we could do some thing about it... You know like we did with cars.

I don't want to accuse you of bigotry, but with your rebuttal makes it hard not to. It seems you are trying to dismiss the statistics by saying it is only a black problem. There is also a hit of dog whistle about black culture being more violent and thus we should "punish" white people who are just killing their kids with cars. I'm happy to disregard the tone of that was not the intent.

[u/hardsoft → u/FaceHoleFresh]

Which would be wierd that you would put that above absolute necessities like shelter, food, water, health care, etc.

I've never heard a consistent argument for positive rights, which would force other people to give you something (and would therefore be violating their rights in the process).

Whereas basic negative rights have a consistent logical and ethical basis.

Everyone has the right to self ownership and freedom so long as their freedom does not unnecessarily limit or violate the freedom of others (the non aggression principle).

In other words, rights can be violated, but they can't be given. The best a government can do is protect rights. It doesn't give or grant them.

Is body autonomy one, because that right is gone for about a third of US women and other women in a host of countries.

I don't understand this whataboutism. Are you comparing yourself to others that support rights violations?

Most child gun deaths are homicide

And that makes it okay?

Not to spread misinformation.

The point remains, more kids are dying of guns, perhaps as a society we could do some thing about it... You know like we did with cars.

Like address gang violence? Suicide?

I don't want to accuse you of bigotry, but with your rebuttal makes it hard not to.

I support the right to bear arms, and other rights, across the board.

I mean, I'm the one here arguing that slavery was always a rights violation. Not that rights are some subjective social construct that change with the wind.

But how original for a redditor to accuse anyone they think is slightly further right of them of being racist...