Predicting Gun Control's Future

Hi! Happy Wednesday!

So, gun control is finally making some headway in corporations, states and the possibly even the Federal government today.

Just as a reminder, Irreni World Scale is not about punditry but solutions. The solution in this case is to educate by putting the gun control debate into the larger picture of the state of the world.

The U.N. and affiliated world organizations put out world studies annually to help all countries better prepare for tomorrow. In this piece I'm going to take those studies and their predictions of social change for the future and fit the gun control debate into those predictions; most specifically people migrating.

Climate Change Means Mass World Migration

 

Climate change is happening in a significant way and disrupting the world order. This has nothing to do with either the debate about human contributions to climate change or the politics to manage climate change.

Given the current rate of climate change the U.N. is predicting major political instabilities in Africa primarily and the world in general. Specifically the U.N. is anticipating mass migrations like we saw with the Syrian war to Europe. The weather in Syria played a significant role in Syria's recent political instability. The U.N. is predicting climate change is going to continue to impact food and water safety in big ways all throughout the word resulting in mass migrations.

We are getting close to a zero-sum game with growing food in the world unless major changes are made. Major changes such as the world becoming vegetarian. We have seven billion people now and estimates are today that we can support about 20 billion people given current farming technology. As the capacity for the Earth's farming starts failing demand then people are going to need even more efficient farming and less rural population. Distribution of food to large cities will be the most efficient utilization of food.

Advancing Technology Means Bigger Cities

 

The lower population areas in the world and states in the U.S. will continue to lose population due to technological advancements. Big cities around the world are only getting bigger as rural jobs are being automated and the replacement jobs are in the cities.

Within the US I read a recent study that predicted the largest cities in the U.S. are going to grow another 20% over the next decade or so. Why? Because AI and other automation will continue to replace rural jobs. This trend has been going on since WWII. Wealth is continuing to concentrate in the large metropolitan areas such as San Francisco where the housing markets are well above national averages by a factor of ten. Follow the money means people will be moving to where the money is.

Further, energy security will require energy efficiency and that means high density housing in big cities. Imagine if all the people in the world lived in one city. Shipping energy would be reduced to just local shipping. There would be no need for airplane flights to visit people. Public transportation would dominate private transportation. And so on.

In the U.S. what this means is that all fifty states will continue to entice its citizens in to high density population living.

Gun Ownership Demographic Changes

So, with people in the future continuing to migrate to large cities then what does this foretell for gun control's future?

1. Since 1789 gun ownership has fallen from 80% of households to less than 50% today. This strongly correlates to people migrating to large cities since 1789. People in cities do not use guns for hunting and only own guns for protection. However, studies have shown that a $400 gun is money that just sits there most of the time. Eventually people realize they are not keeping up with their target practice,  that ammo is not cheap and so they sell their gun for other things.
2. A 20% rise in urban population will correlate to even fewer households owning guns given historic trends.
3. Police are perceived to be sufficient in cities. It is a common saying with gun advocacy campaigns that the police are only minutes away when danger is only seconds away. This is a good campaign for gun advocates because studies show people in large cities are more comfortable relying on the police. People relying on the police feel less need to buy guns.
4. Cities are better protection. Around the world in places like Afghanistan and Colombia the larger cities are the most secure places in those countries. As climate change brings about world migration people are going to move to cities for protection. This will not directly impact the U.S. But as the world becomes accustomed to city living then legal immigrants coming to the U.S. will then chose to live in cities because that is what they are use too living in. 

 Prognosis

1. My prognosis based upon the evidence presented is that the historical, downward trend of fewer households owning guns in the U.S. is going to continue in a significant way over the next twenty years.
2. We are at the 50% tipping point of household ownership. In a Democracy where majority vote matters then any popular opinion with more than 50% support is the winner. While it is true that only about 50% of households own guns, it is also true that many non-gun owners support the second amendment. 
3. The non-gun owners who support the second amendment are going to be the swing voters. This is why public outrage over school shootings and such are going to continue to be huge public events. The swing voters are the target and they can be swayed to change their mind far more so than people who own guns.
4. Large cities and states with large cities will continue to make it harder to own a gun. Call these gun-free sanctuary states similar to how we have immigration sanctuary cities and states. What is the Federal government going to do as states continue to put pressure on gun ownership with taxes, fees and what-not on gun ownership? Just like with sanctuary immigration cities today the Feds will not be able to do anything. Ammo will get more expensive, gun ranges will get zoned farther and farther away making them less convenient for city gun owners. While the second amendment protects gun ownership it does nothing for shooting ranges. Nothing. Cities will continue to make shooting ranges expensive and prohibitive to encourage city gun owners to give up practicing and eventually the gun.

So that's it in a nut shell. Over the next 20 years large city states will make it nigh impossible for people to own and use guns in cities. This is the prognosis given the evidence today.

Will this put pressure on the 2nd amendment? 

Whether the 2nd amendment is repealed is in my view an inferior question to the very definition of federal government itself within the United States. Will the rural states take advantage of their federal advantage situation to use their electoral college and Senate seats to amend the U.S. constitution? This is the larger question in my mind. Republicans almost have enough representation in rural states to pass amendments now. The 2nd amendment then is not the larger question but amendments in general are as well as the constitutional definition of federal government. Big cities are getting bigger and yet continue to become even less significant within a federal system. In effect cities today are already larger percent of capita then states were back in 1789 and this means they are under represented Federally. What's next? Therefore what happens to the 2nd amendment is dependent on the outcome of the larger Federal definition debate about to come.


Politics as Science!

Demand Irreni World Scale!

Anti-theism is feminism! 

Think disruption!

Empathy for all!

Moral relativity: think it, breath it!

Prove it or lose it!

Conversations equal consensus!

Welcome to the 21st century!

Scale your empathy, scale the world!

Find your tribe!

Be sexy people!

The future is coming!

Innovate at a rapid pace!

Slow speed ahead!

Well come! and well met!

Cheers!
-Mybrid