Rural states are proportionally, populationwise, overrepresented. Someone from Texas or California's vote means much less when it comes to congressional power or the power to elect a president than someone from South Dakota or Rhode Island, even, simply because you've got so few people there. I'm not making a qualitative judgement - it's just a fact and one I don't think is likely to change. I'm fairly sure changing it would be a bad idea because that would lead to other arguments for more "balanced" represention that could very much distort the system into something unrecognisable and far worse.
And this is why gun control, for the forseeable future, just ain't gonna happen. Hell, look at the Democratic congress's actual reaction to what happened at Virginia Tech. You don't see Pelosi or Reid calling for more gun control do you? I'll bet the Democratic primary candidates keep equally mum. At worst you might see a call for people with a history of mental illness to have a few extra hoops to jump through before they get a gun. I'm not holding my breath even for that.
No, the new posterboys for the Democratic party are guys like Webb and Tester. Guys that could win in the South and Midwest and who are very much proud gunowners. Personally, I think NRA members should be forced to volunteer weekends at hospitals and see what their hobby tends to wreak in cities. Delusions of grandeur aside that's all it really is, a hobby. If folks came after computer games, and that may yet happen, I'd probably join the gamer's version of the NRA too unless I was convinced there was scientific proof that games could cause harm.
Given the huge effort put forward by the gun industry and their advocates in the NRA the CDC and other government outfits simply aren't allowed to scientifically quantify the health risks of various types of guns in this country. So, it's likely we'll never have compelling proof one way or another. Yet another reason why gun owners can sleep easy because gun control in the USA is history.
|