According to the research, gun violence is most likely to occur in those places where guns are more accessible—small towns and rural areas. Given the stats, I can’t help but be grateful that I live in an urban rather rural location. Gun violence is a huge problem in some cities, notably Chicago. But to argue more guns equals more security makes no sense. Taken as a whole, however, gun violence is a greater threat in rural settings.
Robert V. Thompson
August 3, 2009
Guns and the dark side–Gail Collins gets it right
[“No sense”? How about that paragraph? He says gun violence (note that he talks about GUN violence, not violence as a whole) is more likely to occur where guns are more accessible but gun violence is a huge problem in Chicago (unmentioned is Washington D.C.) where guns are banned. He can’t remain coherent for three consecutive sentences.
I’d love to see the research showing violence (not just “gun violence”) is a greater threat in rural settings that in urban settings. I doubt that it is a oversight that he doesn’t mention it. I don’t think it exists.
And even in the article he links to (registration required) Thompson apparently overlooked this sentence or read it completely backward, “In general, homicide gun deaths in the United States are more of an urban than a rural problem.”
As for claiming there is no sense in guns enhancing security perhaps he can convince our police and military to turn in their guns. Would he, or anyone else sharing our reality, think that would make the U.S. a more secure place to live?
Thompson is either living in an alternate reality or has some strange version of dyslexia where facts are reversed by the time they are registered in his brain.–Joe]