Replies

I am familliar with that statistic, although I'd bet it is an understatement. I have been a member fo the NRA for a couple of decades, and a member of the SATF since it began.

I'm not sure what you are getting at, so here goes...

Americans living in cities are more likely to live in areas with gun control laws not conducive to self-defense. Those of us in the hinterlands generally fare far better legally.

Check, for instance the difference in crime stats between my state (North Dakota) and Washington, D.C.

The population is roughly the same size as that of the District (not the Metro Area, but the District), gun laws are very different, and so are the crime statistics.

Washington, D.C. is a center of culture and government, all we boast aside from agriculture and a few missile silos are cold winters and polite people...and low crime.

We don't have that many trees...(hence, the "tree line" remark).

AFAIK, we qualify as a 'remote location', at least "flyover country" to the bicoastals out there.

We aren't as poor as we were between oil booms, but that is a relatively recent development...

We do have counties roughly as big as Noo Yawk City, (geographic area, not population) with three! deputies patrolling, so guess who takes care of personal defense, should the need arise, and guess who fills out the paperwork.

As I said, the "poor natives" in "remote locations" are liable to shoot them (violent/dangerous miscreants).