Did They Really Need To Do A Study To Know This?


Some things are so common that they are, well, common sense. When you come across something like that, you wonder why someone would bother to take the time and pay the money to confirm that information. Of course, that is after shaking your head in wonder at the fact that they did take that time and pay that money.

One example of something like this is a recent study that showed that rural residents are more likely to own guns. As if anyone had previously thought otherwise. Wayne Baker gives us a bit more information:

A recent Pew Research Study indicates that rural residents […]¬†are disproportionately more likely than other Americans to have a gun at home for protection.

The study also revealed that rural Americans are more than twice as likely to have a gun in the home than those living in large cities.

When I see reports like this, I am dumbfounded. Does anyone really think that residents of urban areas are more likely to have guns?


The flip side of the above comment by Baker is the issue that people should be thinking about. That flip side is that urban residents are disproportionately more likely than other Americans to have to put up with foolish gun control laws so that they have less realistic options to defend themselves and their families.

Maybe people should also consider why rural residents are more likely to own guns. One reason that could be pointed out is that rural residents may have more convenient opportunities to hunt and that hunting rifle or shotgun can also be used for self-defense. That is probably true.

But there’s also the possibility that rural residents are under less of an illusion about how quickly law enforcement can actually get to them to protect them. It’s like the old saying which, unfortunately, sometimes has some truth to it: When you’re in danger, the police are only hours away.

Now, my intent is not to be cruel to law enforcement, but we would be wise to be realistic. Law enforcement cannot predict and prevent most crimes. They can only come when they know about it, clean up the mess, and, hopefully, punish the perpetrator. But if you want to prevent a murder, you have to be ready to defend yourself. Maybe rural residents are more likely than urban residents to realize that a gun is an effective way to defend themselves.

Whatever the reasons, urban residents, wherever legally possible, would be wise to think like rural folks and buy a gun for personal protection.



  1. Common Sense, which was written in the 1700″s , is no longer the norm. Common sense seems to be the “missing link” , when it comes to the liberal . A recent college professor, a doctor in “macro economics” no less , was so far in left field , in her assessment of economics, that I had to doubt her ability to find the exit door of her own home.
    Therefore, a study to determine gun ownership in rural areas , is necessitated by certain groups so as to “prove” their hypothesis. The insidious side, is the more information one gets, the more data one has, in order to eliminate guns in those areas.

  2. What I know of rural America convinces me that I’m far safer in it than I am in urban America.

  3. The more remote the rural area the greater the common sense of possessing firearms … wolves, coyotes, bear, big cats, rattlers, ferril hogs all are possible encounters for “rural” farms, ranches, etc … Liberal agendas rarely bump into reality … But self Defense INCLUDES ALL of the above in addition to the “regular” Hollywood rapists, murderers, etc …

Comments are closed.