The relative danger of rural vs urban areas is irrelevant. My point is that the amount of weapons and the incarceration rate should have no bearing on their ran

The relative danger of rural vs urban areas is irrelevant. My point is that the amount of weapons and the incarceration rate should have no bearing on their rankings. A better reason would be: "statistically you are more likely to be killed and/or unfairly imprisoned due to corruption" which is not what he said. > Anyone claiming -- explicitly or otherwise -- that there's a clear-cut causal relationship here is disingenuous, completely new to the US gun control debate, or blinded by prior belief. Correct, there is no correlation between gun control and safety. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myth... But in defense of the guy in the article, he did not mention "gun control" but rather the amount of guns in total -- which may actually have a positive correlation with homicide rates: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an... this, of course, is most likely due the fact that people will try harder to get guns if they live in a more dangerous area