"in the middle of the country it just isn't so" ? That point of view seems rather US-centric. (Apologies if I've misinterpreted what you meant.) My point was

"in the middle of the country it just isn't so" ? That point of view seems rather US-centric. (Apologies if I've misinterpreted what you meant.) My point was in relation to different countries, higher gun ownership correlates with higher death by gun. I was not comparing different geographic areas within the US. It's obviously a complicated question with many influencing factors, but ignoring the availability of guns does seem to fly in the face of the evidence. Given that the US has high homicide rates, compared to other countries, then if high availability of guns in the US is not a contributing factor, then what would you saw were the relevant factors? "suicide bombers seem to get a pretty high body count without using a gun" ? Absolutely. Suicide bombers can probably achieve a higher murder rate than people with guns, much as people with guns can achieve a higher murder rate than people with knives, and people with knives can achieve a higher murder rate than people with clubs. High availability of suicide bombers in a society is likely to lead to a higher homicide rate than in a society where suicide bombers are not so prevalent. High availability of guns in a society is likely to lead to a higher homicide rate than in a society where guns are not so prevalent. So, given the discussion is about the availability of guns, I'm not sure of your point here.