I’m not suggesting anything more than what I said. Should farmers not provide food to cities? Should the energy resources that are wielded almost exclusively from rural areas not contribute to life in cities? We could go back and fourth. Criminality is not aligned with GDP or wealth generation/distribution as far as I can tell. There are plenty of relevant laws that pertain to specific demographics. I doubt there are many rustling laws on the books in Multnomah county, Oregon, for example. If legislation works so well then make strict possession laws within metropolitan limits, if you have a metropolitan address on your photo ID then you can’t buy a gun, anywhere, ever. I doubt many farmers or the other 99% of law abiding gun owners are making side cash selling guns to thugs and/or high schoolers.
Mostly, not. Local governments are responsible for their localities, especially public safety. Portland Police Gang Task Force has a detailed file and criminal history on pretty much every gang member/drug dealer/pimp in the Portland area. City Council and the Mayor tie their hands. Federal police enforce Federal laws, while most crimes gangs and cartels commit are state and local laws. The Feds can go after the heads and the bank accounts, but it's local non-engagement that allows cartels to exist.
A whole lot of cops have gone to jail for murder last few years...police aren't always the answer to solving murders...snitches are though...most successful cartel arrests require undercover work...not uniformed cops....and the idea that urban centers are cesspools of crime is wrong in many cases, not all...south side Chicago is crime infested...but the modern criminal in America is more often than not a meth cooker in Bumfuck Nebraska....thieves like to commit crimes in suburbs where people have expensive shit...in Lane County Oregon the worst areas for property theft and domestic violence are the smallest towns in the county...you're probably not going to have much trouble in downtown Eugene but get outside Springfield in the low rent burbs and you have more crime....I lived in Los Angeles right in the heart of the city for a year and a half and never saw anyone with a gun.....Hawaii, same.....not uncommon to see people with guns in rural Oregon regularly though...guns are popular here...Portland I don't think represents that.
Don't forget, it was urban areas that paid for rural electrification which gave rural areas their electricity. This was so expensive that if left to rural areas they would have never gotten electricity.
Like i said, we could go back and fourth. There is a lot of reciprocity between urban and rural communities, that called an economy. I don’t feel it has much to do with gun rights, though.
As long as these laws really are local - that's not a problem. For example, higher speed limits in rural areas make sense - but just because someone is from a rural area and is used to drive faster does not mean he has the right to drive the same speed when he is in the city. This is not what is happening with the idea of different gun laws - because if there are no background checks in a rural area - there is no way to stop the guns from making it into the city without physical barriers (see Chicago, Indiana). So, the solution makes no sense because it is unrealistic to form physical barriers of that sort. Again, this does not answer the real question - what do people in rural areas require guns to the point that not having responsibility for them or the proper background checks is a must have? Why do people in rural areas require semi-automatic firepower?
