Maybe I’m nuts, but I seem to see the world in a very different way than Barack Obama. (Link via Glenn Reynolds.)
Either that or Obama doesn’t really mean what he says. I guess it’s possible that he’s pandering to rural Iowans, but his view of what constitutes “common sense” is just about the opposite of mine. Apparently, he thinks that you’re more likely to need a gun in rural Iowa, than, say, around the major urban area where I live:

“We should be able to combine respect for those traditions with our concern for kids who are being shot down. This is a classic example of us just applying some common sense, just being reasonable, right? And reasonable would say that lawful gun owners – I respect the Second Amendment. I think lawful gun owners should be able to hunt, be sportsmen, protect their families.
“And by the way, Michelle, my wife, she was traveling up, I think, in eastern Iowa, she was driving through this nice, beautiful area, going through all this farmland and hills and rivers and she said ‘Boy, it’s really pretty up here,’ but she said, ‘But you know, I can see why if I was living out here, I’d want a gun. Because, you know, 911 is going to take some time before somebody responds. You know what I mean? You know, it’s like five miles between every house.’
“So the point is, though, we should be able to do that, and we should be able to enforce laws that keep guns off the streets in inner cities because some unscrupulous gun dealer is, you know, letting somebody load up a van with a bunch of cheap handguns or sawed-off shotguns and dumping them and selling them for a profit in the streets.”

I’ve spent a lot of time in Iowa. And in Philadelphia.
There’s no question that Iowa — especially rural Iowa — is nice and beautiful, and it’s as close as you can get to being that apocryphal kind of place where you really can in many places leave the front door unlocked without having to worry about burglars or thieves. True, it might take the local sheriff a long time to arrive if you did have to call 911. But most of the 911 calls you’d make would involve injuries, accidents, or sudden illnesses like strokes or heart attacks. Except for the occasional attack by a wild animal (predatory animals that might attack humans are rare in Iowa), these are hardly the sort of emergencies for which you’d need a gun.
On the other hand, I’d be legitimately very afraid for my life and property to be forced to live in Philadelphia without a gun. Philadelphia is one of the most violent places in the country, and violent places are the places where you most need a gun. There are areas in Philadelphia where the police don’t come even if you call them.
This is not to say that I’d want to live in Iowa (or anywhere else) without a gun. But given the choice of having to live with no gun in rural Iowa versus no gun in urban Philadelphia, Iowa would win any time. It’s such a no-brainer as to be almost beyond common sense.
Barack Obama is obviously not the only person who thinks the country is more dangerous than the city, though, as I’ve heard this argument before from urban sophisticates who tolerantly allow that “the country people” should be allowed to have guns, because “they need them” but that “city people don’t.”
Maybe I’m crazy, but if protecting yourself from violence and defending yourself against people who want to kill you is a human need, I think it’s the urban folk who need guns — and a lot more than the rural folk.
Again, this is my view of common sense.
But am I wrong? Is Barack Obama right? I thought I should ask the readers. (After all the Second Amendment is an election issue, even if the candidates are ducking it.)
So you decide.
Where would you be more likely to need a gun?

Where would you be more likely to need a gun?
Iowa farm country
the city of Philadelphia free polls

UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for linking this post, and I appreciate the votes, and the input.
(So far, only eight people think you’re more likely to need a gun in Iowa than in Philadelphia. Maybe Obama will take this into account…)