There is a tendency to think that what might be appropriate for one area of the country is thereby appropriate for all. Thus, in crime-ridden cities there is understandably a desire to curtail the sale and ownership of weapons. But, do the same standards apply elsewhere in the country? Let me give you an example. Prior to my assignment to Vietnam in the 1960s, I took a class at the Foreign Service Institute in Washington, D.C., taught by the notable think-tank venerable, Hermann Kahn. Since the 30, or so, members of the class were all scheduled to go to Vietnam, the topic of instruction eventually turned to guns. Mr. Kahn asked the class how many members were advocates of gun control? About half the class raised their hands. Then, he asked how many were against gun control? The other half raised their hands. Knowing what to expect he asked how many in the class were from urban areas? Not surprisingly, those in favor of gun control were all from highly urban areas, and those opposed to it were from rural areas where the assistance of law enforcement officers might at best be 20 or 30 minutes away at best instead of several minutes at worst in cities. In my own case, even as a child I prevented the drunken rape of my mother with the threat of a .22 rifle that I held in a country store that she owned. And numerous other occasions abroad, my life depended on the ability to judiciously use a weapon. There is no way then or now that I would consider not having a weapon in the household.