1: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/World_po...
As someone from a purple region on that map (having lived near Aachen and Amsterdam), I can't imagine what it's like to be more than a few minutes driving away from the nearest occupied house or named road. The most alone I've ever been was probably in a German forest and that was almost certainly still within hearing distance from other people, if not immediately then almost certainly within 30 minutes of me wanting to reach someone.
Not sure if it would frighten me or if I'd be fine to be actually unreachable for a few hours.
If you live in an area of high density, people are your problems and it probably makes sense to you to generally limit their freedoms in favor of government control and general law and order.
If you live in an area of low density, you're immediate problems are generally not people, may be more survival related, and you are used to operating with MUCH greater independence, freedom, and self-reliance.
Applied to issues like gun control, government assistance programs, and taxation, it aligns pretty well.
Personally, I'm from an area where I routinely work in areas that are hours from cell reception or any form of help. I drive a big 4wd truck and a dirty 2-stroke chainsaw out of necessity. And, I carry a concealed pistol with me in the field.
This is often unfathomable to people that live in the bay area or Europe and I face criticism for my truck, for embracing individual rights to firearms, and I'm constantly faced with disdain from urban folks who like to insinuate that rural people are just stupid and ignorant. These people have never stared down a mountain lion 20 feet away, crouched and ready to pounce, lived without power or running water, nor faced a road wash-out that cut them off from civilization for weeks, or faced dozens of other situations I can recount where things like having the right to carry a loaded rifle in their truck might make a lot of sense. Nor can they understand the thin margins and lack of cash-flow people have to survive on in these places.
Very different worlds, and unfortunately it seems tough for people in different areas to acknowledge that they each have different needs.
Interesting thought, I had not considered the more vs less regulating thing in this way before.
Specifically about gun ownership, perhaps rather than a general allowance or prohibition on gun ownership, maybe it makes sense to allow those that work in rural areas to carry? Or just that you need some sort of license? It's not as if there exist no guns in Europe: there are gun clubs where people go to, uh, shoot I guess? Not even sure. They have a license and can keep all sorts of guns at the club, at home, and (locked away) on the direct way from and to there. Hunters carry hunting guns into the forest. And of course police that brings guns where ever. Edit: Oh, and look at Norwegian gun ownership. While that's hunting guns that are somehow different, they don't seem to have the issues that the USA has with guns there. /edit. So we also just adapt the rules to whatever is practical, it's not an outright ban on anything with gunpowder.
From what I read about research/statistics on general population gun ownership, generally it's better not to allow it, but that does not mean I can't understand that you carry one in your situation or that I think there shouldn't be an exception for that.
> I'm constantly faced with disdain from urban folks who like to insinuate that rural people are just stupid and ignorant.
I was thinking about this a bit, trying to figure out if I may have that bias as well. Sure, those who work with their hands are typically less educated, but generally working in a rural area (without saying whether you work some physical labor job)... for all I know it's a high tech job building wind turbines or whatever. But then, I guess we don't have so many "rural people" so I wouldn't know it from real life. I do know of the stereotype from books that have "backwards villages".
Some interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing!
More like days or more in vast areas of the US. Mind you, most people don't go to those places. But, even within popular national parks, you can go to places--albeit probably not without high-clearance 4WD and ability to use it or on foot--where you probably won't happen to run into anyone for a long time.
Unreachable for a few hours+ is absolutely the norm in many many places in the western US and even in some other areas like Maine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steens_Mountain
The "town" at the base of it is called Frenchglen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenchglen,_Oregon - it has a little store and hotel.
From there it's about an hour to the nearest town with any kind of services like a hospital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burns,_Oregon - there are about 5000 people in the area.
From there it's another 2.5 hours, roughly (in good weather) to where I live which is a town of nearly 100K.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9351809,-119.0716963,10.06z/...
I assume that the 'regions' that were painted in the map are oblasts (Russian equivalents to counties) - so if there's a giant oblast, with a medium-sized town at its center, but few people living in the outskirts, the entire region gets painted orange.
One should keep in mind that the map is 25 years old, meaning it doesn't really show the post-soviet development of Eastern Europe or the population growth of Asia and Africa. But I don't think that the distribution of "empty" (less than 10 people per square km) has changed much, so for this purpose the map is perfectly adequate.
There are areas of grey (less than 2 people/sqkm) around the coasts everywhere. A processing artifact, or some indication of low water marks? I don't think the tidal area can ever be 20 km wide, but it's very sloppy if it's just bad drawing. (There's already a cyan outline for the coast! Why add grey areas too?)
Then I'm certain there are areas in Wicklow, Ireland with less than 2 residents/sqkm [0]. But the whole area is shown not one but 4 levels more populated, at 100+ residents/sqkm, comparable to Las Vegas and ahead of Buenos Aires which is shown at 41-100 residents/sqkm.
The resolution of the map appears to be at the 10km level, but I think this is misleading and in most of the world it's actually based on data at the country level or one level below.
One of the most surprising things to me about the map before I looked closely was the lack of wilderness in Turkey. If it's that dense all the way through, it should be a massive power. But aren't there mountains and deserts? Probably just the map being lazy again.
[0] https://maps.app.goo.gl/cktt79N4FDLegF7a6 - not the most egregiously incorrect measurement on the map, but one I know personally
This can be deceptive and sometimes add new dangers also. there are areas in Europe close to towns but with thousands of illegal waterholes hidden under grasses or a shrub. You just step over a grass and fall before seeing it.
There are a few, here and there, but it's just completely different. Everywhere in Italy (I lived there a number of years) there are people. It might just be a little mountain hut, or a cabin or something, but there are pretty much always other people around.
Here in Oregon, I can ride my bike to places where I almost won't see other people all day.