They certainly did a real service to their reading public who live in rural areas with limited police forces and long response times, now didn't they?
I can't say that rural people would be any more or any less affected by the article as city people. While city response times may be less than rural response times, the city response times are usually sufficiently long that the cops usually arrive well after the problem ran its course.
I also don't see where this was a service or disservice to its readers. It is a political commentary, biased, but still juse a commentary. I can't see where the article would cause people's decisions two own or have guns be changed. Those that don't have guns will continue to not have guns. Those with guns will continue to have guns.