Look at Wyoming. Not a single major city in Wyoming. Not going to have many homicides without major cities.
Why not? Same number of people. If there's 100,000 people in a city, with 10 murderers, shouldn't there be 10 murderers in 100,000 people from Wyoming, especially if Wyoming has 500% more guns per person than the other place? Or is it because Wyoming has a different socioeconomic situation than that city?
I mean Temecula City is about the same size as Casper Wyoming, but 4 times the murder rate.
Nebraska is about 300k people, 0.4 murders per 100k people. no real gun laws, in a state where 63% of the population has a gun.
St Louis about 300k people, 59 murders per 100k people. Multiple gun laws in a state where 12% of the population has a gun.
San Antonio bigger than the greater baltimore area, triple the gun ownership by state, but with 1/10th the murder rate.
We've done the asault weapon ban, and seen no drop in violence. But something is different between those cities, when one has 1/10th the murder of another but with fewer guns and gun restrictions.
You can't have these scenarios if decreasing gun ownership is the answer.