Why are U.S. cities the epicenter of gun violence?

[Missourian]

I have argued this for years, that guns don't people, cities kill people...and the concept bubbled to the surface once again in an article from liberal leaning Vox...that 60% of gun homicides occur in just 50 major US cities.

According to Pew Research, 58% of rural households have legal guns (and 75% of those more than one) while urban household gun ownership is at 29% (mostly consisting of just one gun per household).

Here are your links:
A gun debate compromise: let cities and rural areas pass different laws ,
Rural and urban gun owners have different experiences, views on gun policy

So, here's the two part question...if gun control is the answer...

1] Why do cities, despite a deficit of legal gun owners, represent far and away the highest threat of gun violence to their citizenry. (And, for the record, the answer it isn't poverty...both urban and rural citizens face equal poverty levels.)

2] Why are rural areas where guns are prevalent significantly safer from gun violence?

Keep in mind, this is a correlation, not a conclusion...if we are going to reduce gun violence, we must understand it's root causes. Obviously more legal guns does not equate to more gun violence, and less guns with more regulation does not equate to less gun violence...so what forces are actually at work here?

 

[Mr Natural]

Because when we humanoids are packed in close spaces we tend to piss each other off.

 

[petro]

Because when we humanoids are packed in close spaces we tend to piss each other off.

Why I live in the exurbs.
No noise, traffic, crowds, or crime, and the only shots fired are during goose season.

 

[Confounding]

Even though there are less gun owners on average there are a lot more guns per square mile in a city.

 

[night_son]

I have argued this for years, that guns don't people, cities kill people...and the concept bubbled to the surface once again in an article from liberal leaning Vox...that 60% of gun homicides occur in just 50 major US cities.

According to Pew Research, 58% of rural households have legal guns (and 75% of those more than one) while urban household gun ownership is at 29% (mostly consisting of just one gun per household).

Here are your links:
A gun debate compromise: let cities and rural areas pass different laws ,
Rural and urban gun owners have different experiences, views on gun policy

So, here's the two part question...if gun control is the answer...

1] Why do cities, despite a deficit of legal gun owners, represent far and away the highest threat of gun violence to their citizenry. (And, for the record, the answer it isn't poverty...both urban and rural citizens face equal poverty levels.)

2] Why are rural areas where guns are prevalent significantly safer from gun violence?

Keep in mind, this is a correlation, not a conclusion...if we are going to reduce gun violence, we must understand it's root causes. Obviously more legal guns does not equate to more gun violence, and less guns with more regulation does not equate to less gun violence...so what forces are actually at work here?

1.) illegal gun ownership also known as the for political gain injection of illegal weapons into Leftist doctrine of race and class warfare in practice on many of those streets.

2.) Responsible, legal gun ownership backed by hunter safety courses, etc., a take no shit attitude for pride in home and community. Self policing, responsible land ownership . . . on an on.

 

[Asclepias]

I have argued this for years, that guns don't people, cities kill people...and the concept bubbled to the surface once again in an article from liberal leaning Vox...that 60% of gun homicides occur in just 50 major US cities.

According to Pew Research, 58% of rural households have legal guns (and 75% of those more than one) while urban household gun ownership is at 29% (mostly consisting of just one gun per household).

Here are your links:
A gun debate compromise: let cities and rural areas pass different laws ,
Rural and urban gun owners have different experiences, views on gun policy

So, here's the two part question...if gun control is the answer...

1] Why do cities, despite a deficit of legal gun owners, represent far and away the highest threat of gun violence to their citizenry. (And, for the record, the answer it isn't poverty...both urban and rural citizens face equal poverty levels.)

2] Why are rural areas where guns are prevalent significantly safer from gun violence?

Keep in mind, this is a correlation, not a conclusion...if we are going to reduce gun violence, we must understand it's root causes. Obviously more legal guns does not equate to more gun violence, and less guns with more regulation does not equate to less gun violence...so what forces are actually at work here?

Crooked cops, drugs, crowded conditions, lack of opportunity.

 

[Missourian]

Because when we humanoids are packed in close spaces we tend to piss each other off.

I tend to agree with that...along with the anonymity a city inherently provides...but doesn't that make cities the problem and not guns?

 

[OldLady]

I have argued this for years, that guns don't people, cities kill people...and the concept bubbled to the surface once again in an article from liberal leaning Vox...that 60% of gun homicides occur in just 50 major US cities.

According to Pew Research, 58% of rural households have legal guns (and 75% of those more than one) while urban household gun ownership is at 29% (mostly consisting of just one gun per household).

Here are your links:
A gun debate compromise: let cities and rural areas pass different laws ,
Rural and urban gun owners have different experiences, views on gun policy

So, here's the two part question...if gun control is the answer...

1] Why do cities, despite a deficit of legal gun owners, represent far and away the highest threat of gun violence to their citizenry. (And, for the record, the answer it isn't poverty...both urban and rural citizens face equal poverty levels.)

2] Why are rural areas where guns are prevalent significantly safer from gun violence?

Keep in mind, this is a correlation, not a conclusion...if we are going to reduce gun violence, we must understand it's root causes. Obviously more legal guns does not equate to more gun violence, and less guns with more regulation does not equate to less gun violence...so what forces are actually at work here?

Interesting question, although I wouldn't go so far as to jump to your final conclusion.

 

[Timmy]

Oh brother . Might as well ask why there is more traffic in major cities .

Gun freaks are experts with intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Missourian]

Even though there are less gun owners on average there are a lot more guns per square mile in a city.

While that is a true statement, can we divine anything useful from it? Does the close proximity of guns to one another cause the violence...or is it the close proximity of the people that causes it?

 

[Confounding]

Because when we humanoids are packed in close spaces we tend to piss each other off.

I tend to agree with that...along with the anonymity a city inherently provides...but doesn't that make cities the problem and not guns?

There will always be increased violence in cities regardless of guns. Considering the FACT that gun crime has been dropping since the 80s, I don't see why we even need to have conversations about gun violence that imply it's some out of control problem that needs to be solved with gun restrictions.

 

[SmokeALib]

Because they're all hotbeds of leftist fools.

 

[OldLady]

I have argued this for years, that guns don't people, cities kill people...and the concept bubbled to the surface once again in an article from liberal leaning Vox...that 60% of gun homicides occur in just 50 major US cities.

According to Pew Research, 58% of rural households have legal guns (and 75% of those more than one) while urban household gun ownership is at 29% (mostly consisting of just one gun per household).

Here are your links:
A gun debate compromise: let cities and rural areas pass different laws ,
Rural and urban gun owners have different experiences, views on gun policy

So, here's the two part question...if gun control is the answer...

1] Why do cities, despite a deficit of legal gun owners, represent far and away the highest threat of gun violence to their citizenry. (And, for the record, the answer it isn't poverty...both urban and rural citizens face equal poverty levels.)

2] Why are rural areas where guns are prevalent significantly safer from gun violence?

Keep in mind, this is a correlation, not a conclusion...if we are going to reduce gun violence, we must understand it's root causes. Obviously more legal guns does not equate to more gun violence, and less guns with more regulation does not equate to less gun violence...so what forces are actually at work here?

1.) illegal gun ownership also known as the for political gain injection of illegal weapons into Leftist doctrine of race and class warfare in practice on many of those streets.

2.) Responsible, legal gun ownership backed by hunter safety courses, etc., a take no shit attitude for pride in home and community. Self policing, responsible land ownership . . . on an on.

It ain't all the Waltons out here. Dig a little deeper into reality for an answer.

 

[night_son]

I have argued this for years, that guns don't people, cities kill people...and the concept bubbled to the surface once again in an article from liberal leaning Vox...that 60% of gun homicides occur in just 50 major US cities.

According to Pew Research, 58% of rural households have legal guns (and 75% of those more than one) while urban household gun ownership is at 29% (mostly consisting of just one gun per household).

Here are your links:
A gun debate compromise: let cities and rural areas pass different laws ,
Rural and urban gun owners have different experiences, views on gun policy

So, here's the two part question...if gun control is the answer...

1] Why do cities, despite a deficit of legal gun owners, represent far and away the highest threat of gun violence to their citizenry. (And, for the record, the answer it isn't poverty...both urban and rural citizens face equal poverty levels.)

2] Why are rural areas where guns are prevalent significantly safer from gun violence?

Keep in mind, this is a correlation, not a conclusion...if we are going to reduce gun violence, we must understand it's root causes. Obviously more legal guns does not equate to more gun violence, and less guns with more regulation does not equate to less gun violence...so what forces are actually at work here?

1.) illegal gun ownership also known as the for political gain injection of illegal weapons into Leftist doctrine of race and class warfare in practice on many of those streets.

2.) Responsible, legal gun ownership backed by hunter safety courses, etc., a take no shit attitude for pride in home and community. Self policing, responsible land ownership . . . on an on.

It ain't all the Waltons out here. Dig a little deeper into reality for an answer.

Neither is it all poor white trash. Remember to lower your nose before it rains.

 

[OldLady]

Because when we humanoids are packed in close spaces we tend to piss each other off.

I tend to agree with that...along with the anonymity a city inherently provides...but doesn't that make cities the problem and not guns?

There will always be increased violence in cities regardless of guns. Considering the FACT that gun crime has been dropping since the 80s, I don't see why we even need to have conversations about gun violence that imply it's some horrible epidemic.

We panic if 30 people die of the measles. In 2017, 15,000 died from guns (omitting suicides)..
That's why we imply it's a horrible epidemic.

 

[Missourian]

I have argued this for years, that guns don't people, cities kill people...and the concept bubbled to the surface once again in an article from liberal leaning Vox...that 60% of gun homicides occur in just 50 major US cities.

According to Pew Research, 58% of rural households have legal guns (and 75% of those more than one) while urban household gun ownership is at 29% (mostly consisting of just one gun per household).

Here are your links:
A gun debate compromise: let cities and rural areas pass different laws ,
Rural and urban gun owners have different experiences, views on gun policy

So, here's the two part question...if gun control is the answer...

1] Why do cities, despite a deficit of legal gun owners, represent far and away the highest threat of gun violence to their citizenry. (And, for the record, the answer it isn't poverty...both urban and rural citizens face equal poverty levels.)

2] Why are rural areas where guns are prevalent significantly safer from gun violence?

Keep in mind, this is a correlation, not a conclusion...if we are going to reduce gun violence, we must understand it's root causes. Obviously more legal guns does not equate to more gun violence, and less guns with more regulation does not equate to less gun violence...so what forces are actually at work here?

Interesting question, although I wouldn't go so far as to jump to your final conclusion.

Not sure it is a leap.

We have two groups, one has more legally owned guns, less regulation and more space, the other has less legally owned guns, more regulation and less space. The group with by far the most gun violence is the one with less legally owned guns, more regulation and less space.

Although I did not specify 'less legally owned' guns ...that was and oversight. Thank you for pointing that out.

The conclussion should read "Obviously more legal guns does not equate to more gun violence, and less legally owned guns with more regulation does not equate to less gun violence...

 

[OldLady]

I have argued this for years, that guns don't people, cities kill people...and the concept bubbled to the surface once again in an article from liberal leaning Vox...that 60% of gun homicides occur in just 50 major US cities.

According to Pew Research, 58% of rural households have legal guns (and 75% of those more than one) while urban household gun ownership is at 29% (mostly consisting of just one gun per household).

Here are your links:
A gun debate compromise: let cities and rural areas pass different laws ,
Rural and urban gun owners have different experiences, views on gun policy

So, here's the two part question...if gun control is the answer...

1] Why do cities, despite a deficit of legal gun owners, represent far and away the highest threat of gun violence to their citizenry. (And, for the record, the answer it isn't poverty...both urban and rural citizens face equal poverty levels.)

2] Why are rural areas where guns are prevalent significantly safer from gun violence?

Keep in mind, this is a correlation, not a conclusion...if we are going to reduce gun violence, we must understand it's root causes. Obviously more legal guns does not equate to more gun violence, and less guns with more regulation does not equate to less gun violence...so what forces are actually at work here?

1.) illegal gun ownership also known as the for political gain injection of illegal weapons into Leftist doctrine of race and class warfare in practice on many of those streets.

2.) Responsible, legal gun ownership backed by hunter safety courses, etc., a take no shit attitude for pride in home and community. Self policing, responsible land ownership . . . on an on.

It ain't all the Waltons out here. Dig a little deeper into reality for an answer.

Neither is it all poor white trash. Remember to lower your nose before it rains.

I live here. My nose ain't up or down on this. You're just fantasizing instead of coming up with a real guess as to why.

 

[Confounding]

Because when we humanoids are packed in close spaces we tend to piss each other off.

I tend to agree with that...along with the anonymity a city inherently provides...but doesn't that make cities the problem and not guns?

There will always be increased violence in cities regardless of guns. Considering the FACT that gun crime has been dropping since the 80s, I don't see why we even need to have conversations about gun violence that imply it's some horrible epidemic.

We panic if 30 people die of the measles. In 2017, 15,000 died from guns (omitting suicides)..
That's why we imply it's a horrible epidemic.

Yeah, fine. It's something horrible that has been improving since the 80s, though. We're not in some crisis mode where we need to start taking drastic action.

 

[g5000]

Because when we humanoids are packed in close spaces we tend to piss each other off.

Exactly.

It's amazing this actually has to be explained!

 

[OldLady]

I have argued this for years, that guns don't people, cities kill people...and the concept bubbled to the surface once again in an article from liberal leaning Vox...that 60% of gun homicides occur in just 50 major US cities.

According to Pew Research, 58% of rural households have legal guns (and 75% of those more than one) while urban household gun ownership is at 29% (mostly consisting of just one gun per household).

Here are your links:
A gun debate compromise: let cities and rural areas pass different laws ,
Rural and urban gun owners have different experiences, views on gun policy

So, here's the two part question...if gun control is the answer...

1] Why do cities, despite a deficit of legal gun owners, represent far and away the highest threat of gun violence to their citizenry. (And, for the record, the answer it isn't poverty...both urban and rural citizens face equal poverty levels.)

2] Why are rural areas where guns are prevalent significantly safer from gun violence?

Keep in mind, this is a correlation, not a conclusion...if we are going to reduce gun violence, we must understand it's root causes. Obviously more legal guns does not equate to more gun violence, and less guns with more regulation does not equate to less gun violence...so what forces are actually at work here?

Interesting question, although I wouldn't go so far as to jump to your final conclusion.

Not sure it is a leap.

We have two groups, one has more legally owned guns, less regulation and more space, the other has less legally owned guns, more regulation and less space. The group with by far the most gun violence is the one with less legally owned guns, more regulation and less space.

Although I did not specify 'less legally owned' guns ...that was and oversight. Thank you for pointing that out.

The conclussion should read "Obviously more legal guns does not equate to more gun violence, and less legally owned guns with more regulation does not equate to less gun violence...

As you folks tend to like to say, guns don't kill people; people kill people. So if we are looking at living conditions as a possible factor, I just don't see how your gun factors are immediately being pulled in as causal. It could have nothing to do with who owns a gun legally or how many there are per square foot. What is different in the cities that compels people to murder one another?