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

[Sunni Man]

The most dangerous area of any city, and were the majority of the shootings occur, is known as the "hood".
Which is populated mainly by African Americans. ...

 

[OldLady]

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!

There's the classic crowded rats in a cage experiments. But is that really why? Could be. I hated living in Connecticut--no elbow room. Constant underlying stress of having someone breathing down your neck, in line in front of you, whatever, wherever.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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.

Don't forget Black people.

 

[Mr Natural]

Plus, there’s a lot more reporting and media activity in

What is different in the cities that compels people to murder one another?

City murders are more likely to be reported in the media than country murders.

 

[Asclepias]

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!

There's the classic crowded rats in a cage experiments. But is that really why? Could be. I hated living in Connecticut--no elbow room. Constant underlying stress of having someone breathing down your neck, in line in front of you, whatever, wherever.

Thats just one factor albeit a very important one.

 

[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.

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.

Really? Bet those 15,000 would like their lives back. Why should we not take drastic action? How many would have to die before you considered it a "crisis?"

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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!

There's the classic crowded rats in a cage experiments. But is that really why? Could be. I hated living in Connecticut--no elbow room. Constant underlying stress of having someone breathing down your neck, in line in front of you, whatever, wherever.

So, you weren't living in Litchfield County, CT?

 

[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.

Don't forget Black people.

Black people are always on my mind.

 

[blastoff]

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.

You left out hordes of armed black criminal thugs roaming the streets.

 

[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.

Really? Bet those 15,000 would like their lives back. Why should we not take drastic action? How many would have to die before you considered it a "crisis?"

If the situation is improving I don't see the need to fuck with guns. People die, sometimes horribly and violently, and there's a lot of fucking people in the world so there's inevitably going to be quite a bit of that. Also, what actions do you think would lead to less gun violence?

 

[OldLady]

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!

There's the classic crowded rats in a cage experiments. But is that really why? Could be. I hated living in Connecticut--no elbow room. Constant underlying stress of having someone breathing down your neck, in line in front of you, whatever, wherever.

So, you weren't living in Litchfield County, CT?

Odd question.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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!

There's the classic crowded rats in a cage experiments. But is that really why? Could be. I hated living in Connecticut--no elbow room. Constant underlying stress of having someone breathing down your neck, in line in front of you, whatever, wherever.

So, you weren't living in Litchfield County, CT?

Odd question.

Litchfield County's pretty rural, a lot of Connecticut is.

 

[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.

You left out hordes of armed black criminal thugs roaming the streets.

That was done because it didnt pertain to the question.

 

[Sahba]

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?

Good OP btw... I have abided & been a gun owner in urban an rural environments and I think that any time there is more human interaction, there is necessarily more chances that that human interaction goes awry. Cities also attract the dross of society as panhandling, crime and 'blending in' in obscurity is actually tenable as opposed to rural settings where everyone knows everyone else. In most of America, personal responsibility and one's reputation is facilitated and built up simply because of the scrutiny that exists in that setting. In a community where everyone knows everyone & everyone's foibles, and malevolent proclivities a LOT less can be gotten away with before interdiction occurs...

PS (Those who grow up with the familiarity of guns, as children, definitely tend to have a respect and solemnity when it comes to firearms at their disposal, later on in life... IMHO)

 

[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?

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

This is anecdotal based on my personal experience, but at least two out of four of those aren't limited to cities, and one is due to the nature of cities themselves, which is the point of this thread.

There are as many drugs in rural America as there are in urban America...maybe different types of drugs...not as wide a selection, but meth, heroin and perscription narcotics are a fact of life even in the most rural communities. And lack of opportunity, at least as it relates to gainful employment is likely MORE pronounced in rural communities. When one manufacturer shuts it doors, an entire community is transformed. And there is no public transportation. No car means no work.

Our police force is likely less corrupt in the way you mean it...but what we term as the Good Ol' Boy system is alive and well. When the police know you, went to high school with you, knew your folks, you're a pillar of the commuity, etc, there is a different level of justice for you than the new guy from out of town.

Crowding though, is what makes it a city.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

New York City has a lower murder rate in recent years than West Virginia, explanation?

 

[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.

This is anecdotal based on my personal experience, but at less two out of four of those aren't limited to cities, and one is due to the nature of cities themselves, which is the point of this thread.

There are as many drugs in rural America as there are in urban America...maybe different types of drugs...not as wide a selection, but meth, heroin and perscription narcotics are a fact of life even in the most rural communities. And lack of opportunity, at least as it relates to gainful employment is likely MORE pronounced in rural communities. When one manufacturer shuts it doors, an entire community is transformed. And there is no public transportation. No car means no work.

Our police force is likely less corrupt in the way you mean it...but what we term as the Good Ol' Boy system is alive and well. When the police know you, when to high school with you, knew your folks, you're a pillar of the commuity, etc, there is a different level of justice for you than the new guy from out of town.

Crowding though, is what makes it a city.

I think you need all those factors together to create the problem with gun violence. If youre missing just one then gun violence doesnt occur as frequently.

 

[Asclepias]

New York City has a lower murder rate in recent years than West Virginia, explanation?

Maybe because W. Virginia is a state and not a city?

 

[OldLady]

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.

Really? Bet those 15,000 would like their lives back. Why should we not take drastic action? How many would have to die before you considered it a "crisis?"

If the situation is improving I don't see the need to fuck with guns. People die, sometimes horribly and violently, and there's a lot of fucking people in the world so there's inevitably going to be quite a bit of that. Also, what actions do you think would lead to less gun violence?

Confounding, I found this discussion interesting because it wasn't the same old gun control thread. I'm not going there.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Cairo, IL is small town America, and it's crime rates are off the charts.

It is however, a very Black, and low income, little town.

http://www.city-data.com/city/Cairo-Illinois.html