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

[toobfreak]

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?

The answer is really simple (really it is): L I B E R A L S (Socialists)

 

[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.

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

Ah, no, I was not affluent.

 

[Timmy]

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. ...

More like the poorest section of town . Maybe pick up a history book and see how that came about .

 

[Confounding]

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.

Alright, what about the rest of what I said in that post? When gun violence is going down do we really need to start regulating more? Why now?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

Lots of reasons.

Cities are a place where stupid people go to look for jobs. Easy jobs that pay low wages. Detroit, for example had the car industry that employed lots of lower paid workers.

It offered these people more freedom than the countryside where they came from in the South. Hence why you get a lot of black people there too.

It's also this very freedom that leads to a breakdown in the family. People don't have to do anything. They don't have to bring up their kids, because the people who criticize them can "go fuck themselves", unlike in rural areas where your life can be ruined.

The employers want to make it rich, they don't need to care about their workers. Like cattle, you kill of some, there'll be more waiting to take up those jobs.

Government didn't give a damn either. Just poor folk or black folk or both, who gives a shit? They're making richer folk more money, don't want to waste that money on cattle, now do we?

 

[Mr Natural]

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

And affluent.

Rich people generally don’t shoot each other.

 

[Sahba]

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

MOONSHINE... lol

 

[Timmy]

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?

The answer is really simple (really it is): L I B E R A L S (Socialists)

Wrong !

Compare apples to apples . Red states and their cities have higher gun crime/ deaths you name it , than compared to Blue state counterparts .

And spare me the Chicago outlier example . Cons think its the only city in the nation.

 

[Sunni Man]

More like the poorest section of town . Maybe pick up a history book and see how that came about .

I don't care how the hood came about.

I just know that it's the most dangerous area of any city. .....

 

[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?

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.

You know what you're talking about as far as rural reality. The one thing we haven't got that inner city neighborhoods have is gangs. I don't buy that all this country's gun deaths are due to gang bangers, but they do seem to be trigger happy. Is that why?
Why don't gang members live in the country?

 

[Thinker101]

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.

You know what you're talking about as far as rural reality. The one thing we haven't got that inner city neighborhoods have is gangs. I don't buy that all this country's gun deaths are due to gang bangers, but they do seem to be trigger happy. Is that why?
Why don't gang members live in the country?

They'd have to walk too far to intimidate anyone?

 

[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 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.

You know what you're talking about as far as rural reality. The one thing we haven't got that inner city neighborhoods have is gangs. I don't buy that all this country's gun deaths are due to gang bangers, but they do seem to be trigger happy. Is that why?
Why don't gang members live in the country?

Country life doesnt attract gangs. They want action.They want people.

 

[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?

I'm not sure where you get the information that it is improving right now. CDC says....

Gun Deaths Increased in 2017, Gun Violence Archive Data Show

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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

And affluent.

Rich people generally don’t shoot each other.

What?
Litchfield County is hardly rich by residents at least, but is among the lowest crime regions in the entire nation, and also it's a rural region, indeed.

The median household income was $56,000, or about average for the nation.

Litchfield County, Connecticut - Wikipedia

But, the money does go further up there, than say in Westchester, Putnam, or Fairfield counties to the South of it.

 

[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 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.

You know what you're talking about as far as rural reality. The one thing we haven't got that inner city neighborhoods have is gangs. I don't buy that all this country's gun deaths are due to gang bangers, but they do seem to be trigger happy. Is that why?
Why don't gang members live in the country?

They'd have to walk too far to intimidate anyone?

More like there is no one to intimidate them into forming a gang. Gangs are formed for protection and control.

 

[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.

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.

You know what you're talking about as far as rural reality. The one thing we haven't got that inner city neighborhoods have is gangs. I don't buy that all this country's gun deaths are due to gang bangers, but they do seem to be trigger happy. Is that why?
Why don't gang members live in the country?

Country life doesnt attract gangs. They want action.They want people.

So, why does Cairo, IL a part of small town America have such a high crime rate?

Apparently only 2% of American towns are as criminal as it, or more so.

Cairo, IL, 62914 Crime Rates and Crime Statistics - NeighborhoodScout

 

[Confounding]

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?

I'm not sure where you get the information that it is improving right now. CDC says....

Gun Violence | National Institute of Justice

Compare it scientifically to the 80s. You have to account for the fact that we have over 100 million more people than we did. Gun violence has gone down, a lot.

 

[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 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.

You know what you're talking about as far as rural reality. The one thing we haven't got that inner city neighborhoods have is gangs. I don't buy that all this country's gun deaths are due to gang bangers, but they do seem to be trigger happy. Is that why?
Why don't gang members live in the country?

Country life doesnt attract gangs. They want action.They want people.

So, why does Cairo, IL a part of small town America have such a high crime rate?

Apparently only 2% of American towns are as criminal as it, or more so.

Cairo, IL, 62914 Crime Rates and Crime Statistics - NeighborhoodScout

Never heard of the place. I would need to go there to see why. I mean why did Oelwein, Iowa have a meth epidemic?

 

[yiostheoy]

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?

As you know my dear friend Missourian -- gun control controls nothing.

Because …

1 - if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns (and this happens a lot in major cities because many major cites are Democratically controlled and the Democrats especially Diane Fokked-Up Feinstein and Nancy Anti-gun Pelosi love to experiment with gun controls.

2 - the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.

So the main problem is politics.

The Democrat Party embraces flawed legislation.

 

[Missourian]

]
You know what you're talking about as far as rural reality. The one thing we haven't got that inner city neighborhoods have is gangs. I don't buy that all this country's gun deaths are due to gang bangers, but they do seem to be trigger happy. Is that why?
Why don't gang members live in the country?

Good question. I think gangs are a big part of the gun violence equation. And maybe frigidweirdo is on to something about the breakdown of the family unit in cities compared to a tradition of family cohesion in rural America. And continuing that point, in my neck of the woods, we do have at least one form of rural criminal gang activity...but our gangs tend to share a surname.