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

[yiostheoy]

There are some GOP major cities such as Houston & Miami & Phoenix which are in GOP states and which also have tremendous violence much of which is gun related.

You just cannot stop crime.

You can fight it but you cannot make it go away.

Best thing is to (1) have your own gun and to (2) get good training with it and also to (3) learn how to kill.

Boot camp teaches you how to kill.

It takes a hard heart to kill. You must hate your enemy to kill him/her.

This hate must arise instantaneously when the situation occurs.

I hate criminals.

I hate anyone who makes people fear.

I hate anyone who points a gun or knife at someone.

 

[Timmy]

No one is out to ban guns ! You can’t anyway .

BUT, gun control makes it harder for criminals and crazies to get them.

Gun nut states have more gun crime and gun control counterparts . And that’s not even counting gun suicides .

 

[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?

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.

That makes sense.

 

[rightwinger]

More targets

 

[Missourian]

No one is out to ban guns ! You can’t anyway .

BUT, gun control makes it harder for criminals and crazies to get them.

Gun nut states have more gun crime and gun control counterparts. And that’s not even counting gun suicides .

Do you have proof to support those statements?

We know that the 60% of all gun homicides are perpetrated in 50 U.S. cities...and we know that U.S. cities are predominately controlled by democrats. We know that Chicago has draconian gun laws, and yet has the highest gun homicide rate. We know California heavily regulates firearms, yet they are near the top of firearm homicide rates every year. We also know Vermont has had Constitutional Concealed Carry since it's first state constitution was ratified over two centuries ago, yet it has one of the lowest firearm homicide rates.

Explain?

 

[Missourian]

I have to get some work done or my wife will kill me...but probably not with a gun...just a look usually gets the job done.

Try to stay on topic...

 

[westwall]

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

Don't forget to add "in the hands of criminals" because usually the civilians have been disarmed in the bigger cities.

 

[OldLady]

]
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.

lol We have a couple of those families, too. Stay out of their compounds, whatever you do.

I'm not sure about the "breakdown of family units" in cities being worse than in the country. It doesn't seem like anyone is getting married these days--they shack up, have a baby or two and then he's outta there and she's on welfare. Over and over and over. What causes it? Why don't get kids get taught that they get married BEFORE the baby? I dunno.

 

[there4eyeM]

As there is an inordinate concentration of people combined with easy accessibility of inexpensive firearms, it is no mystery that cities are the centers.
No one shoots anyone in rural Maine (O.K., it is extremely rare).

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

But I see you didnt offer your own.

 

[Timmy]

No one is out to ban guns ! You can’t anyway .

BUT, gun control makes it harder for criminals and crazies to get them.

Gun nut states have more gun crime and gun control counterparts. And that’s not even counting gun suicides .

Do you have proof to support those statements?

We know that the 60% of all gun homicides are perpetrated in 50 U.S. cities...and we know that U.S. cities are predominately controlled by democrats. We know that Chicago has draconian gun laws, and yet has the highest gun homicide rate. We know California heavily regulates firearms, yet they are near the top of firearm homicide rates every year. We also know Vermont has had Constitutional Concealed Carry since it's first state constitution was ratified over two centuries ago, yet it has one of the lowest firearm homicide rates.

Explain?

I’ll get into your post but first I will point out typically gun but dishonesty. Vermont is a rural empty state . Compare to other rural empty states .

Virtually all cities are democratic control . But the gun laws are really controlled by the state. If a red state allows everyone to buy a gun with ease , what’s a blue city in the state really going to do?



Where’s your list of 50 cities ? Is that pure #s ? No conversation for per capita or % of population that lives in those cities ?

Sure they make of 60% of gun deaths, but if they make up 60% of the population than your theory is bunk.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

What exactly does that have to do with city folk killing each other?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

But only in the inner cities.

 

[Brain357]

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?

Gangs tend to be in cities.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

You live where?

 

[Brain357]

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.

But only in the inner cities.

We’ve had plenty of mass shootings not in inner cities.

 

[bendog]

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?

Inner cities have always been where the action is.

https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Content/Documents/History-of-Street-Gangs.pdf

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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?

Gangs tend to be in cities.

True enough.
So why dont dems clean up their cities?

 

[Brain357]

No one is out to ban guns ! You can’t anyway .

BUT, gun control makes it harder for criminals and crazies to get them.

Gun nut states have more gun crime and gun control counterparts . And that’s not even counting gun suicides .

Gun control also lowers the demand for criminals to have guns. Concealed carry is way up and violent crime also increased. More armed lawful people forces more criminals to also be armed.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

But only in the inner cities.

We’ve had plenty of mass shootings not in inner cities.

Mass shootings are a drop in the bucket compared to inner city murders.