The Surprising Geography of Gun Violence

[HondurasKeiser]

Sorry, Boot, but the fact is I'm likely to get shot if I go to certain places in certain cities, which is what most normal people care about. If I stay put in my law-abiding region where nonetheless all of my neighbours seem to have a lot of guns and to go outside and target practice a lot... hardly anyone ever gets shot. There hasn't even been an accidental shooting here in years.

Cities are big places. The fact is that most people who live in big cities never go near the most dangerous neighborhoods, and neither do people who visit. You can live your entire lives in New York and never go near some dangerous neighborhood in the South Bronx. Or live your entire lives in Chicago and neve go near Englewood on the south side. And even if you did you'd likely to be perfectly safe since most of the violence in those neighborhoods is drug and gang related and not targeted towards outsiders.

But statistically speaking Boot is right. Most big cities don't rate high on list of most dangerous places for gun violence. There are plenty of smaller towns and rural areas (especially in the south) where rates of gun violence are higher.

I don't understand. When I look at the 'Homicide Rate by County' map that Boot posted and I focus in on Pa (which I know best), the counties with the highest rates are those that have urban centers...even my home county of Lycoming (which many from Philly consider to be rural) has a higher rate (because of the City of Williamsport) than the other surrounding counties which have no cities to speak of.

Looking at the rest of the map, the counties wherein lie cities like Pittsburgh, Erie, Harrisburg, York, Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, Reading, Allentown, Philadelphia and Chester all have higher homicide rates than those counties that are truly rural and have towns no bigger than Wellsboro, Renovo, Belleville, Somerset and Saint Mary's

[Szdfan]

Sorry, Boot, but the fact is I'm likely to get shot if I go to certain places in certain cities, which is what most normal people care about. If I stay put in my law-abiding region where nonetheless all of my neighbours seem to have a lot of guns and to go outside and target practice a lot... hardly anyone ever gets shot. There hasn't even been an accidental shooting here in years.

Cities are big places. The fact is that most people who live in big cities never go near the most dangerous neighborhoods, and neither do people who visit. You can live your entire lives in New York and never go near some dangerous neighborhood in the South Bronx. Or live your entire lives in Chicago and neve go near Englewood on the south side. And even if you did you'd likely to be perfectly safe since most of the violence in those neighborhoods is drug and gang related and not targeted towards outsiders.

But statistically speaking Boot is right. Most big cities don't rate high on list of most dangerous places for gun violence. There are plenty of smaller towns and rural areas (especially in the south) where rates of gun violence are higher.

I don't understand. When I look at the 'Homicide Rate by County' map that Boot posted and I focus in on Pa (which I know best), the counties with the highest rates are those that have urban centers...even my home county of Lycoming (which many from Philly consider to be rural) has a higher rate (because of the City of Williamsport) than the other surrounding counties which have no cities to speak of.

Looking at the rest of the map, the counties wherein lie cities like Pittsburgh, Erie, Harrisburg, York, Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, Reading, Allentown, Philadelphia and Chester all have higher homicide rates than those counties that are truly rural and have towns no bigger than Wellsboro, Renovo, Belleville, Somerset and Saint Mary's

What are the sizes of these cities?

[Bootstrap]

I don't understand. When I look at the 'Homicide Rate by County' map that Boot posted and I focus in on Pa (which I know best), the counties with the highest rates are those that have urban centers...even my home county of Lycoming (which many from Philly consider to be rural) has a higher rate (because of the City of Williamsport) than the other surrounding counties which have no cities to speak of.

Looking at the rest of the map, the counties wherein lie cities like Pittsburgh, Erie, Harrisburg, York, Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, Reading, Allentown, Philadelphia and Chester all have higher homicide rates than those counties that are truly rural and have towns no bigger than Wellsboro, Renovo, Belleville, Somerset and Saint Mary's

But if you do other comparisons, you can see a different picture.

For instance, let's look at the top 10 counties by homicide rate (prepared using GPT). Does the homicide rate seem to correlate with population density?

• Orleans Parish, Louisiana
  - Homicide Rate: 43 per 100,000 people
  - Notable City: New Orleans
  - Population Density: ~857 people/sq km
• Coahoma County, Mississippi
  - Homicide Rate: 37 per 100,000 people
  - Notable City: Clarksdale
  - Population Density: ~17 people/sq km
• Phillips County, Arkansas
  - Homicide Rate: 34 per 100,000 people
  - Notable City: Helena-West Helena
  - Population Density: ~14 people/sq km
• St. Louis City, Missouri
  - Homicide Rate: 33 per 100,000 people
  - Population Density: ~2,000 people/sq km
• Baltimore City, Maryland
  - Homicide Rate: 33 per 100,000 people
  - Population Density: ~2,846 people/sq km
• Petersburg City, Virginia
  - Homicide Rate: 32 per 100,000 people
  - Population Density: ~661 people/sq km
• Macon County, Alabama
  - Homicide Rate: 27 per 100,000 people
  - Notable City: Tuskegee
  - Population Density: ~11 people/sq km
• District of Columbia
  - Homicide Rate: 27 per 100,000 people
  - Population Density: ~4,307 people/sq km
• Washington County, Mississippi
  - Homicide Rate: 25 per 100,000 people
  - Notable City: Greenville
  - Population Density: ~21 people/sq km
• Dallas County, Alabama
  - Homicide Rate: 25 per 100,000 people
  - Notable City: Selma
  - Population Density: ~16 people/sq km

[HondurasKeiser]

Cities are big places. The fact is that most people who live in big cities never go near the most dangerous neighborhoods, and neither do people who visit. You can live your entire lives in New York and never go near some dangerous neighborhood in the South Bronx. Or live your entire lives in Chicago and neve go near Englewood on the south side. And even if you did you'd likely to be perfectly safe since most of the violence in those neighborhoods is drug and gang related and not targeted towards outsiders.

But statistically speaking Boot is right. Most big cities don't rate high on list of most dangerous places for gun violence. There are plenty of smaller towns and rural areas (especially in the south) where rates of gun violence are higher.

I don't understand. When I look at the 'Homicide Rate by County' map that Boot posted and I focus in on Pa (which I know best), the counties with the highest rates are those that have urban centers...even my home county of Lycoming (which many from Philly consider to be rural) has a higher rate (because of the City of Williamsport) than the other surrounding counties which have no cities to speak of.

Looking at the rest of the map, the counties wherein lie cities like Pittsburgh, Erie, Harrisburg, York, Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, Reading, Allentown, Philadelphia and Chester all have higher homicide rates than those counties that are truly rural and have towns no bigger than Wellsboro, Renovo, Belleville, Somerset and Saint Mary's

What are the sizes of these cities?

They range from 3rd Tier to 1st Tier Cities. Williamsport has about 24,000 residents and is a 3rd Tier city.

[HondurasKeiser]

Does the homicide rate seem to correlate with population density?

Again, in Pennsylvania, yes.

[Josh]

In the GPT list, it doesn't correlate with density, but it sure does correlate with something else.

[Ken]

In the GPT list, it doesn't correlate with density, but it sure does correlate with something else.

Prevalence of guns and lax gun laws.

States that have more lax gun laws have higher rates of gun violence. There is very direct correlation.

[Josh]

In the GPT list, it doesn't correlate with density, but it sure does correlate with something else.

Prevalence of guns and lax gun laws.

States that have more lax gun laws have higher rates of gun violence. There is very direct correlation.

The charts posted are actually for homicides, not gun violence. (I don't think it matters if you get killed by a gun, a knife, fists, or get run over by a car.)

However, the charts posted show some states with very lax gun laws that are also a sea of green, like Kansas. Then there are states with very strict gun laws like California that don't have much green. So no, states with more lax gun laws don't have more homicides, necessarily. There is no correlation.

From Boot/GPT's list of the top 10:

Baltimore City, Maryland
- Homicide Rate: 33 per 100,000 people
- Population Density: ~2,846 people/sq km

District of Columbia
- Homicide Rate: 27 per 100,000 people
- Population Density: ~4,307 people/sq km

Maryland has strict gun laws, and DC has the strictest gun laws in the country. Why are these both in the top 10 list?

[Ken]

In the GPT list, it doesn't correlate with density, but it sure does correlate with something else.

Prevalence of guns and lax gun laws.

States that have more lax gun laws have higher rates of gun violence. There is very direct correlation.

The charts posted are actually for homicides, not gun violence. (I don't think it matters if you get killed by a gun, a knife, fists, or get run over by a car.)

However, the charts posted show some states with very lax gun laws that are also a sea of green, like Kansas. Then there are states with very strict gun laws like California that don't have much green. So no, states with more lax gun laws don't have more homicides, necessarily. There is no correlation.

From Boot/GPT's list of the top 10:

Baltimore City, Maryland
- Homicide Rate: 33 per 100,000 people
- Population Density: ~2,846 people/sq km

District of Columbia
- Homicide Rate: 27 per 100,000 people
- Population Density: ~4,307 people/sq km

Maryland has strict gun laws, and DC has the strictest gun laws in the country. Why are these both in the top 10 list?

They may have strict gun laws but they have a high prevalence of guns because they are both surrounded by states with lax gun laws and so guns can flow into Baltimore and DC and other cities like Chicago almost unrestricted. Cities alone can't regulate gun prevalence, it requires more of a regional and national effort. And there are many states and jurisdictions that actively work in the opposite direction.

[Josh]

They may have strict gun laws but they have a high prevalence of guns because they are both surrounded by states with lax gun laws and so guns can flow into Baltimore and DC and other cities like Chicago almost unrestricted. Cities alone can't regulate gun prevalence, it requires more of a regional and national effort. And there are many states and jurisdictions that actively work in the opposite direction.

DC functions like a state, and Maryland is a state. Both have strict gun laws.

California is a gigantic state and can certainly regular guns. Yet the homicide rate there is higher than Kansas.

So the question remains - why do places like DC or California with strict gun laws have more homicides than a place like Kansas, which does not? Kansas didn't have any metros in the top ten list of places with the most homicides.