[danans]

> what's up with the high-gun-control areas being so prone to such violence that when guns are available they're so readily abused?

Your reasoning doesn't add up because the factor you are using (lax gun laws vs strict between states) is far too coarse to make any reasonable inference from.

California has tight gun restrictions. But high income cities, counties, and neighborhoods in California (i.e. Palo Alto, Marin, Pacific Heights) with intact community structures have very low gun violence rates by US standards.

Low income areas with a significant illicit drug trade, high rates of intra-community trauma, historical abuse by police, and a frayed community structure, have high rates of gun violence.

The availability of guns, purchased legally or illegally, has a more pronounced impact on the latter sort of area than the former because the latter type is more likely to produce interpersonal conflicts which escalate to the use of guns, because other means of dealing with the conflicts (police, the court system, community structures) are often less effective or available for them.

[ctdonath]

There's plenty of low-income areas in flyover country, with high gun ownership - used fairly for defense & provisions. That they can own guns at high rates responsibly points to cultural choices; don't punish them for bad behavior of strangers far away. STOP SHOOTING PEOPLE.