[pdonis]

> It's true that the US has more gun violence than other first world countries, but we also has more violence and crime in general.

These statements are misleading as they stand because the variation in the US is so high. Basically, for all types of violent crimes, the US is divided into two very different regions: (1) particular large urban and dense suburban areas, which have rates of violent crime higher than any other developed country; and (2) the rest of the country, which has rates of violent crime lower than almost any other developed country. Even looking at the stats by state doesn't fully capture this dichotomy.

[heartbeats]

Even within the states, there is no link. It is not possible to find any connection between gun ownership and gun violence on a county level either.

The urban/rural divide is a good starting point. If you look at the stats, an even clearer pattern emerges:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...

What sets Washington D.C., Louisiana, Mississippi, and Maryland apart from Maine, Vermont, Hawaii, and New Hampshire?

[yellowapple]

Well all of the first group (except DC) are in the South while all of the second group (except Hawaii) are in the North.

[heartbeats]

And what do the South and DC have in common, that the North and Hawaii do not?

[yellowapple]

Existence beneath the Mason-Dixon line?

[rfrey]

> the rest of the country, which has rates of violent crime lower than almost any other developed country.

Lower than the overall rate of the other comparable countries? Or lower than the non urban portion of the other developed countries?

[pdonis]

> Lower than the overall rate of the other comparable countries? Or lower than the non urban portion of the other developed countries?

For comparable countries (e.g., Switzerland), they're basically the same; comparable countries don't have the same large disparity in crime rates.