How on earth is any of this possible? It certainly doesn’t fit the “it’s the guns” narrative. If it were “the guns,” then these hot spots would mostly overlap. There are a few overlaps (sorry Shreveport, sorry Coal Country) but most of the country exhibits the exact opposite behavior than we would expect from the “it’s the guns” hypothesis.
Let’s dig a bit. We pointed out over a year ago in our “solutions” article that the main problem with homicide, demographically speaking, was within the black community, and the rate numbers for this are outrageous:
Rates in the maps above are red/blue, rates in this bar chart are yellow. Black male firearm homicide victimization rates are 35 times that of white women. They’re the ones getting shot. How does that match our maps above? Here’s a rust belt comparison for homicide:
The second image here is from the Racial Dot Map, from the Cooper Center at the University of Virginia. It is also interactive, and allows you to zoom around. Green dots in the second map are black folks. This is relatively self explanatory, and fits with the overall demographic rates expressed in the bar chart above. Gun homicide in the United States is largely a poor black problem. Characterizing it as an urban problem would not be correct, however, and you can see why in Mississippi:
A lot of green east of the Mississippi River, not a lot of big cities. (This is easier to see at the website itself, go try it) This is not an urban black problem, it’s a poor black problem.
At this point, we’re inclined towards a simple explanation. Poor black folks have a gun homicide problem, while poor white folks have a gun suicide problem. And I think that’s generally accurate, but I think we can drill further on that.
Fascinating article. 
