|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by Dave Soulia, for FYIVT.com
The FBI’s most recent national crime report showed something unexpected: violent crime in the United States fell about 3% in 2023, returning to 364 incidents per 100,000 people, a number not seen since before the pandemic. Murders, often the most politically charged category, dropped by nearly 12% in just one year. On paper, it looks like progress. But the story behind those numbers tells us much more — and raises questions about where violence actually occurs, and why.
For years, headlines have painted the U.S. as an exceptionally dangerous country, especially when it comes to gun violence. But what if the average is misleading? What if most of the country isn’t experiencing a crime wave at all — and the real problem is confined to a relatively small set of cities?
That’s exactly what the data suggest.
Urban Concentration, Rural Contrast
Take Chicago. With 621 homicides in 2023 and a population of about 2.7 million, the city’s murder rate hovers around 23 per 100,000 — nearly four times the national average. Baltimore, St. Louis, Detroit, New Orleans, and a handful of others regularly post even higher numbers. And while these metro areas make up a small fraction of the U.S. population, they account for a massive share of total gun homicides.
When you isolate these urban hotspots — let’s say the 15–20 most violent cities — and remove them from the national equation, what remains is a very different picture. The rest of the country, comprising rural areas, small towns, and most suburbs, sees dramatically lower rates of both violent crime and gun deaths. Analysts estimate the “rest-of-America” firearm homicide rate lands somewhere around 2 to 3 per 100,000, compared to the national average of about 6.3. That’s less than half.
This sharp drop isn’t just statistical noise — it’s a fundamental reframing of the national conversation.
Gun Ownership Doesn’t Equal Gun Violence
Now add another layer: gun ownership. According to the Pew Research Center, about 47% of adults in rural areas personally own firearms. In urban areas, that number drops to 20%. So despite more than twice the gun ownership, rural America experiences a fraction of the gun violence.
| Community | Gun Ownership | Gun Homicide Rate (est.) |
|---|---|---|
| Rural | ~47% | ~2–3 per 100k |
| Urban | ~20% | >20 per 100k |
That dynamic — more guns, less crime — runs contrary to many popular assumptions. And it undermines broad, national-level claims that access to firearms is the main driver of violence.
Of course, this doesn’t mean rural communities are immune from tragedy, or that cities are doomed to dysfunction. But it does suggest that the root causes of gun violence go far beyond simple access to firearms. Urban areas grapple with complex combinations of poverty, gang activity, repeat offenders, weak prosecution, and in some cases, policy decisions that reduce law enforcement presence. All of these may contribute to the higher rates of violence seen in certain cities — but they’re not representative of the country as a whole.
National Averages Obscure the Real Story
And that’s the point.
Lumping together high-crime metro areas with low-crime rural states may make for easy national statistics, but it doesn’t help us understand the problem. Worse, it leads to policy debates that treat Vermont like Chicago or Montana like Baltimore — even though the lived reality is worlds apart.
This doesn’t mean national averages are useless. But they’re only a starting point. If we want to reduce gun violence meaningfully, we need to target the places where it’s actually happening, not pretend the problem is equally distributed across red states, blue states, suburbs, and farm towns. That means real local solutions: better policing, focused deterrence, stronger prosecution, and community-level programs where they’re most needed.
And it also means recognizing that most of America isn’t in crisis. The vast majority of U.S. counties report zero or single-digit homicides per year — even with high gun ownership. The data speak clearly: gun crime is real, but it’s not everywhere.
It’s concentrated. It’s localized. And it’s fixable — if we stop trying to fix the whole country the same way.
Gun Homicide Per Gun — Rural U.S. vs. Europe (Estimates)
| Region | Guns per 100 ppl | Gun Homicide Rate | People per Gun | Guns per Gun Homicide |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rural U.S. | ~60–70 | ~2–3 / 100k | ~1.4–1.6 | ~200–350 guns/homicide |
| Switzerland | ~27.6 | ~0.10–0.15 | ~3.6 | ~180–275 guns/homicide |
| Finland | ~32.4 | ~0.15–0.20 | ~3.1 | ~160–215 guns/homicide |
| France | ~19.6 | ~0.06–0.09 | ~5.1 | ~218–327 guns/homicide |
| U.S. Average | 120.5 | ~4.1–5.0 | ~0.83 | ~24–30 guns/homicide |
Measured by Responsibility, Rural America Wins
But here’s the part no one talks about: when you factor in the number of guns, rural America doesn’t just hold its own — it actually performs better than some of the most admired European nations.
Consider this: Switzerland and Finland are often praised for their high rates of gun ownership with low levels of violence. But when you look at gun homicide per gun owned, rural America is statistically more responsible. With roughly 60–70 guns per 100 people and a gun homicide rate of 2–3 per 100,000, rural U.S. counties end up with one gun homicide per 200–350 guns.
Compare that to:
- Switzerland: ~1 per 180–275 guns
- Finland: ~1 per 160–215 guns
Despite having 2–3× more guns per capita, rural Americans are less likely to commit a gun homicide with one than their European counterparts. That flips the conventional narrative on its head.
It’s not about how many guns a country has — it’s about where they are, who has them, and how they’re used. And when measured that way, the so-called “gun problem” in America is not in the hills of Vermont or the plains of Nebraska. It’s in the concentrated urban pockets where enforcement is weak, prosecution is lenient, and criminal activity is tightly woven into daily life.
So while rural America may own the most guns, it may also own the title of most responsible gun culture in the developed world.
That’s not a boast. That’s a statistical fact.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: News Analysis
glad to see that someone had the ability to report this
Montpelier is listening with deaf ears
Would be interesting to compare violence-involving-gun statistics between jurisdictions which have “Republican” prosecutors versus those with prosecutors elected with the financial assistance of the Soros family.
So here is the real tragedy.
This 4th, they lost 50+ people to a flood, tragic.
This 4th they lost 50+ people in Chicago due to homicides.
These cities are getting no attention and run by the wrong people.
It is not the gun, it is the hatred in their hearts, their unforgiveness, their lust for power, revenge, their desire to covet/steal somebody else’s things, to enforce contracts (taking the law into their own hands on drug deals), and lets no forget just doing foolish stupid sheet.
These are all crimes from the heart.
Until we heal the people, the nation we will have nothing. There is but one healer. Matin Luther Blvd/St/Drive should be the safest place in our country, but it’s not.
We need to change our direction. We are looking for love and acceptance in all the wrong places, the gun will not solve your pain, will not get you true respect.
Thank you Mr. Soulia for putting these statistics in a cogent article for antbody that wants to see the big picture .
Once again, Dave, thank you for your stellar research which sheds a fascinating, fresh, and honest light on a false narrative which has been propagated for decades by those who use false accusations and speculations to undermine the Second Amendment and disarm law-abiding citizens.
“And when measured that way, the so-called ‘gun problem’ in America is not in the hills of Vermont or the plains of Nebraska. It’s in the concentrated urban pockets where enforcement is weak, prosecution is lenient, and criminal activity is tightly woven into daily life.”
One more reason and factor to include in this list is “where deceived Leftist politicians use specious logic and arguments, failing to recognize that criminals will never obey their draconian gun laws nor their piecemeal restrictions on types of firearms, accessories, capacities, or prohibited locations.”
The statistics you spotlight reveal the utter failure of their policies.
One gun death is one gun death, no matter how many guns the person pulling the trigger owns. Adjusting gun deaths by the average number of guns each individual owns is statistical nonsense.
Admittedly, gun control advocates should not talk about “too many guns” but instead talk about “lax gun regulation in the US allow stupid and/or evil people easy access to machines designed for killing”
“…lax gun regulation in the US allow stupid and/or evil people easy access to machines designed for killing”
The problem with your statement, Carl, is that it is patently false on several levels.
1.) Gun regulation in the US is not lax, but is, in fact, quite stringent.
-Are you merely parroting a cliche gun control advocates have been using for decades?
-How familiar are you with the precise gun regulation there is in the US?
-What objective evidence do you have that supports your supposition that gun regulation in the US is lax?
-What is the objective standard and factual basis you are using for “lax” or “not lax?”
2.) According to federal regulations, stupid, evil, intelligent, and decent people actually do not have easy access to guns.
-What is the objective standard and factual basis you are using for “easy access?”
-By what process of deduction do you correlate actual gun regulation in the US with stupid and/or evil people having easy access to guns?
3.) There are many objects which are used for either good or neutral purposes which can then become “machines designed for killing” when evil and/or stupid people use them.
-Do you think that the only purpose of a gun is that it is a “machine designed for killing?”
-Do you consider an axes, knives, hammers, rope, or automobiles “machines designed for killing?”
-Do you consider to be “lax” US regulations on the items mentioned above?
-Would you support more stringent regulation on the items mentioned above in the hopes that stupid and/or evil people could not have “easy access” to them?
-Do you think that guns are inherently evil, as opposed to automobiles, knives, rope, axes, and hammers?
I don’t know whether the statistic Dave’s research cited that you consider nonsense is, in fact, nonsense, but is that pronouncement you make about it substantive reason enough for you to miss the point of his article?
Try using your AI-assist apps to answer some of these questions.
For example, I was reminded by this FYIVT article to consider actual environmental factors relating to violent behavior.
Did you know: “The evidence supports a correlation between the reduction of lead in gasoline and a decline in violent behavior. While this hypothesis is not the sole explanation for changes in crime rates, it is a significant factor in understanding the relationship between environmental toxins and societal behavior.”
Of course, the ‘assisted’ research includes actual supporting data too.
And asking the pertinent question can be an artform of logical progression in itself.
Furthermore, AI assisted inquiries can be biased too – because they review the information already published in the public realm, which is already biased. So don’t hesitate to pose follow-up questions.
None the less, the next time one of our legislators, orone of VDC’s regular commentors (including me) makes a claim with which you disagree, do your own research and let us know what you find. Because, as I mentioned some time ago, on April 7, 2025, in fact, “Welcome to Vermont Daily Chronicle University, fast becoming one of the new faces of American education.”
And thanks again to folks like Dave Soulia for spurring our curiosity with current logical progressions.
Violence is violence. Whether a gun is used, a knife, machette a sword a bludgeon, garrotte or even a vehicle. These are all tools. Man is the weapon that uses the tools for good or evil. If a person uses one of these tools to commit a crime, it’s the tool’s fault? Then we would no obese people if we banned forks, knives and spoons.
Robert A. Heinlein: “There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous men”.