I'm typically skeptical of conclusions like that, to be honest. If we look at the gun deaths graph, many of the highest rates are in much whiter, much more rural states, and the south is very well-represented.
I'll probably draw criticism from what I'm about to say, but perhaps part of this is due to cultural differences in what constitutes murder between different states. An obvious example would be the case of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. I would classify that as a murder, but I don't think it would be counted as such in this data.
I think about these things a lot, as a minority who grew up in the most urban part of the country. It's very common for statistics to be misleading in what actually goes on in these areas for a number of reasons. I'm not saying that there is no such thing as a dangerous area with high murder rates, just that it's not always as simple as looking at some numbers.
I should also point out that while many high-crime areas have a high minority population, I would consider most of them rural or suburban. Milwaukee and Detroit for example, are not exactly "urban" cities.
I don't think justifiable homicide such as self-defense should count if you're wanting to answer a question of "should we keep guns or get rid of them"
Obviously having more justifiable homicides with guns is better than gun murders, because it's good people protecting themselves from violent people. I don't think a criminal who died from trying to kill me deserves to be added to a statistic to further an idea that "less guns are better"
Speaking of Trayvon Martin, we'll never really know what went down because we can't get in those two's heads, but I can tell you if I was armed and found myself getting my face beaten into the concrete, not knowing what the person would do next, I think I'd certainly feel justified in using a projectile weapon. If somebody is beating you senseless on a dark night, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't assume they'll just leave you after you black out. They may curb stomp you to death, they may take your gun and kill you, they may take your gun and kill somebody else.
I don't think it's a cultural difference between states, I think it's a legal line drawn between homicide vs justifiable homicide.
I'd like to see charting of both, because justifiable homicide is an indicator of danger in an area too. Unsuccessful attempts at violent crime resulting in justifiable homicide by firearm.
That's one obvious problem is you know that any partisan journalist can take justifiable homicides, lump them into the same bucket under gun deaths by murder and use it to reinforce a message of guns = violence. It's disingenuous.
Same thing with other crime. An area could say rapes decreased, even if attempted rapes went up. So it seems successful self-defense literally and figuratively means you won't become a statistic. Which is bad when you want an accurate picture of the safeness of an area.
No buyers agent can say, "Oh yeah this area is really safe, hardly any crime happens to people here, so long as you're open carrying a glock 19 and are an expert in Krav Maga."
I'll probably draw criticism from what I'm about to say, but perhaps part of this is due to cultural differences in what constitutes murder between different states. An obvious example would be the case of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. I would classify that as a murder, but I don't think it would be counted as such in this data.
I think about these things a lot, as a minority who grew up in the most urban part of the country. It's very common for statistics to be misleading in what actually goes on in these areas for a number of reasons. I'm not saying that there is no such thing as a dangerous area with high murder rates, just that it's not always as simple as looking at some numbers.
I should also point out that while many high-crime areas have a high minority population, I would consider most of them rural or suburban. Milwaukee and Detroit for example, are not exactly "urban" cities.