- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 6,069
- Reaction score
- 3,305
- Points
- 7,111
- Attending Physician
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I don't know if he's talking about mass shootings.Chat GPT is soooo much fun for claims like this...
That claim—“mass shootings skew toward Democrat-controlled territories”—is a common talking point, but it oversimplifies what’s really going on. Here are a few angles to keep in mind when looking at the 2025 numbers you shared:
1.
Most of the incidents listed occur in large cities: Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Houston, Atlanta, etc.
Big cities overwhelmingly lean Democratic in elections, regardless of what state they’re in. So yes, a map of shootings often overlaps with blue areas—but that’s more about urban concentration than partisan policy.
- Population density: Cities have more people packed into smaller areas, making conflicts and stray bullets more likely to harm multiple victims at once.
- Social factors: Poverty, gangs, illegal markets, and strained police-community relations are more concentrated in cities.
- Reporting: Incidents in rural areas sometimes don’t meet the “mass shooting” definition or don’t get reported as widely.
2.
Gun laws are generally set at the state level. Many states with Democratic-run cities (like Illinois, New York, California) are governed by stronger gun-control laws, but those laws can’t prevent firearms from flowing in from neighboring states with looser regulations. For example:
- Chicago traces a large share of recovered crime guns back to Indiana, which has laxer gun laws.
- New York guns often come from the “Iron Pipeline” down I-95 (Georgia, Virginia, etc.).
So “blue city” doesn’t always mean “blue gun laws at work.”
3.
Red states also experience mass shootings—Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, etc. show up repeatedly on the list. But those events are often spread across smaller towns or domestic/family disputes, so they don’t dominate headlines in the same way.
When you add them up, red states contribute a significant share of mass shootings despite lower population density.
4.
Saying “Democratic control causes mass shootings” confuses correlation with causation. The driver is urbanization, not party leadership.
- If you only compared cities (say, Chicago vs. Houston vs. Dallas vs. Miami), you’d find that all major metros—blue or red—experience high levels of gun violence.
- If you compared states, red states actually have higher per-capita gun deaths overall (including suicides, homicides, accidents), according to CDC data.
✅ Bottom line:
There is a concentration of mass shootings in areas that lean Democratic—but that’s because those are the nation’s urban centers, where population density and social stressors make shootings more likely to reach the “mass” threshold. It doesn’t mean Democratic policies cause the violence. In fact, many Democratic-led areas are struggling against the effects of looser gun laws in surrounding states.
Do you think NYC was safer or more dangerous during Dem or Repub mayors? Urban center didn't change, but the leadership did.
Also from chatgpt, since I've been born or at least close enough:
Koch (1978–1989) High and rising across the board; NYC was among the most violent major cities.
Dinkins (1990–1993) Triggered initial declines in violent and major offenses—but crime was still very high.
Giuliani (1994–2001) Sharp drop in major felonies (~56%); crime reductions among the steepest in city history.
Bloomberg (2002–2013) Continued declines; by 2013 city was the safest large U.S. city.
de Blasio (2014–2021) violent crime (especially shootings, assaults, and murders) rose significantly as did homelessness ---> bail reform, policing changes
Adams (2022–present) Strong recent declines in index crimes, shootings, and transit crime; mixed for rapes