Fact check: Is it true that while most guns are owned in red counties, most serial killing events happen in blue urban areas?

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal a complex and contradictory picture regarding the original statement's claims about gun ownership patterns and serial killing locations.

Gun Ownership Patterns: The data supports that gun ownership rates are indeed higher in red states, with some analyses showing the highest gun ownership rates concentrated in traditionally red states ^[1]. This aligns with the first part of the original statement.

Serial Killing and Violence Patterns: However, the evidence strongly contradicts the claim about serial killings occurring primarily in blue urban areas. Multiple sources indicate that:

• Murder rates in Trump-voting states have exceeded murder rates in Biden-voting states every year this century ^[2]
• Gun death rates are 37% higher per capita in the most rural counties compared to the most urban counties ^[3]
• California has the highest number of serial killer victims, while Alaska has the highest rate per capita ^[4]

Crime Distribution: The analyses show that while urban crime receives significant attention, violent crime is rising in suburban and rural areas, with a higher share of crimes involving strangers and guns ^[5]. Additionally, gun suicides are more common in rural areas, contributing to higher overall gun death rates ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original statement omits several critical contextual factors:

• The distinction between different types of gun violence: Serial killings represent a small fraction of overall gun deaths, while gun suicides and domestic violence constitute larger portions of gun-related fatalities ^[3]
• Geographic complexity: While some urban areas may have higher absolute numbers of certain crimes due to population density, rural areas consistently show higher per-capita rates of gun deaths ^{[6] [3]}
• Political motivations: Politicians and media outlets in both red and blue areas benefit from emphasizing crime statistics that support their narratives about urban versus rural safety. Conservative politicians benefit from portraying urban areas as dangerous, while liberal politicians benefit from highlighting rural gun violence rates to support gun control measures.
• Data collection challenges: The analyses reveal that law enforcement has not found conclusive evidence linking many suspected serial killer cases ^[7], suggesting that perceptions of serial killer activity may not align with verified data.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement contains significant factual inaccuracies and potential bias:

• Selective focus on serial killings: By emphasizing serial killings specifically, the statement ignores the broader pattern of gun violence, which shows higher rates in rural, typically red areas ^{[6] [3]}
• Unsupported urban crime narrative: The claim about "blue urban areas" having most serial killing events is directly contradicted by data showing higher murder rates in red states ^[2]
• Cherry-picking crime types: The statement focuses on a rare form of violence (serial killing) while ignoring more common forms of gun violence that show different geographic patterns
• Political framing: The use of "red counties" versus "blue urban areas" suggests a politically motivated comparison designed to support a particular narrative about urban versus rural safety, rather than an objective analysis of crime patterns

The evidence indicates that powerful conservative media figures and politicians benefit from promoting the narrative that urban areas are more dangerous, as it supports arguments against gun control and urban policy initiatives, while deflecting attention from higher per-capita violence rates in rural areas.