The state statistics are meaningless. As I already explained above, almost all of the murders in every state are concentrated in a handful of neighborhoods. It's a very localized problem.
As for the specific cities you mentioned, policies enacted by local governments over decades generally fall into the progressive category. State and federal governments certainly share some blame for the problem but because the causes are mostly local any solutions will also have to be local.
If gun violence is concentrated in a few neighborhoods and all states contain such neighborhoods, then state statistics do matter, don't they?
We can all agree that taking away peoples' guns would lead to less gun violence. (This is the part where you say "but that's impossible anyway" or "but the 2nd amendment" which doesn't really refute my point)
It didn't work in Canada. The criminals still have guns. Mind you when you share a large border with a nation that has lots of guns how effective could it possibly be? I'm not blaming the USA, I'm blaming the Canadian politicians for failing to take this into account.
I know many people who would disagree with this.
> It's a very localized problem.
Yeah schools are pretty local.
Not sure what is progressive about the fact that one can easily obtain a gun. Pool with many legal guns makes it easier to obtain it illegal one as well.
There would be even less violence in Mexico if they were not bordering USA.
Lead poisoning from gasoline near freeways and then crack cocaine played roles in boosting the crime rates too.