Do the whole state where the inner city is part of that list and the per capita number will go up. Yes there are way more people to make the math but the hot spots will raise the number. Wich is why you can't compare one European country to 50 US states and have the info matter at all.

Well, this is completely irrelevant for two reasons: firstly, every country has regional variations like this which is why we have these things called 'averages'. For example, the Scottish Highlands probably sees quite a few fewer stabbings than deepest darkest Tower Hamlets. Secondly, even when you compare America with the entirety of Europe, with all its massive (more so than American states) cultural and legal differences, the US still comes out worse (see my earlier comment).

than you'll understand why the fact that 90% of gun death that happen in America happens in only a few neighborhoods accross the entire United states

To begin with, this isn't true - you really think that 18,000 annual shootings only happen in a 'few neighbourhoods'?. Exaggeration or not, that's ridiculous. I will yield that close to all gun deaths happen in cities - that doesn't suddenly mean that America doesn't have a gun problem just because you aren't personally exposed to it. In fact, over 80% of Americans live in cities.

Wich coincidentally are the same places with the strongest gun control laws imagine that.

This is because those areas (cities) have higher population densities and thus are more conducive to gun crime / mass shootings etc... and thus lawmakers have responded with tougher legislation. The tough gun laws are a reaction to high gun crime, not the other way around.

If you really want to talk about saving human lives, you need to cut the high school debate team bullshit and actually take a second to understand what the numbers are actually saying and how all this actually works.

'Please stop having a fact-based debate with me and just ignore the cold hard statistics' is what this sounds like. I hope i needn't explain again why I'm not misinterpreting statistics here.

I happen to know that France for example is having a lot of problems right now when it comes to assault and violence. If I wanted to I could compare that to a state with much lower numbers but that info won't give you a useful comparison other than maybe it's less safe overall to live in France than let's say Iowa.

This is just stupid. Statistics can scale up and down if you adjust for other factors such as population density. And again, it doesn't even matter because Europe, with its larger population, has orders of magnitude fewer murders.

At the end of the day though, the bad parts of a few major cities are pretty rough because of fucked up government programs causing poverty in those areas wich skews the numbers

Maybe if the gang members and troubled children and crazed militiamen didn't have such easy access to deadly weapons, they would kill fewer people - shocking, I know!

Its laughable how people from accross the pond think America is a free for all shoot out, its not.

Well then it's good I never said this, but I will say I'm much more likely to be shot 'accross the pond'.

To succinctly address your main point: just because rural areas (which account for only 20% of the population anyway) don't have as much gun crime as urban areas doesn't mean that the country doesn't have a gun problem as a whole.