To be clear from the start: I'm not trying to defend guns, traditional gender roles, or, Lord forbid, mass shooters. I was also very purposefully trying to not be agreeable. Also, to be brief, I'm really confused as to where I blamed feminism anymore than the article, i.e. that it could contribute to the threats to masculinity felt by mass shooters. There is one side in that situation obviously on the wrong side.

My motivation was simply to look at the article as a skeptic. I've found over the past couple months that Hubski can have a tendacy as a whole to turn posts like these into a simple congratulatory,'stick it to the dumn-asses' conversations. I would prefer for questions both about the study and for further development be raised, irregularities and inconsistencies pointed out and discussed, and in general the article taken not as gospel but as suspect. I'm a skeptic by nature, and I have an apparently unfortunate tendency to attempt to share my scepticism.

With the map, I am on a mobil, and can't see the whole thing at one time. Also, I'm not as familiar with gun laws in the East, nor their development over history. Of course more guns means more gun deaths. That is obvious. But there are also major psychological differences between a serial killer, a mass shooter, and a 'normal' murderer. With all of that said, I'd encourage to look at my reply to kleinbl00 below in regards to specific cities that raise some questions about environmental factors.

And yes, to confirm all of your suspicions, I am a white, American middle-class male.