The variance in homicide rate is going to be drastically larger for a tiny county of 10k people than a county with 1 million. The difference between 0 homicides

The variance in homicide rate is going to be drastically larger for a tiny county of 10k people than a county with 1 million. The difference between 0 homicides/100k and 50 homicides/100k is five people. So trying to compare a few giant urban counties and a bunch of small rural counties is going to result in the small rural counties dominating both the lowest and the highest spots. I noticed they did not list the 20 counties with the lowest homicide rates, I suspect because it would have been 20 tiny rural counties with a rate of 0. And that would have contradicted their narrative. They also selectively choose between "gun deaths" and homicides, and also apply an "age-adjustment" fudge factor, so the numbers they present are not accurate representations of actual homicide rates. Homicide also includes justifiable homicides, like self-defense or justifiable use of force police shootings. It's a pretty classic example of selective presentation and twisting of statistics to suit a pre-established narrative. Not really surprising given who paid for the piece.