"Poverty = bullets" sounds progressive on the surface but it is not. It actually demonizes people living in poverty.

Using "0.5% of population responsible for 60% of shootings," that's 7,500 people in Philly.

There are nearly 400,000 Philadelphians living in poverty.

The vast majority of people living in poverty will never pick up a gun let alone shoot it.

Casting all people living in poverty as prone to violence, instead of as stuck in neighborhoods where violence -- among other problems -- is allowed to concentrate is a big problem.

We need to be much more specific in our analysis of poverty and crime.

What is unique about the tiny fraction of people living in poverty who *do* engage in gun violence? Let's talk about trauma. Let's talk about victimization. Let's talk about toxic masculinity.

For an example of nuanced discussion of place, poverty, and violence, check out the critical work of @JosephRFriedman and @pibourgois on Kensington. https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/kensington-drug-market-gun-violence-homicide-racial-segregation-opioid-crack-20191207.html

People don't lose their job on Monday and go take out a corner with pistols on a Tuesday. But that is what "poverty = bullets" implies -- especially when we have a recession and increase in violence at the same time.

I'm just so tired of people, of all sides of politics, explaining violence with blanket statements and without showing their work. If you say that a shooting is "drug related" or "poverty related" you need to be able to explain exactly what that means in that specific case.

And the next time someone asks any of you to explain the current rise in gun violence, it's perfectly ok to say "there are many hypothesize to what might be contributing to this but we don't know and we might never know." That is the only honest answer if you care about data.