Purely speculation, but I suspect the reason is that it is easier to be poor in the cities, so cities would tend to have more poor people, and poor people are more willing to commit crimes because they are more desperate.

That's not accurate.

[edit] I know I should link studies and such but even on the face of it you can see inaccuracy; where are people more impoverished: rural Alabama, or San Francisco? There are larger populations of homeless in cities, but you can get a roof over your head for less money outside. That said, why would it be easier to be poor in a city?

> why would it be easier to be poor in a city?

Well, I would assume there's some correlation between population density and having a difficult job market. More people == more competition, and under those conditions the types of jobs that wouldn't require extensive experience/skill/training are naturally gonna be a rare commodity.

So of course poverty is gonna be a function of joblessness, but there is also a certain frustration that goes along with the difficulty of finding a job specifically, that seems like it would correlate to crime more neatly than the actual impoverished conditions themselves as well.

This is all pure speculation of course. Actual studies on the matter would be much more interesting.

for one reason mobility is much easier in larger cities. you are usually able to be around without a car, albeit at the cost of time/convenience, or with a car using less gas than if you're commuting from the suburbs.

also housing, while nicer housing in city centers tends to be very expensive, cheap high density housing is nearly non existent outside of it.

You don't really need the high density part, though. Let's take a small mill town I know as an example. The mill closed in 2000, and left half the town unemployed. Many of the people living there are still without full time jobs. They live in houses; how can they do that?

They either bought a house years earlier or it's because rent for an entire house is about $340 a month. Multiple people live in the house, so that cost is split. They can live there legally and without resorting to squatting.

Crime actually went up slightly in suburban and rural areas during 2000-2010. The suburban homicide rate actually increased by about the same percentage as the urban rate went down.

Again purely speculation but I always believed that crime is highest in areas with the greatest disparity in wealth and freedom. It's as though there is a social pressure to equalise the distribution of resources. You can see this in cities that have both the very poor and the very wealthy. The houses of the wealthy look like fortresses, cameras on high walls, perhaps a guard at the gate etc.