Gun violence remains a significant public health and safety concern in the United States. Chicago and New York City are often referenced in national conversations about public safety. Both are highly populated and diverse cities that have histories of concentrated gun violence, neighborhood-level inequalities, and extensive violence-prevention infrastructure.
In 2025, Chicago experienced a 34.5 percent reduction in shootings compared to the previous year. Chicago had 1,471 shooting incidents in 2025 compared to 2,274 shooting incidents in 2024. However, New York City had 688 shooting incidents in 2025, down from 904 in 2024. This means that there was a 24 percent decrease in shooting incidents in New York City.
While the decrease in gun violence between the two cities is a positive outcome, there is still a major difference in population size and density. Chicago still had more than twice as many shooting incidents when compared to New York City, a city with a population that is 3 times larger. This indicates that Chicago still has greater gun violence rates when adjusted for population.
There are many possible explanations for why Chicago may have a greater number of shooting incidents than New York City. There is not a single reason, but rather a system of factors that contribute to the overall difference in rates. This is best understood not as a simple difference in city size or public safety policy, but as the result of distinct urban conditions. New York City, while also affected by concentrated violence, has achieved lower per-capita shooting rates through a combination of centralized public safety infrastructure, community violence intervention, and sustained reductions across boroughs.
Dr. Chethan Sathya, a pediatric trauma surgeon at Northwell Health, serves as the director of Northwell’s Center for Gun Violence Prevention and oversees the health system’s expansive approach to firearm injury prevention. He has led firearm injury-prevention strategies in New York City that integrate clinical care, research, public health, and community engagement.
“Comparisons between Chicago and New York can be misleading if they treat either city as a single entity,” said Dr. Sathya. “Both cities contain neighborhoods that continue to experience high rates of firearm violence. The difference lies in the extent to which violence has become concentrated and the degree to which communities, health systems, public safety agencies, and local leaders have invested in long-term prevention strategies. The data suggest that sustained, targeted approaches can reduce violence, but no city should mistake progress for completion.”
This is an important distinction that citywide statistics can obscure: neighborhood-level realities. A decline in shootings across an entire city does not necessarily mean that all communities are experiencing safety equally. Some neighborhoods may see substantial improvements, while others continue to face persistent violence. Therefore, evaluating progress requires both citywide data and neighborhood-level analysis.
The central implication is that firearm violence should be addressed as a public health problem requiring sustained, evidence-informed, and locally tailored strategies. The comparison of New York City and Chicago highlights the importance of population-adjusted data, neighborhood-level analysis, coordinated prevention infrastructure, and long-term investment in communities most affected by firearm injury. The data indicate that progress is possible, but the persistence of disparities demonstrates that progress remains incomplete.
Ruhi Saldanha is an undergraduate student.
