Note that those stats are rates per 100,000. That is very misleading.
It's a tool of statistics, to choose a "factor" value that will tend to mitigate against the problems of comparing very large numbers versus very small numbers.
If in a sample of 10,000, 200 things occur in one measurement period, then 300 in the next period, the increase is 50%, even though the "occurrence rate" only changed from 2% to 3%, a one percent increase. Given that 'events' are seldom fractional (it's very difficult to have 1/37th of a car crash, for instance). A method is needed to balance rare events in small samples versus not-rare events in larger samples. It's a mathematical fiction of sorts, but, it's the only way to process integer values (remember, fractional events are not really a thing) without "divide by zero" errors making a mess of the math.
It was not so very long ago, the human population statistical rate was "per 10,000" until recently, when the "per 100,000" has become more common.
The other side of this coin is that the stats are being used to argue from the specific to the general. Which is not a logical ideal. For example, if a city of a million has 167 murders, can that actually predict anything about a city of only a thousand, or even 10,000? Further, there's no good way to determine if population
density, rather than simple quantity, matters.
It's a mess, and it's all too easy to grind the axe the way you want.
"No detectable correlation between homicide rates and state firearms law"
That is a damning assessment of gun control legislation.
Remove the word "state" and it's still true; replace "homicide" with "crime" for the same result.
The ignored elephant in the room being that, criminals, on the whole are disinclined to obey laws, or to feel restricted by same, nor deterred by the notion of punishment.