>If you're in a social circle where violence is an acceptable means of solving conflicts, then the probability of having violence used against you goes up exponentially, if you don't associate with people that use violence, then you'll basically never see it.

That's true, but that's not the natural human behavior. In particular, children and teens won't follow that unless their are consistently educated on it.

>Population density really only affects resource violence, which is fairly minimal & consistent to begin with.

Population density influences so many things, such that it'd be a really strong claim to say that its impact is limited to resource violence.

To give you a counter-example, exposure-to-violence (e.g. witnessing a violent crime) is a stronger factor than poverty (4.7x stronger) on teenagers becoming first-time violent offenders themselves.

A high density environment amplifies the opportunities of a single violent incident to be exposed to more teens.

So a single violent crime in NYC would have 20x potency on exposing a teen compared to a single violent crime in Oklahoma City. Or another way to look at it: violence can spiral out of control in a higher density environment much faster than in a lower density environment. Not very different than a respiratory virus, right?

>the present study conceptualizes ETV as both the violence that a youth has experienced and the violence that a youth has witnessed.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=325972017144530636&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33