"... Which will create a society of Haves vs Have Nots based on location. ..."

I suggest bearing a little more humbleness as to your predictions about areas' and peoples' economic judgements. If someone could precisely judge the degree of "cost exacerbation" or "enjoyment" of millions of people, that person would be a gajillionaire, not just a commenter. It is simply not for you to judge whether people in rural areas enjoy themselves as much as your urban peers, or should want to spend their money in ways you approve. You're not a dictator either (thank god).

And that's kind of the point. Where nature/reality/market dictates the different availability of certain services, let people who choose to live there absorb those consequences. Don't protect them from the consequences of their choices. They're adults, and will adapt.

"But you would condemn them to sub-standard living"

No. I would simply not support subsidizing them.
"sub-standard living" -- that's begging the question

"why not just get them all to move"

Sorry, I'm not a dictator.

"What about roads? Schools? Sewage? Water?"

You're confusing subsidies and paid municipal services.

Yes. And they should get off open-ended subsidies (transfers from other taxpayers).

... at all.

"Or do you accept that a certain minimal number of children accidentally killing each other and dudes shooting themselves in the dick is the price we pay for freedom that is arbitrarily unregulated."

Yes.

That choice of proxy needs some support, lest they end up accidentally gathering evidence that earning a 5.5 GPA in basketweaving does not correlate with unusual genes.

Messrs. Castro and Castro may be a bit miffed about being called a mere "kid in the playground". Viva la revolucion and all that.

"The new approach is to create a mathematical model ... And interestingly, the predictions closely match what researchers have found in practice"

Unless the mathematical model was built *before* any of those practical empirical test results, it is not at all interesting or surprising that the model happens to match the pre-existing data.

" If guns are restricted, *everyone* has less access to them, including the bad guys."

What you refuse to accept is that "less" access to guns by bad guys is still ample for them to shoot good defenceless people. What you also refuse to accept is that bad guys may be armed by other-than-guns and still threaten the lives of good defenceless people.

"The geneticsts know this. Now you do."

Those geneticists who deny blatantly obvious genetic aspects of races are fooling themselves - and you.

... and one lost class-action lawsuit about employment practices is not enough, how about another one please.

"This doesn't mean they have a gene for preferring Taryton cigarettes."

Straw man. No one said there is exactly a single gene for that. The effect of N genes working in conjunction toward outcomes such as visible racial features, social behaviors, preferences, are entirely consistent with theories such as those in this "decried" book.

Even a few examples like this would be considered falsification in any harder science. But race theory - social-vs-genes - is not so vulnerable that.