Few things:

1) The "source it cites" is here, if one of our scholars wishes to free it from its chains (bfv?). From the abstract:

We experimentally investigated the effects of gender identity threat on men’s and women’s perceptions of date rape and sexual coercion. Results showed that men whose masculinity was threatened responded by blaming the victim and exonerating the perpetrator more, while threatened women respond by blaming male perpetrators more and placing less blame on female victims. Men’s response to threats was more pronounced than women’s, an asymmetry we attribute to the cultural devaluation of femininity.

So the research didn't focus on male results, but the male results were "more pronounced."

2) The argument of the article is that "violence" is not a traditional gender role of women.

This research provides important evidence of what men perceive as masculine in the first place (resources they rely on in a crisis) and a new kind evidence regarding the relationship of masculinity and violence. The research does not suggest that men are somehow inherently more violent than women. Rather, it suggests that men are likely to turn to violence when they perceive themselves to be otherwise unable to stake a claim to a masculine gender identity.

3) Demographically speaking, 80% of the US population lives in major metropolitan areas. Not necessarily "cities" but "within the cultural influence of cities." So any shooting you see is going to be "on the outskirts of" not "in the middle of nowhere." Fully 50% of America lives in cities while a tiny percent lives in rural areas. The law of averages is going to lean towards urban shootings over rural ones.