Gang/Drug related activity and culture are two of the largest predictors of gun violence if you exclude suicide. If you limit your analysis to mass murders then you need to look at terrorism and mental health.

Yet most of the debate centers around gun laws, which are unlikely to influence most of these causes of gun violence in a substantial way. Does that mean good gun laws are bad, no just ineffective. For example, I support outlawing “bump stocks” and magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds. I support a seven week waiting period when purchasing a gun. I support laws which require ammunition and guns be stored safely out of reach of minors. I support background checking. I support “stop and frisk” against those individuals previously convicted of a violent crime. The list can go on… but I also don’t think they will impact gun deaths in a statistically meaningful way and yet here is where the media spends most of its “attention”. Why? Because gun laws make for great political debate.

Things that would impact gun violence dramatically is a massive increase in the presence of law enforcement in “high risk” communities and an expanded set of policing policies that provide law enforcement the tools they need to make it difficult for gangs to operate in “high risk” communities. Why do we not pursue these things… money. It costs a lot more to put more police into high risk communities then debate and pass some minimally effective gun laws.

My bet is if law enforcement officers were assigned based on the number of violent incidences in an area and not based on population or “budget”, you would see a real movement down in gun violence rates and a major redeployment of law enforcement resources over where they are today.

Targeting the causes of gun violence is likely to be more effective, than focusing on the weapon…