I have trouble using “The black population ratio” since I believe it is a misleading label as is the wealth inequality label, which is why I choose the “culture” label.

The black population ratio can be misinterpreted as a “causal” contributor to violence versus a correlated variable. Poverty or wealth inequality are a bit more predictive at the community level less at the individual level. At a personal level I see no predisposition to violence among my African American grandchildren most of whom are growing up in affluent communities.

The label “black population ratio” suggests that somehow “race” rather than culture is driving the homicide violence. So we should expect similar homicide statistics in an affluent African American community to a poor one? If not, then is “the black population ratio” masking a different causal variable.

Wealth inequality is similarly misleading. It suggests that wealth inequality drives violence. There are plenty of communities like Silicon Valley where wealth inequality is startling and increasing even as gun violence is decreasing. So if wealth inequality were a causal factor, then we would expect violence to increase as wealth inequality increases, but it is going down.

African Americans live disproportionately in “social groups” where high crime rates prevail because they live in “poor communities” that are prone to violent cultures.

Various sociology studies have found culture rather than race or individual income status as the biggest predictor of violence. While violence among the poor is dramatically higher than other economic classes, it is concentrated among the poor living in “poor” cultures. So whites living in Appalachia or African Americans and Hispanics living in isolated urban ghettos share consistent cultural characteristics that are good predictors of violence. A high percentage of single parent household dominate these violent communities; joblessness is high; and education is poor. These are some identifiers that help to predict where “violent” cultures are likely to exist.

As to gang and drug related violence, your chart speaks for itself, they are the first and second leading causing of gun homicides.

But while we might use different labels for different reasons, it is the conclusion I mostly disagree with. I do not think legalizing drugs would dramatically reduce violence in those areas with high levels of violence today. Appalachia whites have been “feuding” for centuries, long before drugs were an issue in this country. Again it is a cultural issue, not a drug issue.

If we legalized drugs, it is true, that inner city gangs would need to find an alternative “income” sources to fund their gangs, but they would. That might even require them to adopt more violent means. The underlying social problems that lead to a culture that accepts violence as a tool to get by will not have gone away, so the battlefield will change but that is about all.

Historically, when looking across successful attempts to change a “violent” culture to a less violent one, there has been several proven strategies. The first is a massive increase in law enforcement for nearly a generation. In effect, a whole generation of children must grow up in a “safe” environment. As such, to insure safety, individuals who commit acts of violence should not be allowed to return to their home communities. This imposition of “safety and security” needs to be matched with an emphasis on education designed to raise this “new” generation with a new set of values which reject violence as a tool and insures children graduate with the tools needed to access college or a trade. Finally, the community leaders must work hand in hand with the various organizations that promote peaceful social interaction… like churches, the Boys and Girls Club of America, after school sports, etc. The culture must “learn” a new way of resolving disputes…

As an aside, I do not dismiss your assertion that we need to find a way to make two parent families the norm, but it will be hard to do that given our current entitlement system which rewards the opposite.

But it all starts with making the community safe… until it is safe, progress is limited… interestingly, if it is made safe, the biggest threat will come from higher income individuals moving into these poor neighborhoods and displacing the poor… but that is a different issue…