TL;DR : Mass shootings cause only a tiny fraction of all homicides. Most gun-related homicides are caused by black men shooting other black men. Programs like Ceasefire dramatically reduce gun violence among this population. Ceasefire does not require gun prohibition to be effective. As a result, Ceasefire-like programs do not face vigorous opposition from self-defense advocates, and can get bi-partisan support. Therefore, if you want to reduce gun violence, I recommend supporting programs like Ceasefire.
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-gun-control-debate-ignores-black-lives
-----
A friend writes:
"Okay, I’m open to reading and sharing a better, more accurate and impactful, article. But my struggle is that I personally don’t know what to do about [mass shootings] and how to affect change. I don’t have all (any!?) of the answers, yet something needs to be done. This current status quo is not ok."
My answer:
One thing to keep in mind is that mass shootings are extremely rare. Depending on you count them, mass shootings hover around 80-100 deaths year. (1) That's out of 33,636 total firearm deaths.
Most gun deaths are suicides (21,175 ), and most of those are old men (over the age of 50). (2)
There were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US. (2) Most of those (6000) are young black men. (3)
Unfortunately, suicidal old white men and homicidal black men are hard causes for liberals to rally around. Old, white men are not their constituency—in fact, liberals frequently position themselves in opposition to old, white men.
As a rule, liberals also tend to feel very uncomfortable about the fact most gun homicides are committed by, and upon, black men. And black men are not a constituency that conservatives care much about either. Which is unfortunate, since there is a program—Ceasefire--that appears to be effective at reducing violence among black men.
Ceasefire does not advocate for gun control. Instead, it focuses on the cultural factors that lead to gun violence:
"But it’s not drug deals or turf wars that drives most of the shootings. Instead, the violence often starts with what seems to outsiders like trivial stuff — “a fight over a girlfriend, a couple of words, a dispute over a dice game,” said Vaughn Crandall, a senior strategist at the California Partnership for Safe Communities, which did the homicide analysis for Oakland.
Somebody gets shot. These are men who do not trust the police to keep them safe, so “they take matters into their own hands,” he said. It’s long-running feuds, Crandall said, that drive most murders in Oakland.
Men involved in these conflicts may want a safer life, but it’s hard for them to put their guns down. “The challenge is that there is no graceful way to bow out of the game,” said Reygan Harmon, the director of Oakland Police Department’s violence reduction program.
These insights led a group of Boston police, black ministers and academics to try a new approach in 1996. Since group dynamics were driving the violence, they decided to hold the groups accountable. The plan was simple: Identify the small groups of young men most likely to shoot or be shot. Call them in to meet face-to-face with police brass, former gang members, clergy and social workers. Explain to the invitees that they were at high risk of dying. Promise an immediate crackdown on every member of the next group that put a body on the ground — and immediate assistance for everyone who wanted help turning their lives around. Then follow up on those promises.
The results of Operation Ceasefire were dramatic. Soon after Boston held its first meeting — known as a call-in — on May 15, 1996, homicides of young men plummeted along with reports of shots fired.
…
With the support of the Justice Department under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, many cities tried the strategy and some got dramatic results. Stockton saw a 42 percent reduction in monthly gun homicides over several years. Indianapolis experienced a 34 percent drop in monthly homicides. Lowell, Massachusetts, saw gun assaults fall by 44 percent.
A 2012 review of the existing research evidence found that seven of eight cities that had rigorously implemented Ceasefire and similar strategies had seen reductions in violence.”
So, if you want to reduce firearm homicides, I would recommend advocating for the Ceasefire program. Since it does not require gun control, you won't face vigorous opposition from self defense advocates. You could even get bi-partisan support.
1. https://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violence-facts/mass-shootings-rare-united-states
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
3. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-gun-control-debate-ignores-black-lives
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-gun-control-debate-ignores-black-lives
-----
A friend writes:
"Okay, I’m open to reading and sharing a better, more accurate and impactful, article. But my struggle is that I personally don’t know what to do about [mass shootings] and how to affect change. I don’t have all (any!?) of the answers, yet something needs to be done. This current status quo is not ok."
My answer:
One thing to keep in mind is that mass shootings are extremely rare. Depending on you count them, mass shootings hover around 80-100 deaths year. (1) That's out of 33,636 total firearm deaths.
Most gun deaths are suicides (21,175 ), and most of those are old men (over the age of 50). (2)
There were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US. (2) Most of those (6000) are young black men. (3)
Unfortunately, suicidal old white men and homicidal black men are hard causes for liberals to rally around. Old, white men are not their constituency—in fact, liberals frequently position themselves in opposition to old, white men.
As a rule, liberals also tend to feel very uncomfortable about the fact most gun homicides are committed by, and upon, black men. And black men are not a constituency that conservatives care much about either. Which is unfortunate, since there is a program—Ceasefire--that appears to be effective at reducing violence among black men.
Ceasefire does not advocate for gun control. Instead, it focuses on the cultural factors that lead to gun violence:
"But it’s not drug deals or turf wars that drives most of the shootings. Instead, the violence often starts with what seems to outsiders like trivial stuff — “a fight over a girlfriend, a couple of words, a dispute over a dice game,” said Vaughn Crandall, a senior strategist at the California Partnership for Safe Communities, which did the homicide analysis for Oakland.
Somebody gets shot. These are men who do not trust the police to keep them safe, so “they take matters into their own hands,” he said. It’s long-running feuds, Crandall said, that drive most murders in Oakland.
Men involved in these conflicts may want a safer life, but it’s hard for them to put their guns down. “The challenge is that there is no graceful way to bow out of the game,” said Reygan Harmon, the director of Oakland Police Department’s violence reduction program.
These insights led a group of Boston police, black ministers and academics to try a new approach in 1996. Since group dynamics were driving the violence, they decided to hold the groups accountable. The plan was simple: Identify the small groups of young men most likely to shoot or be shot. Call them in to meet face-to-face with police brass, former gang members, clergy and social workers. Explain to the invitees that they were at high risk of dying. Promise an immediate crackdown on every member of the next group that put a body on the ground — and immediate assistance for everyone who wanted help turning their lives around. Then follow up on those promises.
The results of Operation Ceasefire were dramatic. Soon after Boston held its first meeting — known as a call-in — on May 15, 1996, homicides of young men plummeted along with reports of shots fired.
…
With the support of the Justice Department under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, many cities tried the strategy and some got dramatic results. Stockton saw a 42 percent reduction in monthly gun homicides over several years. Indianapolis experienced a 34 percent drop in monthly homicides. Lowell, Massachusetts, saw gun assaults fall by 44 percent.
A 2012 review of the existing research evidence found that seven of eight cities that had rigorously implemented Ceasefire and similar strategies had seen reductions in violence.”
So, if you want to reduce firearm homicides, I would recommend advocating for the Ceasefire program. Since it does not require gun control, you won't face vigorous opposition from self defense advocates. You could even get bi-partisan support.
1. https://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violence-facts/mass-shootings-rare-united-states
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
3. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-gun-control-debate-ignores-black-lives