This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/reducing-gun-violence.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Why Do We Ignore Initiatives That Reduce Gun Violence? Why Do We Ignore Initiatives That Reduce Gun Violence?
(about 11 hours later)
In the wake of this week’s devastation in Las Vegas, it is important to remember that this kind of headline-grabbing mass shooting constitutes only a tiny fraction of the gun murders in our country. There were over 8,000 gunshot homicides in 2014, according to the F.B.I.’s most recent calculations, and gun violence is the first and second leading cause of death for African-American and Latino males between ages 15 and 34.In the wake of this week’s devastation in Las Vegas, it is important to remember that this kind of headline-grabbing mass shooting constitutes only a tiny fraction of the gun murders in our country. There were over 8,000 gunshot homicides in 2014, according to the F.B.I.’s most recent calculations, and gun violence is the first and second leading cause of death for African-American and Latino males between ages 15 and 34.
Many have thrown up their hands in despair over these numbers, but the good news is that proven strategies to protect people from being murdered by firearms do exist. The bad news: They’re tragically underutilized, for reasons that we suspect have to do with a dismissive national attitude toward the areas where most acts of violence are committed.Many have thrown up their hands in despair over these numbers, but the good news is that proven strategies to protect people from being murdered by firearms do exist. The bad news: They’re tragically underutilized, for reasons that we suspect have to do with a dismissive national attitude toward the areas where most acts of violence are committed.
A highly effective gun-violence-reduction strategy was developed in Boston by the United States Department of Justice in the 1990s. According to the National Institute of Justice, it resulted in a 63 percent reduction in the average monthly number of youth homicide victims in that city, an accomplishment that was called “the Boston Miracle.” In the 1990s, a highly effective gun violence reduction strategy was developed in Boston by a group including law enforcement officers, researchers, and black clergy members. According to the National Institute of Justice, it resulted in a 63 percent reduction in the average monthly number of youth homicide victims in that city, an accomplishment that was called “the Boston Miracle.”
Since then, variations of that strategy, which the Justice Department called “Operation Ceasefire,” have been implemented in cities across the country. For example, according to a study by the Campbell Collaboration, a nonprofit organization that evaluates the effects of this type of intervention, Stockton, Calif., saw a 42 percent reduction in its monthly count of gun homicides in the first year of the strategy’s implementation; similarly, Oakland, Calif., saw just under a 30 percent reduction. (In 2017, the city is on track to have its second-lowest homicide rate in over 30 years.) Since then, variations of that strategy have been implemented in cities across the country. For example, according to a study by the Campbell Collaboration, a nonprofit organization that evaluates the effects of this type of intervention, Stockton, Calif., saw a 42 percent reduction in its monthly count of gun homicides in the first year of the strategy’s implementation; similarly, Oakland, Calif., saw just under a 30 percent reduction. (In 2017, the city is on track to have its second-lowest homicide rate in over 30 years.)
While movies, television and news outlets often give the impression that entire cities and neighborhoods are filled with thugs, criminals and killers, the reality is that those responsible for a majority of shootings represent a tiny percentage of the residents of any given city. In response to this fact, effective gun violence reduction strategies adopt a highly targeted, data-based approach in which the small number of individuals most at risk for shooting (and being shot) are provided with individualized programs of support and pressure to lay down their guns. To this end, law enforcement officials, clergy members, community leaders, social service providers and mentors who have themselves escaped violent lifestyles work in partnership with one another to help these individuals turn their lives around.While movies, television and news outlets often give the impression that entire cities and neighborhoods are filled with thugs, criminals and killers, the reality is that those responsible for a majority of shootings represent a tiny percentage of the residents of any given city. In response to this fact, effective gun violence reduction strategies adopt a highly targeted, data-based approach in which the small number of individuals most at risk for shooting (and being shot) are provided with individualized programs of support and pressure to lay down their guns. To this end, law enforcement officials, clergy members, community leaders, social service providers and mentors who have themselves escaped violent lifestyles work in partnership with one another to help these individuals turn their lives around.
Part of the beauty of this approach is that unlike tactics such as “stop and frisk” policing, these strategies do not eat away at already fractured relationships between law enforcement and communities of color. Instead, they harness the leadership and experience of the people who live in and understand these communities. Unlike the national gun violence prevention policy efforts, which tend to be led by progressive white groups and individuals, they ensure that those who are directly affected — mostly people of color — decide how peacemaking and anti-violence initiatives are carried out.Part of the beauty of this approach is that unlike tactics such as “stop and frisk” policing, these strategies do not eat away at already fractured relationships between law enforcement and communities of color. Instead, they harness the leadership and experience of the people who live in and understand these communities. Unlike the national gun violence prevention policy efforts, which tend to be led by progressive white groups and individuals, they ensure that those who are directly affected — mostly people of color — decide how peacemaking and anti-violence initiatives are carried out.
Given the positive results, many astutely ask why these approaches have not been implemented more widely. The central answer is that the high death tolls in urban communities of color have proved to be socially and politically acceptable to mainstream America. For some reason, while mass shootings like the one we saw in Las Vegas are widely seen as symptomatic of a “national” problem, the continuing scourge of killings in our cities isn’t. The result is that neither Democratic nor Republican Justice Departments have funded these types of violence reduction strategies on a large scale.Given the positive results, many astutely ask why these approaches have not been implemented more widely. The central answer is that the high death tolls in urban communities of color have proved to be socially and politically acceptable to mainstream America. For some reason, while mass shootings like the one we saw in Las Vegas are widely seen as symptomatic of a “national” problem, the continuing scourge of killings in our cities isn’t. The result is that neither Democratic nor Republican Justice Departments have funded these types of violence reduction strategies on a large scale.
Absent a targeted investment strategy from the federal government, some local communities have taken on the challenge for themselves. In most cases, this has been made possible through relatively small reallocations of city or county funds. Police departments in urban areas often account for large percentages of city budgets but end up spending more time and resources trying to solve murders rather than working to prevent them. The RAND Corporation estimates that a single murder costs the community over $8 million in court, police, hospital, incarceration and other expenditures. Even the most fiscally conservative among us can agree that a $1 million to $2 million investment at the city or county level would more than pay for itself with even minimal homicide decreases.Absent a targeted investment strategy from the federal government, some local communities have taken on the challenge for themselves. In most cases, this has been made possible through relatively small reallocations of city or county funds. Police departments in urban areas often account for large percentages of city budgets but end up spending more time and resources trying to solve murders rather than working to prevent them. The RAND Corporation estimates that a single murder costs the community over $8 million in court, police, hospital, incarceration and other expenditures. Even the most fiscally conservative among us can agree that a $1 million to $2 million investment at the city or county level would more than pay for itself with even minimal homicide decreases.
But even in cases in which cities have re-prioritized their funding and seen significant decreases in homicides, the strategy has been vulnerable to changing political winds. A new police chief, a new mayor or even the infighting of community-based organizations can disrupt the fragile political equilibrium that supports the work. So, what we have found is that focused and relentless community organizing is vital to helping ensure that the most vulnerable communities are able to demand the most effective strategies for keeping their neighborhoods safe — regardless of who is in office. To that end, we work with the clergy, youth, parents of murdered sons and daughters, police departments and government officials in cities and counties around the country to ensure that effective, lifesaving strategies are in place.But even in cases in which cities have re-prioritized their funding and seen significant decreases in homicides, the strategy has been vulnerable to changing political winds. A new police chief, a new mayor or even the infighting of community-based organizations can disrupt the fragile political equilibrium that supports the work. So, what we have found is that focused and relentless community organizing is vital to helping ensure that the most vulnerable communities are able to demand the most effective strategies for keeping their neighborhoods safe — regardless of who is in office. To that end, we work with the clergy, youth, parents of murdered sons and daughters, police departments and government officials in cities and counties around the country to ensure that effective, lifesaving strategies are in place.
It would be one thing if the solution to gun violence in our country were as elusive as the cure for cancer. But that’s not the case. The effective solutions exist and are simply not being funded or supported. While the left and the right continue to argue about gun control and gun rights, it would be refreshing to see some bipartisan support at the federal, state and local levels for programs that can get results right now, because in cities across our country, gun murders every bit as tragic as the ones that took place in Las Vegas are happening every day.It would be one thing if the solution to gun violence in our country were as elusive as the cure for cancer. But that’s not the case. The effective solutions exist and are simply not being funded or supported. While the left and the right continue to argue about gun control and gun rights, it would be refreshing to see some bipartisan support at the federal, state and local levels for programs that can get results right now, because in cities across our country, gun murders every bit as tragic as the ones that took place in Las Vegas are happening every day.