You're welcome. I firmly believe in "fixing" things at the local level as much as possible and by working to change the *behavior* of the people most at risk for committing violence. Taking away a tool without addressing the motivations just leads to different tools being used, as the UK has been recently illustrating. I feel like the calls for nationwide gun control are akin to putting a whole body cast on someone with a broken ankle--the measures necessary in a place like Oakland or New Orleans simply aren't needed or applicable elsewhere. 

So really gun violence is kind of a two-pronged issue. You have the "ignored" and bigger side of it perpetrated by (mostly) urban black men killing each other, and then you have the "sensationalized" though actually rarer side of it in mass shootings. I would be very interested for somebody to do a similar data study on the mass shooters and identify all the common factors: bullying, mood altering drugs, whatever it is that's causing them to snap.

It's really thought provoking to read those kind of articles and realize that maybe instead of *doubling down* on the failed approaches (gun free zones, banning certain things), the answer could be trying a whole new approach--especially one that has already been proven to work! The thing though is that those programs require long term commitment and consistency; you almost need modern day missionaries who dedicate their lives to the cause, with people to support them. For people who impatiently demand an instant "feel good" fix, slow and steady isn't acceptable. For people who are just using the numbers to further their agenda, actually fixing the problem isn't acceptable either.