If not more.
David Yamane posted this absolute fascinating study on where people are actually killed or injured with guns. Turns out it’s not all that random. He posted the details of a location-based study on violence in the inner city, concentrating on the types of buildings or locations where people were actually shot.
Results. Abandoned building remediation significantly reduced firearm violence −39% (95% confidence interval [CI] = −28%, −50%; P < .05) as did vacant lot remediation (−4.6%; 95% CI = −4.2%, −5.0%; P < .001). Neither program significantly affected nonfirearm violence. Respectively, taxpayer and societal returns on investment for the prevention of firearm violence were $5 and $79 for every dollar spent on abandoned building remediation and $26 and $333 for every dollar spent on vacant lot remediation.
Conclusions. Abandoned buildings and vacant lots are blighted structures seen daily by urban residents that may create physical opportunities for violence by sheltering illegal activity and illegal firearms. Urban blight remediation programs can be cost-beneficial strategies that significantly and sustainably reduce firearm violence.
Which makes a lot of sense when you think about it.
I really like this approach for three reasons:
- Unlike gun control, it doesn’t criminalize lawful citizens in an attempt to round up lawbreakers
- It’s color-blind. There is no talk about “hood rats” or “gang bangers.” Rather, it focuses on blighted buildings, which can be found in downtown Detroit and the backwoods of Tennessee.
- It sets up a positive feedback loop. Better neighborhoods mean few crimes, which means a better life for the people in the neighborhood, which means they take more pride in the neighborhood, which means fewer criminals, which means… you get the idea.
Finally, it’s so nice to see someone willing to break out of the “GUNS KILL!” / “MY RIGHTS!” logjam that we currently find ourselves in right now when it comes to violence and guns in America.