“War is the last refuge of the incompetent,” is a quote attributed to the late science fiction writer Isaac Asimov (not a word salad of Kamala Harris’ trying to unburden herself of something in history or the bathroom or whatever) and means incompetent people will always resort to violence as the failure of diplomacy. When it comes to violence in our communities, it could also be said, “gun laws are the last refuge of the incompetent.” Technically, it is more often the first refuge, showing a true one-trick pony level of incompetence. But first or last, you can virtually always count on progressive candidates to scream for more restrictive gun laws that only serve to “burden” legal gun owners, while leaving  criminals largely “unburdened.” After all, if laws served as a deterrent that kept them from committing violent acts, then laws against murder, robbery, assault & battery, drug dealing, etc., would be more than sufficient to keep our cities and neighborhoods safe.

“We need more gun laws,” is a common refrain every time the subject of crime comes up. So, it was kind of surprising when the Center for American Progress (CAP), a liberal-leaning think tank that bills itself as an “independent, nonpartisan policy institute,” published an article titled “6 Ways Cities and Counties Can Reduce Gun Violence.” 

Most readers of TTAG would expect an article from such a source and with such a title would include at least half of those “ways,” if not all of them, to include some recommendations for passing more gun laws. Amazingly, not a single one did.

While citing the surgeon general’s advisory declaring “firearm violence an urgent public health crisis,” (that’s a whole other story), CAP provided some background on the “cost of gun violence” and then offered insight into ways “local leaders across the country are circumventing legislative limitations by leveraging unprecedented federal investments to reduce gun violence…by embracing a wide range of community-led public safety solutions and combining improved accountability with greater investment into prevention…”

CAP outlined six key strategies for cities to reduce gun violence, emphasizing a public health and community-driven approach. Here are the six ways cities can reduce gun violence, as highlighted in the report:

1. Community-based violence interruption: Utilize community-led programs to mediate conflicts and prevent violence, employing credible messengers who engage those most at risk.

2. Improved accountability for serious crime: Focus law enforcement efforts on solving violent crimes and improving clearance rates while reducing ineffective and unethical enforcement practices.

3. Increased support for crime survivors: Expand access to trauma recovery centers and support services to help crime survivors heal physically and emotionally, breaking the cycle of violence.

4. Investments in neglected neighborhoods: Address environmental factors like vacant properties, poor lighting, and blight, and improve housing and public spaces to foster stability and safety.

5. Enhanced data collection and sharing: Improve crime data collection and reporting to target violence hotspots, connect victims with resources, and tailor public health interventions.

6. Building better local infrastructure: Establish Offices of Violence Prevention to coordinate community-based safety efforts, streamline data sharing, and support non-law enforcement initiatives.

While we can argue the cost vs. benefits of state and federal dollars being put toward certain social programs, at least none of these suggestions blatantly trample constitutional rights. In the end, gun owners need to get behind something that doesn’t trample their rights if they don’t want politicians endlessly coming for their guns. It’s one thing to condemn a suggestion someone makes that we don’t agree with in attempting to solve a problem. It’s an entirely other situation to not offer solutions ourselves.

But for an article on this topic to use the words “gun violence” and “firearms violence” throughout and not suggest gun legislation as its first recommended solution has to be some sort of milestone. At the very least it’s noteworthy.