Is this a better way to look at "The Gun Problem"?

From fivethirtyeight.com

Murder Rates Don’t Tell Us Everything About Gun Violence

In the middle of a Tuesday afternoon last December, a shootout erupted at a busy intersection in the Mid-City neighborhood of New Orleans. Nearly 50 rounds were fired, riddling several cars with bullets, yet only one person was hit; the man sustained a leg injury that was not life-threatening.

A year and a half before, in September 2013, an all too similar gunfight took place around midnight in the city’s Carrollton neighborhood. This time, a bullet pierced a nearby home, striking and killing an 11-year-old girl.

These two unrelated cases in one of the country’s worst cities for gun violence can help us understand why murder statistics alone are a bad metric for measuring gun violence trends. Both featured groups of gunmen firing wildly in the vicinity of innocent bystanders, but only one ended in a tragedy receiving extended public attention. So even though 90 percent of New Orleans murders are committed with a gun, looking at total shooting incidents tells us more — by focusing attention on all the gun violence in a city, in addition to those shootings that end in a fatality.1 The open data movement is making it possible to evaluate thousands of shooting incidents and develop analytic insights into gun violence’s big picture. These conclusions in turn can help us evaluate the effectiveness of programs seeking to reduce gun violence.

Any shooting can become a tragedy for the victims and their families, but my analysis of thousands of incidents in two cities over several years suggests that whether an individual shooting ends in a fatality is largely random. There can be a number of factors — the distance between shooter and victim, the number of bullets fired, the shooter’s age and experience with a firearm, the amount of daylight/moonlight, etc. — that influence whether a shooting incident is fatal or not. This randomness can be the difference between a rain of bullets hitting one person in the leg or killing a young girl in her bed.

EDITORIAL COMMENT:- Although it seems obvious to anyone in the military, the civilians don't seem to get the connections between "number of rounds down range", "weapons user's proficiency", and "casualties. You could cut the number of incidents in half while doubling the shooters' accuracy and the number of casualties would remain constant. In fact, if you could raise the shooters' accuracy to 100% you would cut the number of incidents down by at least 90% (maybe even as high as 99%). The "murder rate" would remain constant but the streets would be one hell of a lot safer. So maybe the "solution" is mandatory marksmanship training for drug dealers.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/murder-rates-dont-tell-us-everything-about-gun-violence/