Shooting-Free Days Decline in US Cities: New Metric for Gun Violence Reduction

The conversation around gun violence prevention is shifting, moving beyond simply counting tragedies to measuring periods of peace. A new study published in JAMA Health Forum introduces “shooting-free days” (SFD) and related metrics as a way to assess progress and identify effective interventions in U.S. Cities. Researchers at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and the Columbia Scientific Union for the Reduction of Gun Violence (Columbia SURGE) found that between 2015 and 2024, the number of days without firearm shootings declined in all but one of the ten largest U.S. Cities, highlighting the urgent need for strategies that build and sustain lasting periods of calm.

Reframing the Conversation: From Absence of Violence to Presence of Safety

Traditionally, gun violence statistics have focused on homicides and shooting incidents. While these remain critical measures, they don’t fully capture the nuances of progress. The new metrics – shooting-free days (SFDs), shooting death–free days (SDFDs), consecutive shooting–free days (CSFDs), and multiple shooting–free days (MSFDs) – offer a more expansive view. As explained by study first author Charles Branas, Ph.D., Gelman Professor and chair of Epidemiology at Columbia SURGE, these metrics are akin to “injury-free days” used in workplace safety, recognizing and valuing stretches of time without incidents. This reframing aims to shift the focus from simply reacting to violence to proactively building safety.

The study is the first to calculate these metrics across major U.S. Cities, analyzing data from the Gun Violence Archive (GVA) – a publicly available database tracking firearm-related incidents – from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2024. The GVA compiles data from a wide range of sources, including police reports, media outlets, and government records, ensuring a comprehensive dataset for analysis. The full study is available in JAMA Health Forum.

City-Level Variations and Trends

The analysis revealed significant variations among cities. San Diego consistently had the highest numbers of days across all four metrics, indicating a relatively high level of sustained safety. Chicago, conversely, consistently had the lowest scores, pointing to ongoing challenges. Other cities ranked as follows: Phoenix (2), Jacksonville (3), San Antonio (4), Dallas-Fort Worth (5), Houston (6), New York City (7), Los Angeles (8), and Philadelphia (9).

the study identified a concerning downward trend in all metrics, indicating a growth in firearm violence over the decade. This trend notably corresponded with the surge in firearm violence experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Jacksonville was the only city to demonstrate significant improvement in at least one metric over time. Phoenix and Dallas–Fort Worth, showed significant declines across all four shooting-free metrics, suggesting a weakening of preventative efforts in those areas.

These findings remained consistent even when adjusted for population size, reinforcing the observed disparities in firearm violence prevention across different urban centers. San Diego continued to lead in average annual SFD rates, while Chicago consistently lagged behind.

What the Data Suggests: Identifying Protective Factors

The relative success of cities like San Diego and Jacksonville suggests that certain protective conditions may contribute to sustained periods of peace. Researchers believe identifying these factors could inform similar successes in cities struggling with higher rates of firearm violence. The study doesn’t pinpoint specific policies or interventions responsible for these differences, but it highlights the potential for learning from cities that have demonstrated positive outcomes.

Branas emphasizes that these metrics aren’t about dwelling on failures, but rather about recognizing and building upon successes. “Instead of focusing on failures, these metrics highlight periods of success and could serve as the basis for creating meaningful goals to extend and sustain those successes,” he says. “They can also offer near real-time evidence of intervention effectiveness at the neighborhood or city level.”

Beyond Shooting-Free Days: Acknowledging Limitations

While these new metrics offer a valuable addition to the toolkit for understanding and addressing gun violence, the researchers acknowledge their limitations. SFD and related metrics do not capture non-shooting forms of firearm-related harm, such as suicides or accidental shootings. They also don’t fully account for the broader community trauma and long-term economic consequences associated with firearm violence.

Further research is needed to explore the relationship between these metrics and factors like poverty, sociodemographic indicators, and other potential influences. Longitudinal statistical analyses could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the complex dynamics driving firearm violence in U.S. Cities.

The Path Forward: Surveillance, Intervention, and Policy

The introduction of shooting-free days and related metrics represents a shift in how we measure and approach gun violence prevention. This isn’t about declaring victory, but about establishing a more nuanced and hopeful framework for tracking progress. The Columbia SURGE team is continuing to refine these metrics and explore their potential applications. More information about their work can be found on the Columbia SURGE website.

Public health officials can use these metrics to monitor the impact of interventions, identify areas where resources are most needed, and evaluate the effectiveness of policies aimed at reducing firearm violence. The goal is to move beyond simply responding to crises and towards proactively building safer communities. The 2026 National Research Conference for the Prevention of Firearm Related Harms, to be held in Baltimore, MD, will further highlight the current state of research in this field. Details about the conference are available from Columbia SURGE.

As with any public health issue, ongoing surveillance and data analysis are crucial. Continued monitoring of these metrics, combined with rigorous research and evidence-based interventions, will be essential to making meaningful progress in reducing firearm violence and creating a future where more communities experience sustained periods of peace.