It's not clear to me what you would suggest as a solution to quantify shootings (as opposed to homicides). I don't think it's useful or desired to abandon the attempt to do so. Do you think there's no way to provide a framework or set of guidelines to quantify shootings?
I think we need a few numbers, and they won't be easily understood by casual observers. And we will need to take the numbers with a grain of salt and put them in context.
Can you elaborate with specifics you'd like to see? Your initial comment is a top-level comment, which I take to address the submitted article. The article provides quite a few numbers (not surprising, given it's from 538).
Both this comment and your initial one lean towards people being able to dismiss anything that doesn't agree with one's beliefs as not being put in the correct context or with adequate seasoning. ("I suspect the numbers will be politicized and manipulated until they are no longer a good measure.", "we will need to take the numbers with a grain of salt and put them in context."). All stats and data in any field require this. The goal of good writing and analysis is that it presents the data in their proper context, whether it be physics, biology, computer science, or epidemiology.
Edit to add: The reason I'm pushing is that there needs to be some agreement and common understanding if people are to move forward and discuss issues constructively and work out effective solutions. While varying perspectives are important and valid, continuing to rely on this (as it seems to increasingly be) as a reason to disagree with people to the point of standstill is preventing us from finding agreement on what what problems are and how they should be addressed.
Think about economic stats -- there are a ton of numbers (GDP, inflation, unemployment, etc.). They are somewhat useful, but they are also highly politicized which limits their usefulness.
I see the same thing happening here. They shouldn't be dismissed, but not taken at face value, either.
