You think and talk too much. You could have boiled it down to two simple words:<quoted text>
Now we can try to move the conversation forward a bit. The big issue that I'm seeing with your argument that the drugs are the cause of gun violence, rather than the proliferation of guns or a combination of the two is that you're looking at a single sample in the US where both factors are present. If it is true, as you claim, that the drugs are the real source of the violence, what prevents countries with higher rates of drug use than the US from experiencing rates of violence anywhere approaching that of the US? I chose Portugal as an example as their drug policy is one of the longest running and they have a moderate gun control policy. If you prefer, you could look at any country with a higher or similar drug rate and effective gun control to contrast.
Whilst a Google search is great start, I would love to move into a harder statistical look, rather than anecdotes, if that's possible? I'm happy to explain in a bit more detail how search processes work, but for the moment can assure you that the number of search results don't correlate to effective statistical markers in most casual uses.
Asking yourself big, simple critical thinking questions about your claims should give you all the research questions you need. If you're claiming that gun violence is drug-fuelled, then ask questions like: What is the rate of gun violence in x? What is the rate of drug use in x? Are there statistics on the rate of drug involved gun violence in x? What is it? What are the numbers in y? What is different about y?
To dumb this down a bit, I'm asking: if it's the drugs and not the guns that cause violence, why aren't we seeing this violence in places with more drugs and fewer guns?