It seems like you are talking to me but you are asking me to "show that violent guncrimes happen more in areas with harsher gun control laws" which is not only, not something i claimed but a point in opposition to my opinion?
"Criminals dont follow laws" Ok that's addressable. You are right, in a sense, of course because by definition a criminal is someone who has violated at lest one law. This is the classic "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will own guns" rhetoric. I admit it is a powerful sounding statement with a ring of "simple man" logic. You dont have to think much about the implications of extending this line of reasoning before you see that it falls apart.
You see the implications are that laws are 100% ineffective as long as any number of people violate them. Basically laws do not deter crime and all laws are pointless other than to punish those who violate them.
In another way it is true, in countries with better gun control laws, mostly criminals (violent habitual criminals, not those that are criminals only via owning the weapon) have non-hunting type guns. Also MANY fewer innocent people are killed by those guns.
States that have (non really encourage because the cops want to be the only ones with the guns) open or concealed carry have lower gun crime rates.
I would believe this to be true on first thought as well but only because those states have lower population densities and are more rural. Thing is that if you compare Brady score for gun laws for each state to the per capita number of gun crimes or gun murders, this is not the case. I didn't run a statistical test to verify it but just looking at the data you can see it. I dont necessarily think brady laws are the right way to handle the situation either.
"Criminals dont follow laws" Ok that's addressable. You are right, in a sense, of course because by definition a criminal is someone who has violated at lest one law. This is the classic "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will own guns" rhetoric. I admit it is a powerful sounding statement with a ring of "simple man" logic. You dont have to think much about the implications of extending this line of reasoning before you see that it falls apart.
You see the implications are that laws are 100% ineffective as long as any number of people violate them. Basically laws do not deter crime and all laws are pointless other than to punish those who violate them.
In another way it is true, in countries with better gun control laws, mostly criminals (violent habitual criminals, not those that are criminals only via owning the weapon) have non-hunting type guns. Also MANY fewer innocent people are killed by those guns.
States that have (non really encourage because the cops want to be the only ones with the guns) open or concealed carry have lower gun crime rates.
I would believe this to be true on first thought as well but only because those states have lower population densities and are more rural. Thing is that if you compare Brady score for gun laws for each state to the per capita number of gun crimes or gun murders, this is not the case. I didn't run a statistical test to verify it but just looking at the data you can see it. I dont necessarily think brady laws are the right way to handle the situation either.