Of course I've always said that there's a whole lot more than the nature of laws that affect crime, including gun crime, I am by no means saying that gun laws are the end all be all of what affects gun violence and gun death. However, its quite clear that lose gun laws don't automatically translate into reduced crime or gun deaths.
So it would be most accurate to say that approaching the problem from the perspective of the law only, whether you support more restrictive or less restrictive gun laws, and looking at nothing else is the idealisitc and non-realistic approach.
I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.
Perhaps more important than laws and violence rates in which states, one might consider who is committing the violent acts as a starting point for a solution.
Frankly both sides of this never-ending debate come across as extremist to me. Banning automatic weapons is one thing, and it might even work, but handguns are quite another. There's what, 200 million of them, with a half life of 100 years? This makes it easy for even those who can't purchase firearms to get them on the black market. It's also possible to make these in a garage. There's no question that guns result in more homicides, but there's no practical or palatable way to get rid of them all. It's way too late for that.
On the other side you have real crazies who think if this toddler or his parents had a gun, the death would have been prevented, and so the logical course is to allow toddlers to bear arms. They have no sense of shame and will show up at a gun nut rally in colorado after every school shooting.
gun control is hitting what you aim at, these shooters need to spend more time on the range