https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/111201...reviews-deaths
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/f...cy-evaluation/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...l-saves-lives/
You're right up there with people who read a "report" by Big Tobacco and think smoking's totes healthy for you.
You're only unaware of the evidence supporting gun control because you willfully and deliberately close your own eyes and stick with propaganda by the likes of the NRA.
There is. Breccia linked it.Like I said if gun control worked, Then there would be a difference between states with "high" gun control and "low" gun control.
Let's read what it actually says, then;That's not the case. California has similar gun homicide per capita as Texas. Colorado similar to New Jersey. The GVA includes all cases of firearm related death, not only homicide. So here's my data. And those numbers are from the CDC.
Linking that early because they made up this score and I want it to be clear what the numbers mean in the next quote;its gun-friendliness score, where 1 is the least gun-friendly and 5 is the most gun-friendly. This score is based on individual state laws regarding things like background checks, permit requirements, and open carry rules.
In short; your own source correlates lower levels of gun control (and thus, higher gun-friendlyness) with higher firearms homicide rates.The vast majority of states with the most gun homicides are states that score a 3 or higher for gun-friendliness, indicating that there may be a correlation. While Maryland, the state at the fifth position, received a gun-friendliness score of 1, their gun homicide rate is high because Baltimore is a city known for its problems with gun violence, including a high number of firearms charges. In 2019, Baltimore recorded 348 homicides, the second-highest number in the city’s history.
While some states with low firearm homicide rates have high gun-friendliness scores, this is likely to be because they are sparsely populated states with few to no major cities. Historically, violent crime tends to be lower in rural areas than in more populated metropolitan areas.
You didn't even bother to read your source, did you?
So far, your "evidence" boils down to "a map that just shows population distribution" and "a source that directly and overtly contradicts your claims". Not looking good for you, champ.