I stated once before that states with tighter gun laws tend to have a higher crime rate and although my statement might've not been all that accurate, some of the states with loose gun laws have high crime, you also have to take into account other factors. Tennessee which does have rather loose gun laws had the most violent crime of all the states in 2011 but you have to take into account where most of the crimes occurred. Big cities such as Nashville, Knoxville, and Memphis tend to have a much higher crime rate than places located out in the countryside which have a much lower population. And gun laws do vary within a state, big cities tend to have tighter gun laws than rural places. Also, the place with the highest violent crime rate in 2011 was Washington D.C., a far higher crime rate than Tennessee, and D.C. has the tightest gun laws but since its technically not a state it wasn't on the list. Furthermore, Maine was the state with the lowest crime rate and Maine is one of the most gun free states in the country, in Maine you can openly carry a pistol in a holster in public without a permit.
Anyway, as somebody pointed out, it could be like the "chicken or the egg" in terms of violent crime and gun laws. Another words, as a result of high crime places can enact tighter gun laws to try and bring the crime rate down. Well, even if that is the case, even if having tighter gun laws is the result of high crime that is not the proper way to deal with it. Instead of having more laws, if crime happens to be high what should be done is to enforce the laws we've already got. The answer is in enforcement, not in making more laws. We wouldn't need tighter gun laws if we would just simply enforce the laws we've already got in place. As it is criminals don't follow laws anyway so having more laws will not stop criminals from breaking them, what will stop criminals is enforcement. So, in order to cut down on crime and not make life difficult for law abiding citizens, the solution is to have very few laws but to effectively enforce the laws we've got.
Anyway, as somebody pointed out, it could be like the "chicken or the egg" in terms of violent crime and gun laws. Another words, as a result of high crime places can enact tighter gun laws to try and bring the crime rate down. Well, even if that is the case, even if having tighter gun laws is the result of high crime that is not the proper way to deal with it. Instead of having more laws, if crime happens to be high what should be done is to enforce the laws we've already got. The answer is in enforcement, not in making more laws. We wouldn't need tighter gun laws if we would just simply enforce the laws we've already got in place. As it is criminals don't follow laws anyway so having more laws will not stop criminals from breaking them, what will stop criminals is enforcement. So, in order to cut down on crime and not make life difficult for law abiding citizens, the solution is to have very few laws but to effectively enforce the laws we've got.