Causation - no, correlation - very likely. Policies and politicians that cause strict gun laws also cause higher crime, and conversely, politicians, when faced with higher crime, would reflectively reach for the only leverage they have - stricter laws. Which would usually be futile (at least without many other measures, which aren't used that frequently). Thus, in practice, strict gun laws and crime - at least in the US - often go together. There are exceptions of course - very safe places could introduce strict gun laws out of virtue signaling, moral panic or other considerations. But the common case is as per above.
I always enjoy watching Americans accuse other Americans of living in places "with strict gun laws", as if nearly all of the US isn't a moderate drive away from a place with lax gun laws.
It's also fairly absurd to refer to places with few gun laws as "much safer". The only way of making that trick work is to compare big cities in areas with stronger gun control with rural areas and small towns elsewhere. The worst US cities for murder rates show no real pattern of being in anti-gun jurisdictions (or the opposite).
St Louis has the highest homicide rate in the US. You figure Missouri is anti-gun? New Orleans, Kansas City, Memphis and Las Vegas also make the top by murder rates.
I should note, in the interest of fairness, that about half of the top 10 cities in the USA by homicide rate are in states that could be described as "gun control states". Thus "no pattern". Although, I will reiterate the idea that any city in the continental USA is really not that long a drive away from a state with lax gun laws.
You think the people living in much safer places have a viewpoint that’s “silly to the point of absurdity”.
Yet, they’re the ones living somewhere with much lower crime and murder rates.
How is this an argument for the efficacy of your preferred policies?