This is the kind of study that just drives anti-gun nuts over the edge. They point to whoever did the study and say "Yeah, but, yeah, but ... ah, the brother of the guy who commissioned the study once worked for the son of the head of a company that makes little rubber doohiggies used in the manufacture of .22-caliber ammunition holders!"
They refuse to understand that, of course, if law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry a concealed weapon, assault-type crimes against random victims will go down.
You don't need a study to understand that. All you need is common sense.
Why? Because most street-level criminals are punks who only have the courage to accost people they know they can overpower.
It's just human nature. Most humans want to survive. Most want to go through life without any serious physical problem, such as having their leg blown off with a .44 Magnum handgun. Most criminal humans prey on people who can't protect themselves. They are opportunists.
But more than that, they are true capitalists. The average street criminal - I stress average, since there always are psychopaths who never consider the odds - will conduct a little cost/benefit analysis of the pending financial enterprise.
If that enterprise consists of holding up a guy at a bank machine, the criminal will consider whether he can get the money without being injured himself, his chances of getting caught, and whether he can get the money without overcapitalizing his enterprise - that is, committing a murder and risking life in the joint simply to make $20.
If an armed robber knows the person at the automated teller is unarmed, he knows the possibility of success is high, as long as he doesn't get snapped by the ATM camera. If he thinks the guy might be armed, the enterprise begins to unravel. The point of the enterprise is to make money with the least amount of trouble, not end up dead or wounded.
Now, I'm not saying everyone should go around with a hidden weapon. I'm merely pointing out why the study showed it would reduce crime.
What I don't understand is why the Victims Perpetuity League insists it isn't true. Well, I do. As I've said before, there are people out there who believe that victims should stay victims and criminals should stay criminals. Victims should do nothing to infringe with their victimhood status. They just can't stand it when anyone suggests that victims do anything to protect themselves.
The truth is that even when the law allows law-abiding people to carry concealed weapons, very few do. But just having the law on the books is enough to change the dynamics of any cost/benefit analysis by potential robbers and rapists.
There's another thing. People remember that one sign of civilization coming to places like the Wild West was when the local sheriff made everybody turn in their guns when they entered a little town. And many think that is the way it should be now: Get rid of ALL guns and crime will go down.
But the main difference is that the Western sheriff COULD get rid of all guns. He'd take 'em away from both the bad guys and the good until they left town.
That's not happening today. Now, the move is to take guns away from law-abiding citizens, like sportsmen, hunters and collectors, while very little is done to get the guns out of the hands of criminals.
This new study seems to suggest that you disarm the criminals and let legal gun owners keep their weapons, or let the criminals think everyone is armed. The status quo doesn't work.
