"Among peer reviewed studies in academic journals, 16 studies examining national data find that right-to-carry laws reduced violent crime, 10 claimed that they found no discernible effect, and zero studies found a bad effect from the law. Five other non-refereed studies were more divided, with three finding drops in crime, one claiming to find no effect, and two saying that there were either no effect or possibly small increases in crime. But even "no discernible effect" is usually not the same as "debunking" or "refuting" a hypothesis. Rather it often means that the evidence is not sufficient to draw a conclusion." John Lott
The article failed to mention a single study that reinforce John Lott's conclusions.
It appears that they did not even contact John Lott, though their article skirts very close to slander.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/14/arizona-shootings-gun-violence-research-facts-vs-new-york-times/#ixzz26joxYgei
>>The drop in aggravated assault was less dramatic in Texas than in California and New York
Not all of us live in a high density urban setting where it is cost-effective to put a cop on every street corner. For most Americans, a cop is a phone call and several minutes away while a would-be assailant is in your face.
You could probably do a similar study and “prove” that door locks do not reduce break-and-enter burglaries. Its all in how you frame the question.
Only a collectivist cares about the total number. What it all comes down to is the one lonely individual. Should they be refused the right the defend themselves from rape, murder, robbery, feral racist gangs, kidnap etc,,, because it is deemed better for the group?
If one person uses it sucessfully, that proves it’s effectiveness.
Peer-reviewed studies = Ivory tower Bravo Sierra