[tacticalogic]

"While castle doctrine law may well have benefits to those protecting themselves in self-defense (meaning the individual cases where a person uses a weapon to deter a specific crime), there is no evidence that the law provides positive spillovers by deterring crime more generally," they say."

That it benefits those protecting themselves in self-defense should be enough.

[Cboldt]

-- That it benefits those protecting themselves in self-defense should be enough. --

Indeed.

The source cited by the author is incorrect too, that there is no evidence of deterrent effect. There is plenty of evidence for the proposition that enabling citizens to use deadly force in self defense deters crime.

[Calvin Locke]

...there is no evidence that the law provides positive spillovers by deterring crime more generally,...

Corrupter. Where's the proof that any, let alone a majority, of those stopped dead, were, voluntarily that is, on their last jaunt in criminal enterprising?

That is, the positive spillover is somewhat akin to "A stitch in time saves nine".