So, here we've got this piece from MSNBC that tries to offer "fair and balanced" but can't quite overcome their sincere belief that what they are finding can't possibly be true:
Yes, Violent Crime Rates are Down, But...
OK, in a nutshell, they report that since the movement for concealed carry roared into high gear about 30 years ago, the rates of violent crimes against citizens in those states with concealed carry has dropped precipitously. But, they deny that there is a cause and effect relationship.
Can someone make a logical case to support that contention? Is there a faulty syllogism in play? Does that fact that I'm armed, most likely, cause you to hesitate a bit in determining if you ought to demand my watch and wallet?
Possibly the most foolish statement in the entire article is this:
Helms’ friends and relatives were left to mourn, barred by the same Castle Doctrine from filing a civil lawsuit.
Aren't you simply outraged by that? The very law that allows me to be secure from armed assault in my home, place of business, vehicle, or in my very person also denies the "left to mourn" associates of the thug the right to continue the assault by suing me after I've defended myself. Is there no justice? Ohhhh, the humanity.
Conversely without that law, would it be reasonable to assume that I, the victim of the thug's crime, if I survived would be able to sue the friends and relatives for damages received? Highly bloody unlikely.
No, if you attack me, you stand a good chance of incurring serious bodily injury. Even from a fat, old man.