Still not as low as Maine.
Good point. Let’s revise that to say Cleveland, Buffalo, or Detroit.
Well, it’s hard to have a crime rate when there’s no one there. Any crime would lead to a division by zero error when calculating the per capita rate.
(I kid, of course! I love Maine – I’ve been to Acadia and Bar Harbor many, many times!)
So, do states that make it easier to pack (a gun, not a bag or your groceries) see a higher drop in crime than those that make no changes? I imagine it’s difficult to tease out the relationship, since crime has been dropping everywhere in the US for years now.
I couldn’t find any cites on whether a handgun was used; if not it’s doubtful that the carry law was relevant. My guess is that the new law will have zero measurable impact either way. As mentioned upthread all the carry-advocates probably had permits already.
Even with legal carry very few people actually do so; just under 4% in my state, 12% for South Dakota, and only ten states with 8% or more. I don’t think carry would have a significant “herd immunity” effect on random street unless it exceeded 20%. It’s hard to say because cities tend to respond to violent crime by cracking down on guns, while areas that are lenient usually had little crime to begin with. You’d have to have an urban area that went from a New York City/L.A. level of restriction to full Shall Issue carry to test the difference.