It's now six years into Michigan's CCW law, and the rate of gun deaths in the state is in decline, while registrations are up. Here's what I had to say about this about five years ago, a year or so into the program. As Glenn notes, this should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with both the theory and available empirical evidence. Of course, the irrational clueless will always be with us:

Other opponents remain convinced that it has contributed to an ongoing epidemic of firearms-related death and destruction.

Shikha Hamilton of Grosse Pointe, president of the Michigan chapter of the anti-gun group Million Moms March, said she believes overall gun violence (including suicide and accidental shootings) is up in Michigan since 2001. Many incidents involving CCW permit holders have not been widely reported, she said.

The most publicized recent case came early in 2007, when a 40-year-old Macomb County woman fired from her vehicle toward the driver of a truck she claimed had cut her off on I-94. Bernadette Headd was convicted of assault and sentenced to two years in prison.

Hamilton said that even if gun violence has ebbed, it remains pervasive, tragic and unnecessary. At the least, a more liberal concealed weapons law means there are more guns in homes and cars and on the street, she said, and more potential for disaster.

Note: "she believes." This is a faith-based religion. These people will never be swayed by reality.

A couple of thigns about the Bernadette Headd case. First, obviously CCW law didn't stop her from committing a crime. Thus tougher gun laws didn't prevent a crime. Second, she was arrested and convicted of crimes that existed prior to the CCW law. So if tougher gun laws are uneffectual and older laws are effective, why do we need more laws to stop gun violence? Why not just enforce the laws on the book?

Next:
Many incidents involving CCW permit holders have not been widely reported, she said.

Widely reported or not reported? The former is unimportant to rate of death; a death counts regardless of publicity. If she can prove a gun related death is not recorded, then she might have a point. Yet not reported and not recorded are two different things. Alas, she points to a well publicized case in which no one died as an example to why she believes more deaths have occurred.

"Note: "she believes." This is a faith-based religion. These people will never be swayed by reality."

That comment might be a two-edged sword?

I very much doubt that there is any evidence that mass gun ownership helps prevent violent crime.

2007 homicides in NYC are projected to be slightly under 500. London, a city of roughly the same size, has roughly half that. Ethnic diversity is comparable. Draw your own conclusions.

I very much doubt that there is any evidence that mass gun ownership helps prevent violent crime.

You don't get out much. There is a book chock full of it, with (by no coincidence) the same title as this post. Lots of before/after stuff.

By the way, all her predictions about the upcoming carnage proved wrong. And yet she still insists she's right. That's what I call faith based. At this point, the burden of proof is on the gun controllers, not us.