DNS said:That is what I was alluding to in Post#18. When 80% or more of the 1-6% who can carry don't, you find out that just about everywhere is free of guns. This is why (bias coming) more guns less crime is so untrue no matter how many times you repeat it. "We need concealed carry because more guns means less crime." There is no causative relationship, certainly not at the levels that people are permitted/carrying.
We can contest the causality present in any correlation, but if we assume that a criminal makes rational choices and assesses his risk, we have to assume that he weighs whether he will meet armed resistance. Unless part of an individual's rational calculation involves his desire to be shot, he will avoid that risk. The risk of meeting armed resistance in a GFZ should be reduced.
In terms of correlation, we do see higher assault and occupied home invasion rates in the UK and Canada. While the US, UK and Canada do not possess identical cultures, they may be a closer match than most.
In the US, occupied home invasion is rare. Even a burglar can figure out that his risk is reduced if no one is home. This appears less true in populations in which firearm ownership is rarer.