How about decades of experience. Vermont never banned carry in any form, and now has been joined by 9 other states in "Constitutional Carry", many for some years. Washington state went shall issue in the early '60s. Florida started the modern wave in 1987. "Normal" states like Colorado have allowed concealed carry on the grounds of public colleges for years.
Experience, especially in the "50 Petri dishes" of the states, is one of the ways we figure out such things, and this "proliferation" has been a wild success.
Yes, Washington state went concealed carry in 1961. Its crime rate rose and fell in step with the other states over the years - concealed carry did not suppress that rate after it was introduced. If you want to argue that concealed carry directly reduces crime rate, Washington state is something you should remain quiet on.
I've read a lot of stuff around concealed carry over the past decade for internet debates, and interestingly, concealed carry debaters will claim absolutely any reduction in crime rate as being due to concealed carry (despite no clear link), which started proliferating rapidly in the '90s... and totally ignore things like the incarceration rate, which rose rapidly in the '90s as well.
If you want to argue that concealed carry directly reduces crime rate
You're fighting someone else, I make no such claims, I'm pretty sure simple demographics, particularly the wave of young men in the Baby Boom, is the biggest factor, and swamps all others to the point it's hard to discern any other cause. Although perhaps if we'd locked up those criminals at the rate we'd locked up previous generations it would have gone differently.
All I claim is that at worst it's Mostly Harmless.
I dunno, when someone quotes a particular segment of what I'm saying, then provides an argument to refute it, I generally assume that they're taking up that argument.
And apparently "wild success" has now transmogrified to "mostly harmless"?
Every time a shall issue regime or better has replaced a more restrictive one, look at colleges as of late since we've run out of states with Illinois, Wisconsin and Iowa joining the party, we're assured by our betters that this will result in "Blood in the streets!", "Dodge City!" and all that. You yourself referred to this change with the loaded term "proliferation", and have shown no sign you welcome it, so my limited defense ought to be enough.
And, no, I'm hardly taking up the arguments of every person in the Internet debates, which have raged through this entire modern Florida and on period of shall issue laws. You have a beef with them, address it to them.
Me, I don't "feel as uneasy about that proliferation" because before it happened I had more trust in my fellow Americans, and now with decades of hindsight and these laws or better (Constitional Carry in 10 states) now covering 43 states and 72% of the population, we know it's Mostly Harmless.
> I'm hardly taking up the arguments of every person in the Internet debates
You keep on moving the goalposts. I didn't assign to you "everyone's arguments". You chose to engage me, and are now pretending to have a neutral point of view, despite your own loaded term 'constitutional carry' to replace concealed carry.
You engaged me of your own accord, and now that I engage you back, you're saying I should take my beef elsewhere? Take some responsibility for your own actions.
How about decades of experience. Vermont never banned carry in any form, and now has been joined by 9 other states in "Constitutional Carry", many for some years. Washington state went shall issue in the early '60s. Florida started the modern wave in 1987. "Normal" states like Colorado have allowed concealed carry on the grounds of public colleges for years.
Experience, especially in the "50 Petri dishes" of the states, is one of the ways we figure out such things, and this "proliferation" has been a wild success.