[StupidScript]

I'm not denying anything, merely observing that without context, it's just chest-beating, and not scientific observation.

If the statute was not accompanied by another statute giving each gun owner the right to carry a loaded weapon with them at all times, then the statute probably had the most impact on home invasion-type crime, not domestic violence, drug use, vandalism or purse-snatching.

And if a majority of the crime pre-statute involved home invasions, then they probably had a couple of freaks who simply left town, resulting in many fewer home invasions, and hence a drop in crime levels. We really can't tell without context.

Besides, with such a small population, more than likely most of the crimes were being perpetrated either by a select few delinquents or by people from out of town. A reduction in either ("C'mon, let's get out of here ... it's no fun anymore." or "Are you crazy? Why would I want to go to that dung heap of a town?") would result in a reduction in the crime rate.

But perhaps shoplifting DID evaporate, as those worthless, gutless cowards shrank away from all of the gun-toting grocers ... who are well-known for their proclivity for shootouts ...

Remember: Guns don't kill people ... frozen hams do.