That means nothing, as the difference in victimization rates between holders and non-holders is likely to be caused by self-selection. Holders are more likely to be middle class and thus being less likely to be victimized. Or alternatively, holders may be more conscious about their own safety and thus avoid situations in which they can be victimized (vigilance).
To make that point, you would need to compare victimization rates holding all other factors constant (especially race and class status which are good predictors of victimization), but even that would not preclude the effect of vigilance. Ideally, you would need to compare victimization rates of the same indovoduals before and after acquiring a permit, but that is marred with other rather serious methodological problems (e.g. small N, effect of learning, changes in crime rates over time, etc).
One possible solution would be to examine crime vicitimization stats (i.e. NCVS) which report on using weapons in self-defence, as well as the effect of using weapons on the crime of being committed. To my recollection, they do not differentiate the type of weapon being used because the number of cases involving self-defensive weapon use is very small, but they do differentiate between self-defensive using of weapons and other protective measures.
But that can be quite inconclusive. I do remember someone challenging me on that point a few years ago and citing NCVS to support his claims. Well, I had more time back then and I did check the NCVS figures. There was no relationship whatsover between using weapons in self-defence and the likelihood of being victimized.
Methinks crime deterrence is the weakest (empirically) argument for gun ownership, but ironically - most appealing to suburban fatheads scared shit of crime. A much better one is government having monopoly for the use weaponry.
Wojtek
>