Was there substitution from violent crime to property crime?

I'm afraid that Lott has missed the point of the passage he quotes As indicated by the title, I was considering Lott's claim there had been substitution from violent crime to property crime (page 54). The basis for this claim is that table 4.1 shows a 4.9% decrease in violent crime and a 2.7% increase in property crime associated with the carry law. Lott can argue that looking at before-and-after averages can be misleading, but before-and-after averages is exactly what his claim about substitution is based on. If instead we look at changes in crime trends, table 4.8 shows that the law was associated with a decrease in the trend in the violent crime rate of 0.9% and a decrease in the trend in the property crime rate of 0.6%--not only was there no increase in the property crime trend (contrary to the predictions of the substitution hypothesis), but the change in the trends was similar for property and violent crime, more consistent with a general decrease in crime trends rather than a decrease just in violent crimes that might be caused by the carry law.

Tim Lambert