For the CLEOs reading this, I would like to know why you think your residents should be unable to defend themselves while residents of other towns can. An LTC is a state-wide permit in Massachusetts, and those of us who can carry legally are free to do so all over the state. Without question, people carry concealed weapons legally in towns like Worcester. Local law enforcement is powerless to control it. So given that concealed carry is happening in your town, why deny your own citizens the right to carry as well?
Of course, there is little need to discuss the obvious fact that criminals carry guns regardless of the opinions of law enforcement. Permitting only controls the actions of law-abiding citizens.
The good news, on a national level, is that Massachusetts is in the minority. 40 of 50 U.S. states have shall-issue carry permits. The offending 10 are no surprise. Six, along with DC, are east coast bastions of liberalism (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, Delaware, and New Jersey). Two are in that odd little "progressive" pocket in the upper midwest (Illinois, whose politics is driven by Chicago, and its northern neighbor Wisconsin). California and Hawaii, no surprise, complete the list.
In the rest of America, gun rights are expanding. The shall-issue carry movement has come a long way in recent years, removing Jim Crow era gun restrictions in states like Missouri, and eliminating local discretion in previously may-issue states like Iowa (which just passed a shall-issue law). Today, the minority of states who choose to deny their citizens legal right to self defense is itself on the defensive. Congress is afraid even to discuss gun control on a national level, with the ridiculous "assault weapons ban" of 1994 sun-setting ten years later in 2004 with little more than a few whimpers from the far left.
America today understands the value of gun rights more than ever. And that gives us in Massachusetts a little hope.