Concealed Carry (CCW) Laws Reduce Crime

Thanks to my opponent for his arguments.Introduction and Instant Negation of All StatisicsWell, well, well. I see that my opponent is simply using this debate as a way to demonstrate his skill of finding statistical data online. Unfortunately, I'm not going to falter in the wake of statistics and research groups. The bottom line is that my opponent hasn't really shown why these concealed carry laws reduce crime. I demand, and I assume the audience demands, this. Statistical data is simply not enough. My opponent claims in his conclusion that he has identified a mechanism (detterence) and then demonstrated the validity of this mechansims with "empirical" data. First of all, my opponent has not linked "detterence" with the concealed carry of weapons. This must be done. Second, empirical data is cheap. Just take a look at this source. It effectively negates everything my opponent supposedly "proved" about the death penalty.http://www.e-archives.ky.gov...Must I go on? Sure, I could dig up mountains of statistics on why the concealed carry statistics are false or skewed, but wouldn't this be a much better debate if my opponent and I proved our respective opinions with logic and reasoning that is merely supported by stats or other sources, rather than just with the latter? There is a reason why sources only dictate 2-points in the voting system (and most reasonable voters focus much more on convincing arguments anyway.) I move that in the next round my opponent actually shows the connection between concealed carry laws and the reduction of crime. However, so as not to cut this round short, I will make some of my own arguments in this round as well. I"m not going to spend all of my time falsifying my opponents sources though, that is pointless and far too easily done. Both my opponent and I are better than that. Arguments/RebuttalsMy opponent spends all of his time digging up ridiculously long stat and report sheets. With these stats he goes on to show that detterence is significant in the reduction of crime. This may be the case, but it is unrelated to this debate until my opponent shows otherwise. My opponent also goes on to talk about the more guns = less violence hypothesis. I'm not neccesarily against this. However, if I am not mistaken, this debate is about the concealed carrying of guns, not the carrying of guns in general. Perhaps more armed citizens does lead to less violence, but that is not the topic of this debate. You can tell by some of the things my opponent is saying that he is trying to force me into debating a certain way, a way he is readily prepared for. "my opponent needs to demonstrate--empirically--that a brutalization effect outweighs the deterrent effect." No thanks Pro. I am not engaging in empircal warfare with you. That is not my aim in debates. My aim is to prove my points with logic and then support that logic with facts and statistics. ConclusionThis has been a relatively short round on my point, but it got my point across. My opponent has bombared us all with a novel's worth of studies and statistics. This is simply not enough. Pro has not shown why concealed carry laws act as a detterent, why concealed carry laws are more effective than simply carrying a weapon, or why the only way to debate his claim is via brutalization. My opponent has not fulfilled his BOP (which is fully on himslef) and has a lot more work to do if he wants to do so. That is all.