Conceal carry laws decrease violent crime

Data (starting with it because it is the most important point):My opponents first faulty argument is one source how is it credible. If my opponent really wants 16 studies, he can have them, but the Lott study essentially sums all them up in the 2010 version. My opponent has repeatedly, instead of actually arguing, red herrings on the source of the most credible data. First, he claims he left out black women, note the source you used is from 1998. I am using his 2010 version as my main source, where he specifies women of all colors in his data, using FBI and local trends, hence my opponents argument is false. [1] My opponent then cites John Donahue as his source, and he claims my source is biased? First, Donahue misread his results and had to fix them many times, and still claimed he showed that these laws increased crime or had no effect. Oh btw no PDF needed, Lott's book has all of them. Now, lets look at the Donahue results, then you see they re interesting. In their main study they find 30 (27) had crimes reduce after these laws, 13 (16) no effect, 0 (0) had an increase in crime. Although Donahues results show less of a decrease then Lott's, CATO's, Bartley's, Bensons, Moody, Mustards, Olsens, Plassmansm Marvels, Whitley's, Hllands, Wilson's, and Lott again, He still found a decrease. [1] (I cited all of the studies so that you knew I actually research this stuff). So, my opponent cannot say I am only using Lott ;)My opponent then insults Lott, I say a conduct violation, claiming he had poor computer skills, this assumes he is lying. Well first, just because another study has different results does not mean either of them is a liar, but if you look at all of the 16 studies that show a decrease in crime, the science is clear. The Lott study in 1997 created many criminologists and economists to scramble to the statistics and look at them, most show a decrease in crime, many studies, as cited on Lott's book, have quotes saying out results almost match his, he is not lying. To be annoying, I will make it more organized, defend Lott then move unto deterrence. Defending Lott:My opponent seems to break down last round, and rely on a red herring on my sources instead of argumentation. m p POP exp a (b d )RTCD ct ct s t 1s ctt[2]Did some of the symbols not show? Well anyway it proves conceal carry laws reduce crime, also this study defends Lott btw, it was one of the longer defenses of him. This study using similar variables, then attempting to look into Donahue's data, finds that Donahue's data does not work, Lott's does. Now, my opponent will likely find a way to scream bias, but voters, he is really in a red herring over this. They pretty much got very similar results... They actually find Donahue's and Naigins data to show a slight decrease in crimes, whilst their own data nears Lott's. They also investigated the bias, they said the Lott data was less bias, he was for banning guns prior to his study, Donahue had pre-conceived notions, therefore the data my opponent is using is worse. [2] Sorry, but if your gonna red herring so am I ;) Let me read the concluding results, so that you know that Lott's data can be recreated by other studies:"In this paper, we use a Poisson-lognormal model to analyze intertemporal and geographical variations in the effects of right-to-carry laws on murders, rapes, and robberies. For each of these crime categories, our estimates suggest the existence of statistically significant deterrent effects of right-to-carry laws for the majority of the 10 states that have adopted such laws between 1977 and 1992." [2] Then they say only a VERY FEW states had increases, but they conclude CCW decreases crime. Now, (1) Lott is not bias, he was like you when his study began!, (2) his results have been created in source 2 and in the other studies I mentioned above, (3) Red herring over, Lott is credible. Deterrence:My opponents main claim is people only use guns on (3) separate occasions. Now my opponents source fails to define success. Success in killing? Sure, its rare. But in the majority of cases it isn't defense, they show the gun and run. [1] This was also found in Gary Kleck's work. [1] My opponent essentially ignores the definition of success and defense. So my opponents analysis here is deeply flawed, and is false as multiple studies show people use guns in defense, without a boom. So, passive aggressive defense, show the gun they run. So as my opponent has failed to define defense, the argument fails. Then, my opponent cites the many violent crimes. Note this argument fails, as the data shows conceal carry permit holders are more law abiding then other citizens. [1] So, the argument only works if he defines defense, in the case of this study, which it does not, and if he can prove conceal carry leads to more deaths, which he has not. 100,000 violent crimes =/= conceal carry related murders, the argument only works if he finds the violent crimes are committed by permit holders. My opponents argument is false. Also, he misses most of my deterrence case. Extend arguments. My opponent then claims Lott is biased, which is false. First, many studies are able to recreate his data. Second, many critics now claim his case is "bullet proof", and lastly as stated he cant be biased, as he was against even toy guns when he wrote the study. [1] Also, he cites hundreds upon hundreds of sources, I looked some of them up, he is nto cheating the data, your argument is not even an argument, just a source attack, generally seen when people are losing an argument. As seen with Lott's attacks on him not the data. [1]My opponent foes not like the correlation, yet he goes into "what ifs" which have never occurred. lets look at the requirements for a CCW license:"is at least 21 years of age;· is a resident of the state;· provides fingerprints and submits to a criminal and mental health background check;· has not been convicted of a felony or any crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;· is not a fugitive from justice;· is not an illegal alien;· is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;· has not been adjudicated mentally incompetent or been committed to a mental institution;· has not been dishonorably discharged from the armed services;· is not subject to a restraining or protection order;· has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence;· is not awaiting trial for, and does not have any charges pending for, a crime punishable by more than one year imprisonment;· has completed a firearms safety or training course; and" [3]These check make it hard for them to be criminals. Also, less use a non Lott source so my opponent can stop the red herring, they are more law abiding then normal citizens, they have never murdered anyone outside of self defense. [3]CONCLUSION:My opponent drops almost all of the data, and results into arguing with my source "its bias", with no proof, and actual studies make segments on it, the 1) try to use data, see what the results are, they get his results, [2] 2) look into his past find he is anti gun, 3) find he has no biases. [2] Yes, studies are done on this, Lott is not bias, my opponent pretty much ditches the debate and enters a red herring on Lott. As my opponent has dropped the debate and results in source pointing, it is clear who to vote for, PRO, the one with arguments based on facts, not finger pointing and assumptions, PRO wins based on facts. http://www.debate.org...__________[1] Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010.[2] Plassmann, Florenz, and T. Nicolaus Tideman. "Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say*." The Journal of Law and Economics 44.S2 (2001): 771-98.[3] Snyder, Jeffery R. "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right ToCarry a Handgun." CATO, 22 Oct. 1997