Concealed Carry (CCW) Laws Reduce Crime

INTRODUCTIONMy opponent seems to of misunderstood the points of my statistical argument and his comeback to my point about open carry was extremely weak. Let me get straight into this last round. EMPRICAL WARFARE My opponent makes me seem very extreme in this matter. I never stated "scholars don't accept Lott's research. " The point I was making with those sources was the following. Lott's research in the matter of CCW is not widely accepted, it is not fully accepted by the media, and it is not enough to win a debate alone. Despite what my opponent says on the matter, all of these points are true and basically uncontested. What my opponent states in his long passage about Lott's studies on CCW and crime gets my point across as well. It is clear that Lott's research is considered murky by many in his field and many media outlets and that there is no clear empirical consensus on CCW. The Washington Post source (which was broken, I apologize, but my opponent found it anyway) literally says "the murkiness of the evidence. " This was all I was attempting to prove with my sources and it is exactly what I have accomplished. . http://www.washingtonpost.com...DETTERENCE: WHY CCW DOESN'T WORK (AS WELL THAT IS) My opponent has me all wrong here. I don't argue that criminals won't respond to incentives. What I am debating is the kind of incentives criminals respond most strongly to. Criminals will respond most strongly to clear, visual incentives. This means that an average violent criminal (that is the resolution my opponent has turned to) will respond stronger to one or two people of every hundred holstering a shiny firearm on their person than being absently (if at all) aware of CCW. And yes, this is because a majority of violent criminals are illiterate, under harmful influences, or mentally-ill. I'm not saying criminals aren't rational, I"m just saying most of them aren't proffesional heisters. My opponent brings up an example of 100 people in a room. One has a gun and a criminal is going to choose who to attack. First of all, the criminal doesn't know anyone in the room has a gun if it is being concealed. Second, my opponent acts as if civilians work on a "survival of the fittest" basis. If a potential criminal could clearly identify that one person out of a group of 100 had a gun, the criminal might be unwilling to attack anyone. However, if no gun can be identified, the criminal is very likely to commit a violent act (1% chance of injury? I'll take those odds. ) That is saying that the criminal even knows of CCW laws, which he probably wouldn't. Pro attempts to protect his weakest side (criminals wouldn't know about CCW) by providing an unsound argument about criminal infastructure and criminals spreading tales of concealed weapons. This is pretty preposterous. First of all, many violent criminals aren't connected in any meaningful way to other violent criminals. Second of all, what kind of story is a criminal going to tell? "Yeah man, I was robbing some guy and another guy brought out a gun. From this experience, I now know that a CCW law is in effect in our state. We are going to be so dettered from now on! " Ridiculous. If anything, criminals are going to think that they overlooked a nearby citizen that pulled a gun on them and analyze their environments more thoroughly the next time. CONCLUSION 1) Empircal evidence regarding CCW is murky and unconclusive2) The detterence effect demonstrates that a majority of violent criminals are partly rational, but will still respond more strongly to clear, visual incentives.3) Assuming criminals will learn of this law and respond to it with any meaningful change in crime is unfounded. Thanks for a great debate 16kadams.