We should have a ban on CCW

Bop:I agree with my opponents analysis on what he needs to prove. C1: Gun controlMy opponents main response to my empirical data is crime rate comparisons amongst countries. This is actually laughable in the world of statistics. This comparison of countries falls into the endogenity problem. This occurs, in this case, when there is a correlation amongst error terms.1 An error term is when some hidden variable is likely to be controlling the correlation, and not the other substance/action the statistic claims. This happens especially when comparing basic crime rates amongst countries, like my opponent did, which shows a correlation in favor of gun control. This also occurs when a regression fails. But due to the fact this comparison ignores basic other factors (population, economy, previous crime rates etc.) it falls under this statistical problem. Now the countries in which my opponent compared have always enjoyed low crime rates, meaning societal differences keep the crime rate lower then other countries without this societal effect. The only way to measure the effectiveness of gun control is looking into the rates. Although before and after averages are very important factors, one must look into the rates as well as before after averages can be misleading. For example, before a gun law crimes could be raising at 5%, and after the law the rate of increase could be the same. Crime would be 5% higher, but not due to the law. If it was rising 30% after the law it is likely the law did have some effect. Many of the countries my opponent cited play in favor of my case. For example, when the UK banned handguns in 1997 handgun crime increased 340%, higher then the previous increases in crime. Jamaica banned firearms, and their murder rates increased by large margins and are now one of the murder capitals of the world.2 Source: "How Governments Create Crime, AN OVERVIEW OF CRIME CONTROL, GUN CONTROL, PEOPLE CONTROL AND THE LOSS OF RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENCE" by Dr. Lech BeltowskiAs we can see the rate of murder increases with the passage of these laws. C2: Other reasonsThis argument shows my opponent has not read the Lott study. Lott has many regressions, he has crack prices (price usually is a good starting point to indicate usage), arrest rates, conviction rates, etc. Later when economists wanted him to take away his regressions to see if the results changed, he did so and showed them the results sayed the same.2 Regressions are ways to control other variables btw. it avoids the endohenity problems my opponents C1 ran into. Further, Lotts findings where replicated by 16 other acedemicly reffered studies, and 3 other non-acedemically refered ones. The most solid study done on the subjecct was that of Vanderbuilt economists, they had 15,000 regressions. In other words all thinkable factors, obviously the ones my opponent listed, where accounted for. The results? Almost the exact same ones Lott found.2 In counter to robbery, 3 economists, one of them Lott, notes: “But putting that debate aside, the robbery results presented by Ayres and Donohue present a very clear, consistent story (Figure 1a). The state level analysis shows that robbery rates continued rising, though at a slower rate, for the first two years after the law was passed. However, after that, robbery rates in right-to-carry states fell relative to non-right-to-carry states for the next 9 years, and then remained fairly constant through year 17. The two sets of county level estimates are even more dramatic. Robbery rates in right-to-carry states were rising until the laws were passed and then fell continually after that point. The pattern is very similar to that shown earlier by Lott in examining county level data from 1977 to 1996.” Now I would like to note Donahue was using before and after averages. I showed how this is faulty above. As the economists further note, “While Ayres and Donohue acknowledge the problems in using simple before-and-after average in evaluating the impact of the law, yet they do not consistently apply that insight when discussing the evidence.” As we can see my opponents argunment is highly faulty.3 I would again like to recap on why the regressions Lott used looked into all of the factors my opponent argued, therefore he is falsely throwing opinions. My opponent then cites Donahue (different study) which shows an increase in crime. Note this position has not been replicated by any other authors then himself. Aryes is the only other, but he was the co-writer to one of them. Also note there are only 2 studies arguing this position, none of them acedemically reffered, there are 16 studies, 19 if you count the non-acedemic ones, that show decreases in crime.2 Now where do you think the balance of evidence lays? C3: Increases crime Other then the fact this claim is simily statistically impossible with no replication of ths data outside of two authors and studies, one must ask does this stance make sense? As Morgan Reynolds and H. Sterling Burnett note, “In choosing their crimes, criminals weigh the prospective costs against the benefits. If criminals suspect that the costs will be too high, they are less likely to commit a crime. The possibility of a concealed weapon tilts the odds against the criminal and in favor of the victim. A survey of 1,847 felons in 10 states found them more concerned about meeting an armed victim than running into the police. [...] For example, FBI statistics showed that in counties with populations of more than 200,000 (typically the counties with the highest rates of violent crime), laws allowing concealed carry produced a 13 percent drop in the murder rate and a 7 percent decline in rapes.” 4 After seeing this position makes no sense under criminal deterence theory, we also see the FBI statistics disagree. I would also like to note the robbery statistic my opponent cited was still using faulty data (as cited in C2). Let me show you how unreplicated my opponents study is: A picture from my book, can you see it. I cant tell. Look at the number of studies, 16. 3 others at the bottom. All say it lers crime. Lets see how many say it increases: Yes thats it, two. So whose statisics are more replicated and therefore more likely to be statistially accurate? Also where's the logic? How would letting law abiding citizens defend themselves increase crime? Its illogical, and false. two studies, both having the same author[s] is not credible enough to draw any valid scientific conclusions. CONCLUSION: Here are the cons of CCW: Not having it means you feel safer and thats it... Here are the pros: IT DECREASES CRIME Comparing countries like my opponent did falls into statistical pitfalls and inconsistancies Only two studies say it increases crime, both have the same author. Neither are acedemically refered. Therefore its not as scholarly There are no good reasons not to have CCW laws As we can see my opponents case is riddles with flaws, statistical failures, or flawed studies. My opponents statistics are nt high enough quality to get any real scientific conclusions, mine are and are widley accepted by scholars. My opponent has the BOP to show CCW, on balance, is negative to society. My opponents attempts have failed to meet his BOP. Vote CON. Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010[3] Lott, Jr., John R., Florenz Plassmann, and John Whitley. "Confirming More Guns, Less Crime." (2003): 1-48.[4] http://www.ncpa.org...