Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime

**Note my opponent broke the acceptance rule****Note he argued my side.***Rebuttals* C1: Conceal Carry Increases crimeIf you actually read his argument, he is not even relating too conceal carry, rather he is arguing that gun control increases crime, I have no reason to think this helps him on a deterrence aspect. He concedes many of these gun control laws actually increased the crime rate..... So he actually concedes banning guns or controlling them is bad, his argument makes no sense also because it does not even utter a word of conceal carry. C2: Conceal carry laws are unconstitutional My opponent thinks conceal carry laws are unconstitutional, by saying: "This position is supported by the Supreme Court, which struck both the DC and Chicago handgun bans on grounds of Constitutionality." Well, conceal carry does not ban guns... His argument is FALSE AND UNTRUE, if anything conceal carry increases the right to weapons, as it says your allowed to own guns and carry them hidden.... My opponents arguments on gun bans are not true... His case is a red herring!!C3: Protect the innocentI agree, the innocents can now fight back... Your arguing the wrong side. C4: ???Your arguing my side!!! They make us stronger, as first you say gun control and gun bans are bad, conceal carry is less control and more gun freedom!! You are arguing my side. He then goes on guns are good, I agree I think I own over 20. Well guess what, you argued my side. You must argue guns are bad, I stated this: Conceal carry laws reduce crime, I am pro, I am arguing that they REDUCE CRIME. My statement on the NOT was not me saying I argue con. It was saying I dont think a piece of paper does nothing, rather the effects of the law do. Either concede as you argued MY SIDE, or argue that they have no effect on crime or increase it. --Case--Deterrence (use with argument below)A common misconception throughout Europe is less guns equal less crime, and the same argument applies in current US media, all claiming guns and conceal carry are evil.Now before we claim criminals can be deterred, we must first ask can they be deterred? The answer is yes, as many economic studies (studies done by economists) find when increased punishments or possible problems occur when doing the crime the negative outweigh the positives of committing the crime, and then they are less likely to commit the crime. Now we must ask why are they deterred by this? The answer is self explanatory, but I shall point out the obvious: They want self preservation, they want to be able to get away with their deeds. Also many surveys conducted show that criminals are more scared of people with guns then police officers, as if the gun is hidden they may be attacked back without warning (polices warning is the uniform).Now, lets look at a thing Lott calls a "hot burglary." This is when a criminal strikes when a person is already at home. In Canada and England, where gun control is very strict, almost half of the burglaries where hot. In contrast, 13% in america where hot. Now what is the reason? Because they think they may get shot, they say robbing at night when people are home is the best way to get shot, they would rather case a house. This proves they fear guns.Now, lets use some examples of deterrence. Lott uses the literal example of apples and oranges. He says if the price of apples increases while the price of oranges decreases apples sales will decrease, while orange sales will stay the same or increase. This shows the human oh it has consequences effect.Is open carry and conceal carry different, when it comes to deterrence? When a concealed carry permit holder has a gun, it is harder to actually tell if they have a gun. Criminals wont know if they are attacking an old lady, or an old lady packing a .45 Springfield in her purse. This raises the risk to criminals, hence also their preservation. Whereas open carry is much less scary, as you know who not to annoy, and not to annoy anyone around him (as he may help the other person). The conceal carry laws threaten the criminals more.Empirical DATALaw Passed Murder fell 7.7%, Rape fell 5.3%, Aggravated assault by 7.01%, robbery 2.2%, Burglary .5%, Larceny 3.3%, Auto 7.1%. [1]He also draws preliminary conclusions in the introduction [note he used to be pro gun control if I can recall] using deterrence theory mentioned above. He finds a significant correlation that whenever a conceal carry law is passed, crime rates decrease significantly. In the third addition, the source I am using, he finds his original study said 7.7%, he says after new data and averages from the state and county level he saw a 10% decrease in murder. He also finds if one state/county passes a conceal carry law, the bordering states and counties also gain a crime decrease. He finds based on assaults per 100,000 people went from about 340 to under 320 on average [based on the neighbors passing the law]. [1] Now before I proceed with the empirical evidence, we must ask why does this occur, why does the county overs laws effect my crime rate? Border wars. When gangs fight they fight each other and attack other bystanders. If the bystanders are armed they are then scared to fight as the victim can always fight back [possibly] without warning if they had a conceal carry license. The famed Lott/mustard paper as well as my #1 source find in each of the studies find if each state passed a conceal carry law, it would prevent:"If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly." [1] [2]Also two other studies confirm the lott results saying "there is a deterrent when passing conceal carry laws", and "the lott mustard data is not biased", and they acquire and replicate lotts results. [3] [4]Another question that must be answered: would it increase or decrease mass public crimes? Now, as this is a valid fear, see the recent shootings in Chicago I believe, or Virginia tech. But to define shootings/killings, we must look into what is defined by. It is defined as a public shooting in a place where 2 or more people are killed or injured. Now based n his data in figure 5.1, he found the likelihood of a state to have this happen was about 60%, a little more. After the conceal carry law was passed, data and trends suggests the state now has only a 1% chance of these types of shootings in areas where conceal carry holders are allowed. [1] I may have mis-phrased the argument here: the likelihood of deaths or injuries when the crime occurs. Essentially saying conceal carry laws make it harder for the psycho to kill when in the area where a conceal carry permit holder resides.The last question is accidental deaths, it decreases. the suicidal deaths rose by 2.67% after the law, and decreased other methods by 6%. Other statistics show an essential double of that, 4% increase for guns decrease 10% for other methods. http://www.debate.org...http://polyticks.com...CONCLUSION:Conceal carry laws reduce crime, my opponent actually ARGUED THE PRO SIDE, MY SIDE. Vote pro. Like really, with the resoluion and I am pro, I argue it reduces crime, you said it decreased it, therefore conceding. So, please, argue the other side. http://www.debate.org...