Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime

"If I see any semantics on this point you automatically lose.If there is any semantics with the title, you automatically lose.If you use semantics on the following definition, or this sentence, you lose:"Concealed carry, or CCW (carrying a concealed weapon), refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity."http://en.wikipedia.org......The definition on conceal carry handgun laws is common knowledge, so no trolling."My opponent is clearly opposed to semantics, a sentiment I share. He has, however, failed to define an important term in this round: "concealed carry handgun laws." He defined "concealed carry, or CCW" but neglected to discuss the "law" component of his proposition. Thus, I will take the liberty of defining this term to be "any law which imposes limits or restrictions on concealed handgun carry." I feel that this definition is fair and reasonable, and will result in an educational, fruitful debate."No semantics, on the things mentioned above. If you do auto FFNo trolling, sorry imabench ;) [or the real trolls] If you do auto FF1st round acceptance, if you fail to do this I get conduct.1st round definitions, rule making (by instigator) and other things, no arguments."I agree to abide by these rules."Violent crime: rape, murder, assault, robberyBOP even.I need to prove 3/4 of the things above, and that definition expanded as long as it is actually considered violent crime.Neither side must prove 100% decrease or increase. But voters, look in who makes it more convincing.Good luck!!"I also accept these definitions and stipulations, and wish my opponent the best of luck.I will now discuss the proposition itself: that concealed carry handgun laws (as previously defined) reduce violent crime.My opponent's support for this is rather brief and lacking in substance. I will take the time to refute it before continuing on to my case. His argument is as follows:"I am NOT saying the law itself reduces crime, but its outcome does. The reasoning here is clear."This argument is a non sequitur, as the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The first premise in his argument is that "the law does not reduce crime (A)". I entirely agree with this, as laws in and of themselves are powerless. It is the enforcement of the law, not the law itself, that determines the outcome or effect of said law. However, the conclusion, "the outcome of concealed carry handgun laws reduces violent crime (C)", does not follow from premise (A). This is because my opponent is assuming the second premise - that "concealed carry handgun laws will be successfully enforced (B)". This premise, unlike premise (A), is woefully false. It is naive to assume that just because concealed carry handgun laws are enacted, we will be able to enforce them by ensuring that nobody carries a handgun. Admittedly, lawful citizens who wish to carry a handgun will be refused the opportunity to do so, but the illegal gun trade affords criminals the opportunity to acquire weapons (including handguns) and proceed to carry them concealed. Because the illegal gun trade and the concealed carry of a small handgun are both impossible to enforce completely, the outcome of concealed carry handgun laws will not match up to their intent. While the intent is noble - to eradicate handguns from the streets completely - the enforcement of concealed carry laws cannot ensure that criminals do not carry concealed handguns.I will now discuss my case, which is composed of 4 contentions:Contention 1: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws increase violent crime.I support this contention with historical, empirical data."During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower." [1]"In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales. ...the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban." [1]"In 1982, the city of Chicago instituted a ban on handguns. This ban barred civilians from possessing handguns except for those registered with the city government prior to enactment of the law. The law also specified that such handguns had to be re-registered every two years or owners would forfeit their right to possess them. In 1994, the law was amended to require annual re-registration. ...Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower. Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect." [1]Contention 2: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws are Unconstitutional.The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution provides that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Clearly, by their very nature, concealed carry handgun laws infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because these laws limit citizens' access to handguns. This position is supported by the Supreme Court, which struck both the DC and Chicago handgun bans on grounds of Constitutionality.Contention 3: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws Protect the Innocent.While one may think that concealed carry laws remove guns and thereby protect the innocent from harm, the opposite is true. As I discussed in my refutation of my opponent's argument, the enforcement gap essentially disarms the law-abiding citizens while leaving the criminals unaffected. The result is a world where armed criminals can shoot and kill unarmed and helpless citizens. This contention is supported by a poll done on felons in the United States:"A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found: • 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" • 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun" • 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"" [1]As you can see, handguns can aid innocent people by giving them protection from armed (or unarmed) criminals.Contention 4: Concealed Carry Handgun Laws Weaken the United States.We see this in two points:Point A: Handguns (and other guns) preserve American accountability.This nation was founded on the principle that government is evil and must be held in check by the people. By limiting access to handguns, concealed carry laws forfeit the people's ability to protect themselves from a potentially oppresive government.Point B: Handguns (and other guns) preserve American strength.The US has 3 million military personnel, half of which are active. But even this number pales in comparison to the over-300-million people in the United States. One of the reasons why the 2nd amendment was drafted was to protect America from foreign invasion and by restricting access to handguns, my opponent would decrease the capabilities of America's most reliable and most important defense: its people.In light of this, I urge a CON ballot and eagerly await my opponent's response.[1]"Gun Control Facts." By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010. Revised 1/22/12. http://justfacts.com...;