Concealed carry laws help reduce violent crime

1. The brutalization hypothesisThe brutalization hypothesis is what Con tells us: the deterrent effect will be overrided by brutalization. CCW holders will become more brutal, commit crimes, and increase crime. But this effect has not been observed. Con cites a few anecdotal examples of crime committed by concealed carry holders, but even he admits that these are "rare". So it is very unlikely that they could override the deterrent effect as well as any defensive uses by CCW holders. Indeed, in Florida "Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida"s right-to-carry law started in 1988" [1]. Indeed, the brutalization effect is simply too small in order to increase crime rates.Con also claims carrying a gun makes you paranoid. However, it begs the question as to whether or not the gun causes the paranoia or whether or not they are paranoid and that is why they get the gun. It also begs the question as to whether or not increased paranoia leads to violent crimes. Indeed, concealed carry holders are the most law abiding group of citizens [2]. So, the question is to what effect"if any"will concealed carry have on crime rates. Gun carrying may increase paranoia, but my opponent must first prove that it will significantly impact crime rates"which is probably doesn"t, as concealed carry holders are the most law-abiding demographic.If they carriers are paranoid, it may even have a crime reducing effect. They may be paranoid because they are worried about crime, but this may lead them to be less confrontational and go to bad neighborhoods as they wish to avoid crime. Further evidence that CCW laws likely do not cause an increase in crime is that in recent years, crime has continued to decrease despite large increases in the amount of concealed carry holders [3].Con also claims criminals may arm themselves due to these laws. This is unlikely, as extensive background checks occur in order to obtain a permit [2]. And as noted, guns can increase crime via criminal armament, but also decrease crime if the law affects law abiding citizens. It obviously arms law-abiding citizens more, as almost never do they commit crimes [2]. My opponent offers conjecture, whereas I provide empirical evidence.2. NAS reportCon"s empirical case relies solely upon the NAS report, using an appeal to authority in order to claim he is correct. But it should be noted my opponents quotation says we have no proof it increases crime or keeps it the same either"they merely want more research. They do not say John Lott is wrong, but that more research is needed. Second, the panel had Steven Levitt as one of their authors, who is a liberal who criticized John Lott before the report. Third, criminologist James Q Wilson wrote an extensive dissenting opinion arguing John Lott was correct [4].A new reassessment of the NAS report has replicated Lott"s and the NAS regressions on crime. What is interesting is that the NAS data actually strongly correlates with Lott"s conclusions. From the study, "James Q. Wilson was perfectly justified to conclude that right-to-carry laws reduced murders, since the NRC"s own regressions " showed a significant negative effect on crime." [5]The fact is, the NAS paper is not strong evidence against our position, and other research should be cited on the Con side in order for him to win the debate.[1] http://www.gunfacts.info...[2] John Lott. More Guns, Less Crime.[3] http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org...[4] http://www.nap.edu...[5] http://papers.ssrn.com...