Conceal carry laws decrease violent crime

Deterrence: "The study that Lott references to argue that permit holders are rarely arrested for crimesof violence also indicates that permit holders very rarely successfully use a gun to ward off a criminal attacker. This study examined data collected by the Dade County, Florida police during the first five years after Florida's permissive gun carrying law went into effect.During this period there were only three incidents in which a permit holder successfully used a gun indefense against a criminal attack outside the permit-holder's home. Considering that about 100,000 violent crimes were reported to Dade County police during the five-year study period, it is hard to argue that criminals are likely to have noticed a significant change in their risk of facing a victim armed with a gun." [1]I see two main problems with the remainder with Pro's argument:It's entirely based on data.The data is all from one source (Lott), a source that is obviously biased. Correlation= CausationUnfortunately, My opponent does nothing but make a statement with elaboration but no justification, so it's difficult to counter. So, I ask what his method would deduce from a classic thought experiment: Two men are in separate rooms with one hole in the adjoining wall. One man has a pistol. (how fitting)One man fires.Later, the other man dies. So, using Pro's equation, what has happened? I just need something to work with, seeing that Pro has not combated my argument, only masked it with an empty statement.DataOne source, One experiment, No support... would Pro please explain how this is reputable in any way? I do hope that Pro does not wish to argue that anything published by anyone with money or a degree is reputable. (Lott credibility was brought into question after the 98% polling investigation) But, just in case, I present an example of how Lott's data is unreliable and perhaps a better summary of the argument Pro has apparently failed to understand: "The central problem is that crime moves in waves, yet Lott's analysis does not include variables that can explain these cycles. For example, he uses no variables on gangs, drug consumption, or community policing. As a result, many of Lott's findings make no sense. He finds, for example, that both increasing the rate of unemployment and reducing income reduces the rate of violent crimes and that reducing the number of black women 40 years old or older (who are rarely either perpetrators or victims of murder) substantially reduces murder rates. Indeed, according to Lott's results, getting rid of older black women will lead to a more dramatic reduction in homicide rates than increasing arrest rates or enacting shall-issue laws." [2]Re post of the link that failed last time [3] shows a better evaluation of Lott's findings, especially the graphs at the end that affirm my belief that Pro's graph is just one small period of time when crime happened to decrease, or, was just a construction of someone's imagination and rudimentary computer skills. [1] http://www.jhsph.edu...[2] http://www.nejm.org...[3] http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu... (Readers will have to download the PDF to see the full report.)