Concealed carry laws decrease crime

Obsv1:I agree to these. I believe most states have a shall issue though. C1: Violence does not decreaseMy opponents main claim here is guns kill, therefore conceal carry permit holders kill. Now, his main claim is that all conceal carry permit holders are dangerous. I dont want to run down the list o states, but will name 3:Florida - 0.01% rate of people taking the permit away (government revoking it), of those 0.01%, the huge majority was walking onto restricted areas. Indiana - 0.25% revocation rate, none of the revocations involved violent crimeMichigan - 0.1% revocation rate. Only one involved murder, but the murder did not involve a gun. And 3 accidentally discharged a gun, no one was hurt. [1]My opponents claim only works if he can totally link conceal carry to a portion of gun violence, this is imposable. You find conceal carry permit holders save lives, and not destroy them. Now, my opponents argument is irrelevant unless he links it to his C2. My opponent then continues to the liberal what if argument, not to be rude, but it gets old. The arguments on what IF they fight and shoot one another, well guess what? Since 1977 it has NEVER happened, not once. [2] Your argument fails as conceal carry permit holders are more law abiding then the average citizen,[1] and it has never happened. [2] You might claim "what if it does", that is nearly statistically impossible, and even if it happens once or twice, we must ask if it kills more people then it takes away, it does not, it saves more lives, and it takes away none. Your argument fails on a factual basis. Also, you cite marijuana, if you are caught intoxicated with your gun you are arrested. Not to mention it never has happened.[2]C2: Lott's research is not enough My opponent claims one study is not enough, note I cited 3 studies earlier. He essentially forces a counter study, which is a viable refutation, but does not work. He claims his data was small, yet he had the largest study ever done on it, 1977 - 1997, then 1997 - 2000, then 2000-2010, then he compiled the data. [1] If you read his work, he used the LARGEST data set and the MOST data, whereas other studies continually cut out data. [1]My opponent then cites the famous crack problem, this would increase crime preternatural causes, but in states that had CCW laws there was less of a rise, and some still decreased. Now, the argument also fails as his study went also through 1997, hence does not even refute his data. A study done by Plassman, looks into the viability of the study (finds Lott's work 100% correct), Plassman does the job for Lott in refuting the drug question, and actually notes the Lott study did account for the crack variables. They used dummy variables, that likely make the results evade that problem. Also, your quote does little to explain how cocaine would ruin the results, as if that was true there should be an increase of crime, but Lott found a decrease, hence the argument fails, helps my side as it shows CCW prevailed even under drug increases. Further, the book I am using of Lott is a newer edition, that uses new data from other studies as well that do account for the cocaine usage. [1] So, really, your argument fails to refute Lott. Now one can conclude the Lott data is totally accurate.More evidenceHe uses the most bias source, violence policy center, to explain the results. He thinks more guns = more crime and suicides. First it is not true CCW always increases the gun count, as many go to the training. Second, the training these people get teaches them how to store them properly, and lastly many permit holders have their gun with em 24/7, your argument fails. So, my opponent mainly claims I am ignoring the cost of gun violence. I admit guns are in violence, but you miss the point. CCW laws do not really kill people, they save lives time and time again. [1] You keep citing gun violence, but never prove CCW laws are responsible or even a part of it, hence your arguments are invalid. Summary (different data): http://www.debate.org...CONCLUSION:My empirical data was never refuted, so vote PRO[1] Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010.[2] Snyder, Jeffery R. "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right ToCarry a Handgun." CATO, 22 Oct. 1997