Concealed carry laws decrease crime

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.The StatsAccording to these numbers, the Florida murder rate was 36% lower after the conceal carry law was passed. [2] Similar results in Texas, where it average 30% lower after the law was passed. [2] Then Michigan has smaller results, 45 lower after the law was passed.Lott's findings:Law 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] [3]Now, another question would be does it lower crime committed with guns? This argument used is common amongst people trying to go against conceal carry laws. But this is not the case. In the new 2010 edition of source 1, it finds a 9% decrease in murders with guns after non-discretionary laws are passed. Murders with non handguns dropped at a similar rate, 8.9%.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 misphrased 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.To get more local statistics, lets look at his findings in some states. In Oregon, for example, murder dropped 37% after the law was passed. Now, there are other variables he accounted for in the third addition making his data superior to the first. He included arrest and conviction rates to this data, and the study concluded arrest rates lead to .34% drop in the overall murder rate, and the conviction only held .3%. So the arrest rates and the conviction rates lead to nothing essentially of the overall drop. He concludes the conceal carry law did, based on statistics and deterrence [above]. [1]Now lets look at PA. They had a drop in murder of about 26%, and overall violent crime drop of 5.3%. Now, this too had the same variables accounted for, and said a 1% increase in arrest = .79% decrease in overall violent crime. So if we look at it neither of these variables account for the drop. [1]Now lets look at Florida. Before the law the crime decreased at a .15% per year, about. After the law, it dropped by .35% each year. At the same time the amount of permit holders was almost 100,000. [1]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. The statistical difference actually large enough to decrease these whoops moments.Summary of argument: http://tinyurl.com... http://polyticks.com... CONCLUSION:These laws have a strong deterrent effect on murders with or without guns. Despite the difference on gun ownership of women and men, it also has the significant deterrence in rape and other crimes relating to women. The law also does not raise accidental rates, and maybe decreases them. I could do more, but am out of room.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. Print. [2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] Lott, Jr., John R., and David B. Mustard. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." The Journal of Legal Studies 26.1 (1997)