Concealed Carry (CCW) Laws Reduce Crime

"Negation" of Statistics My opponent, instead of responding to the strong empirical data, merely attempts to shrug off statistics as if they are worthless. This is similar to the often quoted saying "lies, damned lies, and statistics". However, this saying, and my opponents case, is simply untrue. To shrug off statistics is a foolish mistake. If, for example, we assumed statistics are 'cheap' (like my opponent argues), then entire scientific fields would be essentially eradicated. Economics, criminology, and anyone who uses data to support their experiments. However, it is true that statistics can be false. But this does not mean that statistics is flawed at its core. Merely because one statistician, for example, is wrong does not mean all statistics are false. If a doctor prescribes the wrong medicine and kills the patient, the doctor is at fault, not medicine as a whole. When statistics are properly used, properly researched, and use correct methodology, reliable conclusions and inferences can be drawn from them. Now, my opponent's argument (that I have not linked CCW with deterrence) is mindboggling. What is deterrence? Deterrence is when the costs of an action become large enough to persuade individuals to not commit a certian action. Conceal carry does exactly that! Conceal carry would be a huge deterrent! Why? Very simple. Conceal carry arms a percentage of the population, meaning that potential victims can defend themselves against criminals. Conceal carry not only makes criminals uncertian who is armed (which makes, say, an assault situation much harder), but they know that if they are armed, they are in trouble. As economist John Lott has stated, "Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves." [1]Now my opponent's main argument against statistics is that there are different opinions, different results... And...? My opponent has such high regard to logic--which I have demonstrated with the deterrence argument already, he must have skimmed it...--its unerving. Logic is, of course, needed. It is what can help statisticians determine correlation and causation (as well as other tests). However, to rely only on logic is just as flawed based on my opponents reasoning than relying on statistics. For example, many people have made logical arguments along the lines of procreation against gay marriage, others have made logical arguments for gay marriage on the lines of equality. People logically argue about the existence of god. Oh, I can dig up mountians of logic that are for or against a certian topic, but that does NOT mean that logic is actually flawed. Legal scholars have differing opinions, is law not a valid science? In reality, to demonstrate that there is conflicting research is a terrible argument. The question is not whether or not the field of statistics is valuble, or valid, but which numbers are correct. This is the same as with logical arguments. Instead of shrugging off statistical arguments, attempt to find holes in them. Debating statistics is exactly like debating logic, the only difference is that one has numbers. More guns, less crimeShould my opponent really throw this argument out? In fact, it leads to an excellent analogy to the issue, and his throwing it out is to his detriment, not mine. Take robbery, for example. Criminals do not know which homes are armed, and which are not. It has been demonstrated that robberies in the United States are done when no one is home due to the fears of civilian self defense, whereas in countries with low gun ownership robbers go when they please [2]. This demonstrates that when an people are armed, and criminals do not know who is armed, they will change their behavior accordingly. Sound familiar? To ignore this argument is to concede the entire premise behind CCW is correct. "this debate is about the concealed carrying of guns, not the carrying of guns in general"This brings up a good point. Carrying guns in general can actually be an excellent case study in this area. Conceal carry versus open carry, what effects would we see? For open carry, a criminal knows who is armed, and will not target that specific person. However, they have opertunities to attack other people which are unarmed. However, if 1% to 3 percent of the population has a concealed weapon, then the person has to change his behavior. Look for bumps in peoples pockets, go for people less likely to have a firearm, etc. If anything, my opponent bringing up this point proves my point: concealed weaponry can be an extremely strong deterent, due to the increased cost of attacking an armed victim. HOWEVER, if you read my arguments, you see I talk primarily about concealed carry, and NOT the general gun topic. My opponent is actually drawing the debate much further away from the resolution then I have. My opponent made no argumentsFrom round one: "My opponent, as CON, will be arguing against this proposition, that CCW laws have no effect, or increase, violent crime rates."As we can see, my opponent has NOT actually argued anything. He has attempted to refute my case, but he has NOT offered ANY logical or statistical reasoning as to why CCW wouldn't decrease crime. See, my opponent talks about me relying mainly on empirical evidence. However, even if we assume my opponents argument is correct, my case would STILL be stronger than his: he has not even used logic in his case, for he has not made one! He has a response/case section, but he skips the case, and focuses entirely on what I said! My opponent claims I have not shown that CCW is a deterrent (which, obviously, I have, through both logical and empirical means), however, he hasn't shown that CCW isnt a deterrent. Which means, even accepting every thing he has stated, at best the conclusion from his statements is a tie, not a CON win. My opponent at this point in time seems to be attempting to gain a tie, not a victory. As of now, his method of argumentation should not be successful in the voting period. CONCLUSIONWhat have I produced?1) Empirical data from multiple research studies, authors, and viewpoints2) A brief explanation of the deterrence hypothesis3) A logical connection between deterrence and CCW (see, eg, this round, as well as last round paragraph 4 under deterrence, which my opponent must have not read "Increasing the cost to the criminal--in this case, arming them (where the criminal doesn't know who is armed) leads to a high cost. The possibility of injury and death of the criminal increases dramatically when victims are armed, this also means victims previously preyed on due to the fact they cannot physically defend themselves (women, elderly people) have now an even playin field. And as the possible victims are concealing the weapon, the victim has the potential for surprise. The existence of an armed populace, therefore, makes it more risky and difficult to commit crime.")What has my opponent produced?1) No emprical data, except an article about the death penalty which cites criminologists using simplistic datasets which prove nothing when met with scrutiny2) No case as to why CCW decreases crime3) As there is no case, even assuming my opponent is correct does not warrent a CON win, rather a tie (again, this is assuming he is 100% correct, but as I have demonstrated, he is not)4) Claims I have a BOPNow, thats my opponent's only argument, that I have the BOP, but that is an outright misrepresentation of round one. I gave the BOP to no one, he will respond "you're pro", however, as previously quoted, I gave CON a burden of argumentation as well. To repeat, "In this debate, I will argue that allowing (shall issue laws, for example) CCW will decrease violent crime in the United States. My opponent, as CON, will be arguing against this proposition, that CCW laws have no effect, or increase, violent crime rates." [emphasis added]THEREFORE, looking at the guidelines of the debate which my opponent agreed upon by accepting the debate, we see that the BOP IS NOT SOELY MINE, and is SHARED.As you can see, I have fulfilled the requirements and BOP much more than my opponent has. As of this point, my opponent has not demonstrated that my case is incorrect (instead, tries to avoid the overwhelming evidence), and has failed to create his own case. P.S. Just in case anyone is interested as to whether or not the DP is a deterrent (this isn't an argument, it was originally intended to prove the deterrent effect existed, which my opponent seems to agree upon) see here: http://www.cjlf.org...;1. http://press.uchicago.edu...;2. http://www.guncite.com...;