Conceal carry laws decrease violent crime

DeterrenceHere, Pro makes several valid points, and I commend the thought and obvious intelligence behind this first argument.I do believe, though, that he has missed a few vital perspectives. I obviously agree that criminals can be motivated to avoid crime, but I disagree that this concealed carry law is an effective deterrent. Self Preservation: Firstly, those overly concerned with self preservation probably won't be criminals; no one will deny that it's a risky business. But, to take this point one important step forth, the debate is, in the title and in my acceptance statement, about Violent Crime (let me clarify that this is not a semantics argument: the difference is prominent and obvious), which is much more dangerous... I don't think self preservation plays a large roll, seeing that people who are likely to commit violent crime often have nothing to lose. Encouragement: Even if self preservation plays a significant role, I believe that the ability to easily obtain guns and the legality of keeping them close at hand would create a much larger problem. "Every day in the United States, 65 people are killed and more than 6,000 are wounded in interpersonal violence." [1] Impersonal violence is violence taken out in anger upon random people. Now imagine what that statistic would look like if every American had gun in their pocket: A man at a bar without a gun gets in a fight and punches someone. One injury.A man at a bar with a gun gets in a fight. Shoots, miss, kills a passerby and then shoots and kills his target. Two dead.This is just one potential instance where someone gets angry, with and without guns. Just imagine how often this could happen: Wife caught cheating, fight with landlord, racial tensions. 65 murders each day in hot blood. Just speculate for a minute what that number would be if only police had guns. But if everyone had guns? That statistic would be much uglier, I guarantee. 3. Now, let's analyze three possible (Violent Crime) scenarios:The assailant does not have gun. The Victim does not have a gun. The victim is assaulted (robbed, etc.), but has a fighting chance, nobody dies. Unless the intent is murder, which it rarely is. (>1% of all crimes).The assailant does have a gun. The Victim does not have a gun (if guns removed from good, Lawful, citizens but not criminals. Remember this). Once again, the victim is assaulted, but again, unless the intent is murder, the assailant does not have motivation to shoot. Nobody dies.The assailant has a gun. The Victim has a gun. The assailant, prepared to commit a crime probably shoots first. Maybe not, but seeing that the victim is probably going about his daily business, he will be unaware and will probably be shot while drawing his weapon. Best case scenario, victim draws first and the assailant is killed- which is still bad. Someone dies. Now, if the intent is murder, the assailant definitely is prepared to shoot and the victim dies anyways. Once again, the worst possible outcome occurs with more guns. Of course, these don't encompass every scenario, but in a basic assault, guns on both sides should increase the chance of murder. "Conceal carry laws decrease violent crime." Now, avoiding semantics, I think we need to agree "hot murder" is a worse crime than "hot burglary." Another point of inquiry: what if the assailant has no gun and the victim has a gun? Simple answer? It won't happen. Guns flow through gangs and dealers, which brings me to my next point.It's no secret, gangs have been growing, an estimated 750,000 gang member turning into over a million in just two years [2]. What do gangsters need to operate? Guns. And now, with no limit to how many guns a person may purchase, there is a nice market for dealers who can buy guns legally and sell them to whoever they want to in the black market or just around the corner in a shady neighborhood. It's also no secret that Gangs and other forms of organized crime have been the bane of police for decades, but now, gang activity is more problematic than ever. In a study of 5 conducted in 5 American Cities, 90% of all gang homicides were implemented by firearms [3]. Now make it difficult for them to have access to firearms, and that statistic should dwindle dramatically. Speaking of statistics, we come to the second half of Pro's argument:The empirical data This section was initially frightening, but it became less so as I read further into it:firstly,Your statistics are wrong. After reading into the article, I found that , Burglary increased .5%, Larceny increased 3.3%, and Auto increased 7.1%(note: I don't question personal integrity, it's a simple mistake.)Sorta takes the wind outta that argument, especially when statistics can be manipulated to show most anything. (If pro wishes that I find a bogus study, I will.)For the rest, I would like to mention that correlation does not equal causationStatics, even when they are correct, can only say so much. Example: I drop an apple, which lands in a bees nest. I feel pain. Conclusion: dropping apples causes pain and swelling.Obviously incorrect. One possible explanation for the apparent drop in certain areas could be that cities are now getting rewards for having less crime in their area. As a result, many rapes and murders are prosecuted, but not reported.To speak to that nice little graph, that may or may not be reputable at all, I would like to refer all readers to pro's source [4] so that they can see all the other graphs. The follow no such pattern. The graphs are sporadic and reinforce my point that the data is disreputable, and easily influenced by many factors, and can't be relied upon to, in itself, be a measure of this law.ConclusionDeterrence is a factor easily outweighed by EncouragementIncorrect Data and one graph that Pro could have drawn himself, along with the fact that there are a near infinite amount of variables that could have influenced those changes render the second half of Pro's argument invalid. Vote CON! [1] http://angermanagement.net...[2] http://www.helpinggangyouth.com...[3] http://www.cdc.gov...[4] http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu......