Concealed carry laws decrease crime

Guns. What are guns? We should all know the answer to this question. But what is a gun in anyones hands? Is it a harmful device, or a protectful gaurdian? That is the question. The answer, not as simple as it may sound. How do guns being concealed decrease crime rates? I aim to answer that question in the following two contentions. Not only that, but i also aim to prove my opponent wrong, therfore, i contend the resolution. Obsv. 1: What are the types of Concaled and carry laws? Many of us are not as familiar as others with this topic so i shall present the following observation. There are three Concealed carry laws, all of wich are explained below. All of these observations are from source [1]. Unrestricted: (Sometimes this is referred to as “Constitutional Carry”) requires no permit to carry a concealed firearm. “Shall Issue”: These are the most common type of conceal and carry permits. Shall-Issue states require applicants to meet certain criteria defined by the law, but once a citizen meets the criteria the granting authority has no discretion to withhold permits. Typically states require residency, a minimum age, finger printing, background checks and attendance in a certified training program / firearm safety class. “May-Issue”: These states require citizens to obtain a legal permit by meeting state requirements (similar to Shall-Issue states) but the granting authority has discretion to add additional requirements or withhold the permit if they do not feel sufficient cause warrants the permit. Typically these additional restrictions can include providing evidence that there is justifiable need for the permit. Contention 1: Violence does not decrease.In fact, I will be able to prove that violence tied to colcealed carry laws actually INCREASES. When guns are available to any citizen that passes the said tests, crime tends to increase. There is no option but to agree that when guns are involved, there will usaly be something bad tied to said gun. Moving on, GUNS are not to be taken lighlty. ANYONE with a gun can be considered dangerous. For example, if someone thinks he or she is doing good by trying to detter a criminal by using a loaded weapon, the events may escalate if the said "good guy" fires one to many a shot and harms an inoccent person. Furthermore, anyone with swift acces to a gun can lead to violence. Opponents of shall-issue licensing laws generally argue that such laws might raise levels of criminal violence, primarily by increasing the number of persons with easy access to guns in public places. According to this theory, assaults are often impulsive acts involving the most readily available weapons. Since guns are especially lethal weapons, more guns might result in more firearms-related homicides and injuries.[2]Now, let us take a look at some statistics: 31,593 people died from gun violence[3]How can one dissagree that if guns are redily and legaly available to citizens, this number would not increse? Take this for example, people engage in fights every day, be it verbal escalations or violent escalations. Now that citizens have direct acces to hiden firearms, these verbal and phisical escalations may step up a level and end up in the involvment of guns. These escalations range anywhere from a person caught cheating to a person pushing someone on accident. Our human minds are very mysterious to say the least. We fight for seemingly stupid things all the time! Just today, i got in a fight with a friend because he took my pizza.Furthermore, what if one of these stupid conflicts ends up in a phisical fight. What if one of the assaliants returns later on with a gun in his hand and disposes of the other party. Now, what if everyone had access to a loaded gun? Would you not agree that the assaliant would just skip the last step as a whole and take care of the other party then and there? All the assaliant has to do is pull out his LEGAL weapon and shoot the other party. There is nothing stoping these events happening. Now, this allows me to move on to my next point. My opponent clearly states "decreases crime" in the resolution . What type of crime? How can my opponent prove that concealed carry laws decrease the illegal use of marijuana? A crime is any act or omission that violates a law which results in a punishment [4]. Thus, my opponent fails to elaborate as to WICH crimes will be lowered. In their 2003 study published in the Stanford Law Review, Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue concluded that a proliferation of laws that permit concealed-carry licenses based on specific criteria (“shall-issue” laws, as opposed to laws that permit licenses based on proof of need) does not reduce crime and instead correlates to higher crime rates. Their study was in response to a 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime, written by John R. Lott of the Yale Law School [5].Contention 2: Lotts research is not accurate enough.My opponent bases his case off of John Lotts study of this topic. But, i say to the voter that John Lott has been proven wrong many times. In a 2003 article, Yale Law professors John J. Donohue III and Ian Ayres have claimed that Lott’s conclusions were largely the result of a limited data set and that re-running Lott’s tests with more complete data yielded none of the results Lott claimed [6]. Lotts reaserch is also faulty due to the following reasons: Lott’s research did not account for the large increase in crack cocaine use from 1977 to 1992. As Ayres and Donohue point out, crack was likely more prevalent in urban areas within states that were reluctant to pass “shall-issue” laws than in more rural states that adopted “shall-issue” laws. If so, Lott may have erred in failing to recognize that crack was more directly linked to increased crime than was an absence of “shall-issue” laws. Ayres and Donohue point to several flaws in Lott’s reasoning that concealed weapons held by law-abiding citizens make criminals act more cautiously and, thus, deter crime. With concealed-carry laws, criminals could be more inclined to pack heat and be quicker to shoot. There’s also the concern that heated arguments can escalate into shootings [7].Thus, one can now conclude that Lotts studys are not entirely accurate. More Evidence:Using publicly available media reports, the Violence Policy Center claims that from May 2007 through the end of 2009, concealed carry permit holders in the U.S. have killed at least 117 individuals, including 9 law enforcement officers (excluding cases where individuals were acquitted, but including pending cases). There were about 25,000 murders by firearm that period, meaning that concealed carry permit holders committed less than 1% of the murders by firearm. Furthermore, a large number of the victims were killed in extended suicides, most of which took place in the home of the shooter, where arms can be possessed without special permits.[8] Ironically, putting more guns into the hands of law-abiding citizens means that more guns will end up in the hands of criminals. Mark Duggan of the University of Chicago estimates that 500,000 guns are stolen annually. Stolen guns mean more gun violence[9].In conclusion:I am down to 400 characters, so i shall be breif. There is no possible way one can prove that conceled carry laws decrese crime. Just because these so called " law abiding citizens" are in possesion of wepons that have the power to save lives, there is no way to prove that those same weapons have the power to DECIMATE a life. Thank you for even taking the time out of your day to read my case. Good luck to my opponent in his next round. Cited:1) http://www.concealandcarryhq.com... 2)http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us...3) http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com... i am out of charactrs