Concealed carry laws decrease crime

I shall begin by attacking my opponents case then continue to defend my own case.1: 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)Okay, first of all, let me take the time to inform the Voter on what exactly an economist IS. An Economist is An economist is a professional in the social science discipline of economics. The individual may also study, develop, and apply theories and concepts from economics and write about economic policy. Within this field there are many sub-fields, ranging from the broad philosophical theories to the focused study of minutiae within specific markets, macroeconomic analysis, microeconomic analysis or financial statement analysis, involving analytical methods and tools such as econometrics, statistics, economics computational models, financial economics, mathematical finance and mathematical economics [1]. Sorry for that long explanation, but it was essential. In the definition above, there is not a single mention of CRIME. My opponent is using said studies by economists that don't specialize in the field of crime. So how can we know if these studies are accurate? We cant really because my opponent does not even SPECIFY as to what those studies were called, what book/ website they are from or what time period they are from. Thus, we see that my opponents arguments are very vague.2: Also many surveys conducted show that criminals are more scared of people with guns then police officersOnce again, i point out that my opponent did not elaborate as to what the said surveys were. Therefore, we can agree that his argument about this is biased.3: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.I am not trying to be rude, but i read this sentence over and over again and could not find any sense to it. First my opponent argues that " they may get shot", and i ask, who is THEY? Is " they" the robbers or the people in the household? Also, one cannot simply say that burglars fear guns just by giving a statistic. One would have to delve into the actual psychology of these criminals to find out what they are afraid of. It could not be a fear of a gun, it could be a fear of a dog or fear of the actual OWNERS or fear of getting caught.4:The apple and oranges analogy is strange in my point of view. I see no way you can tie this analogy to Deterrence.5:Criminals wont know if they are attacking an old lady, or an old lady packing a .45 Springfield in her purse.This could in turn, be reversed. As we get older the body’s tissues and organs start to work less efficiently[2} A normal person approaching the old lady from behind could easily be confused as a criminal due to the old ladies lack of eyesight, and reaction time. Thus, this argument is countered.6:whereas open carry is much less scary, as you know who not to annoySo my opponent is basically saying that seeing a person walk down the street with a gun is not scary. Well let me tell you something, i would be VERY scared. Concealed Carry laws DO threaten criminals more, but not in a necessarily good way. We aim to preserve life, do we not? Open carry laws PREVENT crimes before they happen, whereas CCL stop the crime in progress. When a criminal sees a person with a gun, he steers clear of said person, therefore causing no harm at all.7: Empirical Data.My opponent begins by citing a few of the crimes that have decreased due to the Concealed Carry laws. But i say that the drops were too small, therefore could have been due to something else. What more, my opponent defends the resolution" concealed carry laws reduce crime". He doesn't say Violent crime, he only says crime. I can prove that not all crime decreased, contrary to what my opponent might argue. The number of non-violent crimes increased as people influenced by the deterrent effect of confronting armed individuals switched from violent crimesto property crimes; this is sometimes called the substitution effect (Kovandzic, 2005)[3]. Thus, we see that NOT all crime is reduced, which is what my opponent is saying by defending the resolution. The same is said for his other arguments below.8:Essentially saying conceal carry laws make it harder for the psycho to kill when in the area where a conceal carry permit holder residesBut can one not agree that the psycho will still SUCCEED IN KILLING! As soon as the said "psycho" decides to pull out his weapon and shoot, it might take a few seconds for the permit holders to draw their concealed weapons. 9: The Chart.We yet again see that only VIOLENT crimes are being talked about in my opponents argument. What about the increase of property crimes or other crimes? My opponent clearly defends that all crimes are reduced, when in fact, only violent crimes reduce. Thus, we see the flaw in this case.I shall now defend my case to the best of my ability.obsv. 1: yes, my opponent is correct, 36 states have Shall issue laws.C1: Violence does not decrease.I believe my opponent has misunderstood the main idea of my first contentions. My argument is that guns kill and are dangerous, therefore, anyone with possession of a gun could be potentially dangerous.The percents that he gives are small, but they are still on the surface. My opponent himself proves that guns are dangerous in saying that there were "3 accidentally" discharges. No one was hurt, yet discharges are potentially dangerous.My opponent makes a grave mistake by saying that "The arguments on what IF they fight and shoot one another, well guess what? Since 1977 it has NEVER happened, not once." I can easily disprove this. He believes that since 1977, NOBODY has gotten in a fight that ended up in the firing of shots. Well, take a look at this: Zimmerman, 28, is charged with second-degree murder in the Feb. 26 shooting of the 17-year-old Martin. He claims self-defense and has said Martin was the aggressor in their confrontation at a gated community where Martin was staying. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer at the community, where he also lived[4]. We have presumably heard about the Shooting of Trayvon Martin on the news, and it is a great example of my argument. Two parties engaged in a fight, one of them pulled out a gun and shot the other one and is now claiming self defense. So my opponent says that this NEVER happened since 1977? Think again.C2: Lott's research.We have yet more evidence that proves that lott reaserch is invalid. One study that countered Lott’sresults was published in 2003 by John Donohue and Ian Ayres; it analyzed Lott’s studies inShooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis and found that his results could easily bemanipulated by changing a few criteria or by using the exact same data but a different techniquefor analyzing it. The result of the study showed that concealed carry weapon laws actuallyincreased the crime rates in states where they had been passed (Donohue, 2003)[3]. Thus, we continue to see why some of Lotts research is not enough. Whats more "The techniqueused to analyze the data was the “statistical modeling of panel data by using a fixed-effectsmodel, in which there is a dummy variable for each city and year, except the first year and city toavoid perfect collinearity.” This method resolved many of the issues that previous studies had indealing with the variables of the data (Kovandzic, 2005)[3]. Theoverall result of this survey, which included numerous tests using different variables, was thatconcealed carry weapon laws have little effect on crime rates [3].I am out of characters AGAIN! Thank you for reading my arguments.Cited1- http://en.wikipedia.org...2-http://www.bbc.co.uk...3-http://www.uwplatt.edu...4- Give lttr