Concealed Carry Laws Decrease Violent Crime

Here come the rebuttals.1. Defending LottMy opponent makes a false claim regarding Lott's book and study. If you actually read the data, he purposely accounts for these variables and says many times his research confirms these police efforts have the largest impact on crime. He understands fully the importance of incarnation rates and arrest data and almost half of the tables in the book involve incarnation rates in some way shape or form. Interestingly, many of Lott's critics in the academic world have taken the data and replicated it conforming the original results [1]. My opponent has also shpt himself in the foot for this debate. He has forgotten the consensus I have demonstrated (notice he drops that point). 18 academically referred studies show CCW's benefit, 1 shows an increase (my opponent is, then, arguing a huge minority position) and 10 show no effect. Many of those studies, the ten, have been rebutted by Lott and the authors have yet to respond (e. g. Black and Nagin 1998, Duncan's work throughout, etc. ) Interestingly, the authors often misread their results. Although many of their tables replicate Lott's results, they focus on the one or two that show a statistically insignificant increase and claim there is likely no effect. It is hard (and impossible) to deny Lott has created a consensus and the majority of the data has supported his point. 2. NRCMy opponent has contradicted himself. First, he says the NRC is a good source, but then says Wilson missed many factors. Ironically, Wilson uses the SAME EXACT data as the panel and flatly points out the data. So my opponent, when saying his data is flawed, admits the NRC data is riddled with error. Second, my opponent has conveniently again dropped the point. The NRC panel, set up by Clinton, is hugely biassed against Lott. First, most of the scholars (except Wilson) are vehemently anti-gun. They also received $900,000 dollars from the pro-gun control organization the Joyce Foundation. Still, they were unable to prove gun control saved lives. Why? Because they cant. As stated, the NRC data replicated Lotts results almost exactly. As stated, they replicated his results on violent crime. My opponent will ask, then, why not conclude with Lott? As stated, the scholars were biassed and they were funded by gun control organizations. A mental phenomena occurs were they need to give back. Concluding with Lott would be against that rule and, therefore, be impossible. Wilson was the only chap honest enough to do so. The rest denied their own findings and merely said more research is needed, in other words we don't know [1][2][3]. And I reiterate. The NRC did not investigate Donahue or Lott's critics, even though their findings have been widely criticized outside of the panel. Even with the data supporting Lott, being funded by liberal anti-gun foundations, having biased authors, and using one side reporting (not investigating the critics), they DO NOT say Lott is wrong. The majority opinionï¿½€"which my opponent keeps falsely citingï¿½€"merely says we don't know. It is interesting how politics kept them from being honest but they still couldn't deny Lott's findings. If scholars Like Marvel and Moody have overcome skepticism, I do not see why the NRC misrepresented their results. My opponent is wrong on the NRC fiasco. To conclude on the NRC data, the newest paper on the issue: "ADZ couldnï¿½€™t replicate the NRC results with the NRC data. They jumped to the conclusion that it was due to bad data from Lott. We now know that the data that Lott provided to the NRC was the same as that provided to hundreds of other researchers. Using Lottï¿½€™s data, we could we replicate the NRC results for both the dummy variable and trend model, corresponding to the NRC Tables 6-1 and 6-2 and, since the NRC was also able to replicate the original Lott and Mustard results, the NRC must have been using the same data. We were also able to replicate the NRC ï¿½€œno covariateï¿½€ï¿½ model for the 1977-2000 sample. We find it hard to believe that ADZ couldnï¿½€™t replicate those results with the NRC data. Researchers cannot be held responsible for errors committed by others who request their data. . .. We now know that the data provided to the NRC was not tainted with errors. Therefore James Q. Wilson was perfectly justified to conclude that right-to-carry laws reduced murders, since the NRCï¿½€™s own regressions, based on good data provided by Lott, showed a significant negative effect on crime. Also, all the peer-reviewed studies that are based on Lottï¿½€™s data that find that shall-issue laws reduce violent crime, or at least do not increase violent crime, are not tainted by errors. The record still stands at 18-1-10. "[3] the 18-1-10 is the consensus I was talking about. 3. VPC "study" on conceal carry holders The study my opponent cited, to be frank, is a lie and a biassed report from a gun control organization. It is not peer reviewed, in a scholarly way at least, it uses biassed data and the organization had conclusions made before they even wrote a word. Other then that glaring flaw, lets look at a few more. Flaw 1: How they identified permit holders They gathered their data not from the Attorney General or the FBI, but news reports. The media is wrong always on these issues. They cant tell and AR-15 apart from a AK-47, a revolver from a block, I really can't see how this method is valuable or accurate. Flaw 2: Charged with crime =/= conviction They went based off of charges, not convictions. The majority of the cases the permit holder was found innocent or the evidence on their side and the accusation unlikely. Flaw 3: They fail to see dataThere has been a drop in police deaths since the 70s and 80s, when these laws began to be passed. Interesting correlation, huh? Interestingly, a study done by David Mustard finds conceal carry laws help police officers and reduce police deaths--seems as though the VPC has academic opponents that do not forge data [4]. Even using their own data, the VPC still shows permit holders commit felonies at a 1/10th as their non permit brothers [5]. The "study" my opponent used has been refuted. The study I citedï¿½€"done by actual scholarsï¿½€"shows permit holders are the most law abiding people in the USA. 4. ADZSaying those errors do not affect anything is naive. One county was entered in Alaska 73 times. It likely had an increase, and they did this to bolster findings which shouldn't exist. They put in Kansas 10 years before the law was passed, ruining that state. They enter in Florida two years after the lawï¿½€"hiding its initial decrease in crime that Lott demonstratesï¿½€"to hide data. And did the same to South Dakota. Other studies that enter this in correctly replicate Lott's results [3], studies that have these errors do not. Obviously Lott's data is more accurate as it does not have these timing errors. These coding errors destroy the ADZ analysis. 5. Other factors and recent shootingsActually, all but one of the mass shooting happen on gun free zones, the recent ones were gun free zones. They never happen in NRA meetings or in areas that allow guns. This refutes my opponents analysis. Also, a 2003 study by Lott and Whitley show CCW decreases mass pubic shootings [5]. Lott and the other studies either controlled for cocaine prices or usage and all got the same results. My opponent keeps saying Donahue got the opposite conclusion. Yes, he did, using flawed data either with his hybrid model [1], or coding errors. Lott and the 18 studies prevail. Conclusion: The NRC study was flawed, and Wilson's dissent is justified. Donahues and the VPC analysis have so many errors it isn't even funny. The 18 studies show CCW is a benefit. Vote pro--out of room. Remember18 pro10 NA1 NoSources1. Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws. " 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010. More in comments.