Concealed Carry (CCW) Laws Reduce Crime

INTRODUCTIONIt seems Pro didn't quite grasp my argument in the second round. He seems to think that I completely shrugged off the statistics and touted "logic" as the great and powerful force behind debates. This is simply untrue. What I did in the second round was expose a major flaw in my opponents argument. This flaw was the fact that he did not properly explain why CCL acts as a sufficient detterent to crime. This has now be done and I can now refute it. I would also like to defend myself regarding my feelings toward statistics. The thing is, statistics are a major part of debating. However, when put foward alone, they are nothing. Simply finding statistics to support your argument is not enough. A healthy balance of logic and statistics is key. Statistics assertain a pattern and logic explains why this pattern exists. My opponent did not use this balance. All that my opponent did in the second round was show that detterence is key in eliminating crime and then show stats that support CCL. Despite the simplicity of doing so, he did not sufficiently show how CCL is a detterent. This has been a rather lenghty and perhaps irregular introduction, but I will now get into my specific points.EMPIRICAL WARFARE Maybe I was a bit too harsh in saying "Negation of All Statistics." How about a new heading? "Negation of All My Opponents Statistics." I'm going to play the source game now. Below I have provided the links to several credible sources that tell a different story than my opponent has been spinning. http://www.wral.com...http://www.washingtonpost.com...rime/2012/12/16/e80a5d7e-47c9-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_blog.html These are just a few of many. However, they do demonstrate the amount of controversy surrounding many of the sources and people my opponent is pulling from. I do not hate all statistics. I just hold them to be only a part of the overall picture. "LOGICAL ARGUMENTS"The main non-empirical argument my opponent put forward this round was as follows. The reason that CCL laws reduce crime is that they make every civilian a potential criminal sees a potential armed-threat. This is why they are more effective than open-carry and this is why they reduce crime. This is of course a general summary of his argument, but I do believe it is fairly accurate. However, there is a major problem with this. A large majority of criminals are either mentally ill, frequent drug or alchohol abusers, or undeducated. This is a very big deal. According to a study by Ruben Rosario, 60% of all prison inmates are illiterate. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 26% of victims of violence report that the offender was using drugs or alchohol. According to a study by Doris J. James and Lauren E. Glaze, 45% of federal offenders, 56% of state offenders and 64% of jail inmates are mentally ill. (Statistics can be beautiful) After taking this into consideration, rethink my opponents argument. What are most criminals going to react more strongly to? The appearance that very few civilians are carrying guns ( via CCL) or the appearance that a few surrounding citizens are carrying guns? (via open carry). Remember, a large majority of these criminals are either severely uneducated or in a reduced mental state. Will they react strongly to hearing on the news about concealed-carry laws? Will they even know their state allows concealed carry? Probably not. When commiting a crime or right before commiting a crime, a visible revolver on their victims belt will speak much louder to them than a news story they heard about CCL. CONCLUSION My second round of this debate was focused mainly on exposing my opponents statistics and showing that he had no logical argument. This third round has been stronger on both of our part. I have now produced evidence disregarding my opponents statistical claims and fought his logic vigorously. Lets look at what we both have at this point in time.What has my opponent produced?1) Weak, controverial empirical data that many in the gun-control field find to be insufficient.2) A reasonable explanation of detterence which I agree with, but does not help my opponents case any more than it does mine.3) An connection between CCL and detterence which has been negated by my arguments.What have I produced?1) Empirical data sufficient enought to counter my opponents2) A very reasonable and strong argument as to why CCL don't reduce crime. 3) A strong case in my favorI now understand that the BOP is to be shared. I could probably fight back against that by saying something like, "if you don't specify, it goes to pro!", or "pro always gets the BOP, it's just a fact!", but I will not. I would rather my opponent specifies the BOP in the future, but I won't hold that against him (but I won't be too hurt if the voters do! Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean, know what I mean?). Thanks for a great and very difficult round of debating Pro. This is good fun. However, I have produced the stronger argument this round and have fulfilled my part of the BOP. My opponent has not. That is all.