Conceal carry laws decrease violent crime

Thank you for responding :D1. Deterrence- Self Preservation My opponent claims people who engage in violent crime will likely not be involved in self preservation, claiming they already are in danger by doing this etc. This is factually incorrect. Criminals, more then the AVERAGE person are actually more into self preservation. Many, most, are not psychopaths and are indeed mainly doing this to have dominance, may sound crazy but that is human and criminal psychology. [1] In source [1], the writer, Lott, finds many stories, statistics, studies, that show criminals are scared of guns. After jailed, they generally admit they are afraid of guns, most say they would not attack an armed victim. This means a handgun can be a deterrent. Now my opponent will point out, "if they knew he was armed", but this actually helps my case. If they dont know who is armed, it makes it that much more.... Scary, if I can word it like that. -Encouragement My opponent basically cites more armed people mean more deaths, then cites a scenario. First, he chooses a bar as an example, yet forgets conceal weapons are banned in bars. [1] Also, he forgets vital things. First, he says more armed people mean more deaths. This is false, as it depends on who the armed people are. Conceal carry permit holders, are actually more law abiding then people, and many instances show this. Also, as stated, less then, LESS THEN 0.5% of permits are revoked, many due to tax evasion and other minor breakings of the law. So having citizens that are armed for defense is going to increase crime? My opponents argument only works if he can prove the conceal carry permit holders will actually commit more crimes then the average person. The argument he states is also known as the "blood will run in the streets argument", luckily this has not happens in ANY state where these laws have been passed. My opponent then cites a "what if" argument, what if A, B, or C happens. As stated, conceal weapons are banned in bars in most states, and conceal carry permit holders never have done this. My opponent uses the "what if" argument, which, has never happened, and it is impossible to argue a argument that has no experience in the world. [1]My opponent then uses the hot blood argument. This is also known as irrational crime. Essentially saying much of crime is a "a am PISSED!". But this ignores the overall numbers, as statistics show conceal carry has no increased effect on cold blood crimes, and actually a positive one. [1] Why does it make the numbers decrease on this crime? Simple, very, a small amount of even these "AGH!!" moments are deterred, a small amount. I statistics, if 2% are deterred then there will be a 2% decrease. Many of these crimes are stress, they do not attack the person who made them mad, rather another thing. Ex: Man fired at work, really pissed, does not attack boss, kicks dog instead. [1] Now, why did he not attack the boss? Because stiffer punishments happen when attacking a human, hence his irrational behavior was deterred by deterrence, this simple psychology means even irrational crimes can be deterred, if punishments are high. - Possible scenarios Irrelevant, has not happened as conceal carry holders are more law abiding then normal people. Also falls under the "what if" scenario, just a red herring used by anti gun outlets. 2. Data Um, what article are you looking at? My round one source #2? First, may I add, the "wrong" statistics that where reported are not violent crime, so even if I did "Lie", it is irrelevant. He also forgets the statistic, which cripples his argument:"If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly." [2]Also, if you look at the drop per 100,000 you see:(Violent crimes) -.3489 (23.558) -.4519 (30.110)(Murder) -.4111 (19.854) -.4302 (20.290)(Rape) -.01773 (0.843) -.0440 (2.045)(Aggravated Assault) -.3198 (21.858) -.4443 (30.170)(Robbery) -.5073 (20.382) -.5768 (22.654)(Property Crime) -.1617 (18.223) -.18568 (20.535)(Auto Theft) -.2214 (12.676) -.3694 (23.505)(Burglary) -.2432 (25.998) -.2108 (22.189)(Larceny) -.1052 (10.752) [2]Per 100,000 we see a decrease. If anything, you are playing with the data presented. "When state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent" [2]I am NOT playing with the data. My opponent then brings the correlation argument, but this is actually interesting, as theory, statistics, and data = causation. Now the theory, a proven theory much like evolution on deterrence. Statistics, well proven. And the empiracle data I mentioned, and the other 16 refereed academic studies. [1] As logic and fact + correlation leads to causation, we can lead to the conclusion by the many studies they decrease crime. My opponent then uses the apple argument, but you must look at all the states. ALL THE STATES SHOWED A DECREASE IN CRIME FOLLOWING THE PASSAGE OF THESE LAWS. [1] Now, with all the empirical data, as Lott points out: "The gun-control debate has changed dramatically over the last decade. In the past the question was how much guns caused crime. The debate is now over whether there are benefits to gun ownership and how large those benefits are". [1] So, as stated, there is overwhelming data, as well as the change in data towards [benefiting] people like me, who herald gun ownership, and there is now not debate over whether it raises crime, rather how big those benefits are. All of this data must lead to causation, and this theory is much like one of evolution, it is essentially fact but a few radicals sit clogging their ears yelling "nanny nanny nanny!!" And, there is not one refereed academic study showing it increases crime, and the ones that claim to have no effect actually misread their results, go back and fix them, and they find a deterrent effect, yet still claim no effect. [1] But I am sorry, with all of this data there is causation. The deterrence theory and the data + logic mean causation. My opponent then claims there is no pattern, then shows a dead link. To Yale, I know exactly who wrote the article, just by seeing the word Yale, professor Donahue (I am such a nerd). It was likely is 2003 study, which was not academically refereed. My opponent then uses Donahue's common attack on Lott by using the there variables, the most famous on was on cocaine usage, arrest rates etc. Lott counters this, with facts not what if arguments commonly used by Donahue. Lott used dummy variables, and other statistics, he shows even during other surges in factors the results show the same, also the argument my opponent is hinting is crime rates fluctuate naturally, but Lott's study was 1977-2010 (still continuing), and he shows through all this time conceal carry laws decrease crime, so, it could be explained by variables if states differentiated, but having the same/similar results in all states mean other variables conducting ever drop is impossible, therefore the CCW law has an effect. So, find a variable consistent in all CCW states, if you can then other variables statistically have a 0% chance of lowering crime at the exact same time after the law was passed in EVERY STATE. Conclusion: Deterrence, stats, logic, arguments, red herrings.... My opponent has failed to disprove simple deterrence theory, and uses a red herring on statistics which I then had to go back and quote, my opponent's argument on fraud stats was false. PRO has proven CCW laws lower violent crime. [1] Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010.[2] Lott, Jr., John R., and David B. Mustard. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." The Journal of Legal Studies 26.1 (1997)