Concealed carry laws decrease crime

Deterrence My opponents main claim to refute my analysis is economists to not study crime etc. Well first this is false, as economists study statistics (a large part of crime), and human behaviors (cost and benefits, also known as deterrence). Gary S. Baker, economist, he does a lot of work on deterrence, he knows about human error, costs and benefits etc. Just because you are an economist does not mean you are not a criminal expert, many of the things they use in economics, much of it is psychology to predict economic outlooks, they can easily apply to crime. "Models of criminal behavior, where a person is assumed to act rationally on the basis of costs and benefits of legal and illegal opportunities, are presented in this chapter." [1]As you can see economists look highly into human behavior and cost and benefit issues, hence their knowledge is credible in the criminal world, especially the peer reviewed papers I have provided. Just because the object in question is not in the job description, they are often asked to do criminal reports, [1] and their knowledge works perfectly with the deviancy we know as crime. [1]Also my opponent claims my argument is biased, no its not, here's a non PDF version of the survey I cited, criminals are more afraid of armed victims then police. (http://www.pulpless.com...) [Gary Kleck, criminologist]My opponent then uses semantics with the word they in the guns deter robbers, they is obviously criminals. My opponent then says giving stats is BS, there are other reasons. He ignores what the source said after the sentence a quote from a criminal "robbing a house with people in it is a good way to get shot" (see round 1 source 1). Robbers and criminals concur they are deterred by armed victims everyday. The apples oranges view works, basic cost and benefit arguing...The old lady was an example, but ok. Your only argument is the old lady is slow and weak, this actually fails to understand defense. 99% of the time showing the gun, no shots, I repeat NO SHOTS fired deter the criminal, they are about self preservation, they are scared of guns, its basic psychology. [2]My opponents last claim fail to understand the arguments behind conceal carry, and psychology. I needn't refute the last point as he ignores basic economic and criminology arguments of cost and benefits. Conceal carry increases the cost, death, as apposed to open carry they will avoid him and the area around him. If you look at CCW he does not know who will and can fight back, essentially ending his life without warning, a huge cost, basic logic means it will deter. My opponent never refutes this premise, watch he will last round and I wont be able to respond -_- lol.DataMy opponent plays semantics, again on crime. Lets assume it is overall crime, I have argued overall already, just showed a graph for violent. But if you look at overall here's the exact:(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) [3]Now, my opponents first claim is the drop is small, he needs to look into crime and what is small. A drop os .1 per 100k people is actually huge if you look at the overall populations. Those "small" declines lead to this:"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." [3]So my opponents arguments on "small" are false. Also, my opponent forgets the peer reviewed studies I have been using have dummy variables, data, other things to account for the drug problems, and, well, they conclude the CCW laws still reduce crime, and it is unlikely that the CCW law (well statistically impossible) that the CC law did not reduce crime, in other words the CCW law was responsible on average in preventing overall crime. [3] "Using a dummy model to estimate the effects we can we can rarely reject the null hypothesis of zero effect once the correct standard errors are used.... [note, this means CCW having no effect is impossible].. Surprisingly, therefore, we conclude, that there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shall- issue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons." [4]Your arguments are refuted, the other variable argument is false, and therefore we can conclude in these MANY studies CCW has an effect on crime, and for the better of society. Chart: or:http://www.debate.org... Also heres violent crime data again, but different data: (see photo album fo source) As we can see, states without these laws have higher crime in all cetegories. The blue is the percent higher it is in states without CCW laws, it shows crime to be higher in all categories. Hence your argunment is false. 1. Violence does not decreaseMy opponent cites another what if argunment, sorry, but guns save more lives then they end, and that they potentially "threaten". Your argunment is a fallacy, oh a gun kills! forget, guns save more lives though deterence, [2] defense usage, [3] and even if you just show the gun. [2] So guns save more lives then they take away and "potentially harm". My opponent then says the percents are small, again, but sorry these percents when it comes to crime is enormous, and he forgets the vital argunment HE NEVER REFUTED: "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." [3]My opponent then is using a strawman, saying never as literal, a CCW holder has never done what you claim might happen, the Zimmerman case does not apply to this debate as he was not a CCW holder. My argunment was CCW holders have never killed someone outside of self defense (proven by jury), [2] yur argunment fails to work as it refers to a non CCW incident involving a gun. CCW holders have never killed, meaning they have no negative effect on society, and the stats say it, they save lives. [2, 3, 4]2. LottAgain citing Donahue. Claiming it has no effect on crime, I said this, Donahue misread his results. He found 30 (27) data tables redced crime, 13 (16) no effect, 0 found an increase. Also, Lott has the most in depth study that exists to date. [2] You never criticised it, claimed crack messed it up, if your argunments where correct there would have been a spike in crime, there was a decline, hence CCW decreased crime through the troubles, meaning CCW even works when drugs linger aroung. [2] Plus, you never justified how crack explains the results.CONCLUSION:He fails to refute my argunments, and fufill his even BOP. He uses biased Donahue studies (panel studies find it biased), and Donahues results actually find in most tables the CCW lae decreased crime. [2] Its an easy choice, vote pro. Args - Easy vote, his args refuted, never justified criticisms on phsycology, or his things on Lott. Sources - I used only peered reviewed studies, he used a lot of opinion peices. rest your choices. VOTE PROMy peer reviewed studies:____________________[1] Erling Eide, Professor at University of Oslo, "ECONOMICS OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR", 1999, pg 345[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[3] Lott, Jr., John R., and David B. Mustard. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." The Journal of Legal Studies 26.1 (1997)[4] Helland, Eric, and Alexander Tabarrok. "Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime”." Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy 4.1 (2004).