The Instigator
Pro (for)
11 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
9 Points

Conceal carry laws decrease violent crime

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,066 times Debate No: 22841
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (37)
Votes (5)




Lets see if I can get a good debate on this.... I do not argue the law itself has an effect, the piece of paper will not do anything, but the effects of the law do. The meaning is simple.

So, I as pro think these laws are generally accompanied by decreases in crime... Please no semantics.

Conceal carry or CCW is a law passed that allows citizens to carry handguns concealed, after they turn 21.

No semantics
No trolling
You argue CCW laws have NO effect or a BAD effect on crime...
I argue CCW laws generally lower crime.

first round acceptance, thats really all.


I accept all rules, definitions, and the structure.

I will argue that (though concealed weapons could, in certain situations, prevent violent crime) violent crimes instigated or implimented by concealed handguns are far more prevalent.
Debate Round No. 1


As noted, I argue that conceal handgun laws LOWER violent crime.

Deterrence (use with argument below)

A common misconception throughout Europe is less guns equal less crime, and the same argument applies in current US media, all claiming guns and conceal carry are evil.

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) find when increased punishments or possible problems occur when doing the crime the negative outweigh the positives of committing the crime, and then they are less likely to commit the crime. Now we must ask why are they deterred by this? The answer is self explanatory, but I shall point out the obvious: They want self preservation, they want to be able to get away with their deeds. Also many surveys conducted show that criminals are more scared of people with guns then police officers, as if the gun is hidden they may be attacked back without warning (polices warning is the uniform).

Now, lets look at a thing Lott calls a "hot burglary." This is when a criminal strikes when a person is already at home. In Canada and England, where gun control is very strict, almost half of the burglaries where hot. In contrast, 13% in america where hot. Now what is the reason? 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.

Now, lets use some examples of deterrence. Lott uses the literal example of apples and oranges. He says if the price of apples increases while the price of oranges decreases apples sales will decrease, while orange sales will stay the same or increase. This shows the human oh it has consequences effect.

Is open carry and conceal carry different, when it comes to deterrence? When a concealed carry permit holder has a gun, it is harder to actually tell if they have a gun. Criminals wont know if they are attacking an old lady, or an old lady packing a .45 Springfield in her purse. This raises the risk to criminals, hence also their preservation. Whereas open carry is much less scary, as you know who not to annoy, and not to annoy anyone around him (as he may help the other person). The conceal carry laws threaten the criminals more.

The empirical data

Law Passed Murder fell 7.7%, Rape fell 5.3%, Aggravated assault by 7.01%, robbery 2.2%, Burglary .5%, Larceny 3.3%, Auto 7.1%. [1] (1977-1997 data)

Other data, his 1999 data, shows a better outcome of a 10% decrease in murder, and the other categories too had a larger decrease in crime, hence CCW in hi later data was slightly revised in new data sets. Lotts early data can be found in #2.

Now lets look at PA. They had a drop in murder of about 26%, and overall violent crime drop of 5.3%. Now, one of the criticisms of this basic trend is just because the drop happened after the law, we can also look at other variables, the most common one is arrest rates. Lott makes many dummy variables, tables, and to the best of his ability shows CCW laws where a significant portion of the decrease. [1] Another reasons he concludes the drop is because when there is a spike in people who have permits there is a decrease in violent crimes.

To get more local statistics, lets look at his findings in some states. In Oregon, for example, murder dropped 37% after the law was passed. Now, there are other variables he accounted for in the third addition making his data superior to the first. He did other dummy data sets, and still finds CCW had a large portion of the deterrence an drop in crimes. [1]

Now, it is logical to assume they actually decrease crime due to my deterrent argument above. The CATO study also finds similar reasons why it would actually decrease crime. They also fund similar accounts of data, and they conclude the Florida CCW law was positive and the other states that passed these laws also had a positive showing.

Another question that must be answered: would it increase or decrease mass public crimes? Now, as this is a valid fear, see the recent shootings in Chicago I believe, or Virginia tech. But to define shootings/killings, we must look into what is defined by. It is defined as a public shooting in a place where 2 or more people are killed or injured. Now based n his data in figure 5.1, he found the likelihood of a state to have this happen was about 60%, a little more. After the conceal carry law was passed, data and trends suggests the state now has only a 1% chance of these types of shootings in areas where conceal carry holders are allowed. [1] I may have misphrased the argument here: the likelihood of deaths or injuries when the crime occurs. Essentially saying conceal carry laws make it harder for the psycho to kill when in the area where a conceal carry permit holder resides.

Now, another question would be does it lower crime committed with guns? This argument used is common amongst people trying to go against conceal carry laws. But this is not the case. In the new 2010 edition of source 1, it finds a 9% decrease in murders with guns after non-discretionary laws are passed. Murders with non handguns dropped at a similar rate, 8.9%.

"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." [1] [2] (1997 study)

Summary of argument:

source: [1], and "the conceal handgun debate", john lott.




Here, Pro makes several valid points, and I commend the thought and obvious intelligence behind this first argument.
I do believe, though, that he has missed a few vital perspectives.

I obviously agree that criminals can be motivated to avoid crime, but I disagree that this concealed carry law is an effective deterrent.

Self Preservation: Firstly, those overly concerned with self preservation probably won't be criminals; no one will deny that it's a risky business. But, to take this point one important step forth, the debate is, in the title and in my acceptance statement, about Violent Crime (let me clarify that this is not a semantics argument: the difference is prominent and obvious), which is much more dangerous... I don't think self preservation plays a large roll, seeing that people who are likely to commit violent crime often have nothing to lose.

Encouragement: Even if self preservation plays a significant role, I believe that the ability to easily obtain guns and the legality of keeping them close at hand would create a much larger problem. "Every day in the United States, 65 people are killed and more than 6,000 are wounded in interpersonal violence." [1] Impersonal violence is violence taken out in anger upon random people. Now imagine what that statistic would look like if every American had gun in their pocket:

A man at a bar without a gun gets in a fight and punches someone. One injury.
A man at a bar with a gun gets in a fight. Shoots, miss, kills a passerby and then shoots and kills his target. Two dead.

This is just one potential instance where someone gets angry, with and without guns. Just imagine how often this could happen: Wife caught cheating, fight with landlord, racial tensions. 65 murders each day in hot blood. Just speculate for a minute what that number would be if only police had guns. But if everyone had guns? That statistic would be much uglier, I guarantee.

3. Now, let's analyze three possible (Violent Crime) scenarios:

The assailant does not have gun. The Victim does not have a gun. The victim is assaulted (robbed, etc.), but has a fighting chance, nobody dies. Unless the intent is murder, which it rarely is. (>1% of all crimes).

The assailant does have a gun. The Victim does not have a gun (if guns removed from good, Lawful, citizens but not criminals. Remember this). Once again, the victim is assaulted, but again, unless the intent is murder, the assailant does not have motivation to shoot. Nobody dies.

The assailant has a gun. The Victim has a gun. The assailant, prepared to commit a crime probably shoots first. Maybe not, but seeing that the victim is probably going about his daily business, he will be unaware and will probably be shot while drawing his weapon. Best case scenario, victim draws first and the assailant is killed- which is still bad. Someone dies. Now, if the intent is murder, the assailant definitely is prepared to shoot and the victim dies anyways.

Once again, the worst possible outcome occurs with more guns. Of course, these don't encompass every scenario, but in a basic assault, guns on both sides should increase the chance of murder. "Conceal carry laws decrease violent crime." Now, avoiding semantics, I think we need to agree "hot murder" is a worse crime than "hot burglary."

Another point of inquiry: what if the assailant has no gun and the victim has a gun?
Simple answer? It won't happen. Guns flow through gangs and dealers, which brings me to my next point.

It's no secret, gangs have been growing, an estimated 750,000 gang member turning into over a million in just two years [2]. What do gangsters need to operate? Guns. And now, with no limit to how many guns a person may purchase, there is a nice market for dealers who can buy guns legally and sell them to whoever they want to in the black market or just around the corner in a shady neighborhood. It's also no secret that Gangs and other forms of organized crime have been the bane of police for decades, but now, gang activity is more problematic than ever. In a study of 5 conducted in 5 American Cities, 90% of all gang homicides were implemented by firearms [3]. Now make it difficult for them to have access to firearms, and that statistic should dwindle dramatically.

Speaking of statistics, we come to the second half of Pro's argument:

The empirical data
This section was initially frightening, but it became less so as I read further into it:
Your statistics are wrong. After reading into the article, I found that , Burglary increased .5%, Larceny increased 3.3%, and Auto increased 7.1%
(note: I don't question personal integrity, it's a simple mistake.)
Sorta takes the wind outta that argument, especially when statistics can be manipulated to show most anything. (If pro wishes that I find a bogus study, I will.)

For the rest, I would like to mention that correlation does not equal causation
Statics, even when they are correct, can only say so much.

Example: I drop an apple, which lands in a bees nest. I feel pain. Conclusion: dropping apples causes pain and swelling.
Obviously incorrect.
One possible explanation for the apparent drop in certain areas could be that cities are now getting rewards for having less crime in their area. As a result, many rapes and murders are prosecuted, but not reported.

To speak to that nice little graph, that may or may not be reputable at all, I would like to refer all readers to pro's source [4] so that they can see all the other graphs. The follow no such pattern. The graphs are sporadic and reinforce my point that the data is disreputable, and easily influenced by many factors, and can't be relied upon to, in itself, be a measure of this law.

Deterrence is a factor easily outweighed by Encouragement
Incorrect Data and one graph that Pro could have drawn himself, along with the fact that there are a near infinite amount of variables that could have influenced those changes render the second half of Pro's argument invalid.

Vote CON!




Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for responding :D

1. 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.


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.


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)


"The study that Lott references to argue that permit holders are rarely arrested for crimes
of violence also indicates that permit holders very rarely successfully use a gun to ward off a criminal attacker. This study examined data collected by the Dade County, Florida police during the first five years after Florida's permissive gun carrying law went into effect.
During this period there were only three incidents in which a permit holder successfully used a gun indefense against a criminal attack outside the permit-holder's home. Considering that about 100,000 violent crimes were reported to Dade County police during the five-year study period, it is hard to argue that criminals are likely to have noticed a significant change in their risk of facing a victim armed with a gun." [1]

I see two main problems with the remainder with Pro's argument:
It's entirely based on data.
The data is all from one source (Lott), a source that is obviously biased.

Correlation= Causation
Unfortunately, My opponent does nothing but make a statement with elaboration but no justification, so it's difficult to counter. So, I ask what his method would deduce from a classic thought experiment:

Two men are in separate rooms with one hole in the adjoining wall.
One man has a pistol. (how fitting)
One man fires.
Later, the other man dies.

So, using Pro's equation, what has happened?
I just need something to work with, seeing that Pro has not combated my argument, only masked it with an empty statement.


One source, One experiment, No support... would Pro please explain how this is reputable in any way? I do hope that Pro does not wish to argue that anything published by anyone with money or a degree is reputable. (Lott credibility was brought into question after the 98% polling investigation)
But, just in case, I present an example of how Lott's data is unreliable and perhaps a better summary of the argument Pro has apparently failed to understand:

"The central problem is that crime moves in waves, yet Lott's analysis does not include variables that can explain these cycles. For example, he uses no variables on gangs, drug consumption, or community policing. As a result, many of Lott's findings make no sense. He finds, for example, that both increasing the rate of unemployment and reducing income reduces the rate of violent crimes and that reducing the number of black women 40 years old or older (who are rarely either perpetrators or victims of murder) substantially reduces murder rates. Indeed, according to Lott's results, getting rid of older black women will lead to a more dramatic reduction in homicide rates than increasing arrest rates or enacting shall-issue laws." [2]

Re post of the link that failed last time [3] shows a better evaluation of Lott's findings, especially the graphs at the end that affirm my belief that Pro's graph is just one small period of time when crime happened to decrease, or, was just a construction of someone's imagination and rudimentary computer skills.

[3] (Readers will have to download the PDF to see the full report.)
Debate Round No. 3


Data (starting with it because it is the most important point):

My opponents first faulty argument is one source how is it credible. If my opponent really wants 16 studies, he can have them, but the Lott study essentially sums all them up in the 2010 version. My opponent has repeatedly, instead of actually arguing, red herrings on the source of the most credible data. First, he claims he left out black women, note the source you used is from 1998. I am using his 2010 version as my main source, where he specifies women of all colors in his data, using FBI and local trends, hence my opponents argument is false. [1]

My opponent then cites John Donahue as his source, and he claims my source is biased? First, Donahue misread his results and had to fix them many times, and still claimed he showed that these laws increased crime or had no effect. Oh btw no PDF needed, Lott's book has all of them. Now, lets look at the Donahue results, then you see they re interesting. In their main study they find 30 (27) had crimes reduce after these laws, 13 (16) no effect, 0 (0) had an increase in crime. Although Donahues results show less of a decrease then Lott's, CATO's, Bartley's, Bensons, Moody, Mustards, Olsens, Plassmansm Marvels, Whitley's, Hllands, Wilson's, and Lott again, He still found a decrease. [1] (I cited all of the studies so that you knew I actually research this stuff). So, my opponent cannot say I am only using Lott ;)

My opponent then insults Lott, I say a conduct violation, claiming he had poor computer skills, this assumes he is lying. Well first, just because another study has different results does not mean either of them is a liar, but if you look at all of the 16 studies that show a decrease in crime, the science is clear. The Lott study in 1997 created many criminologists and economists to scramble to the statistics and look at them, most show a decrease in crime, many studies, as cited on Lott's book, have quotes saying out results almost match his, he is not lying.

To be annoying, I will make it more organized, defend Lott then move unto deterrence.

Defending Lott:

My opponent seems to break down last round, and rely on a red herring on my sources instead of argumentation.
m p POP exp a   (b d )RTCD ct ct s t 1s ctt[2]

Did some of the symbols not show? Well anyway it proves conceal carry laws reduce crime, also this study defends Lott btw, it was one of the longer defenses of him. This study using similar variables, then attempting to look into Donahue's data, finds that Donahue's data does not work, Lott's does. Now, my opponent will likely find a way to scream bias, but voters, he is really in a red herring over this. They pretty much got very similar results... They actually find Donahue's and Naigins data to show a slight decrease in crimes, whilst their own data nears Lott's. They also investigated the bias, they said the Lott data was less bias, he was for banning guns prior to his study, Donahue had pre-conceived notions, therefore the data my opponent is using is worse. [2] Sorry, but if your gonna red herring so am I ;) Let me read the concluding results, so that you know that Lott's data can be recreated by other studies:

"In this paper, we use a Poisson-lognormal model to analyze intertemporal and geographical variations in the effects of right-to-carry laws on murders, rapes, and robberies. For each of these crime categories, our estimates suggest the existence of statistically significant deterrent effects of right-to-carry laws for the majority of the 10 states that have adopted such laws between 1977 and 1992." [2] Then they say only a VERY FEW states had increases, but they conclude CCW decreases crime.

Now, (1) Lott is not bias, he was like you when his study began!, (2) his results have been created in source 2 and in the other studies I mentioned above, (3) Red herring over, Lott is credible.


My opponents main claim is people only use guns on (3) separate occasions. Now my opponents source fails to define success. Success in killing? Sure, its rare. But in the majority of cases it isn't defense, they show the gun and run. [1] This was also found in Gary Kleck's work. [1] My opponent essentially ignores the definition of success and defense. So my opponents analysis here is deeply flawed, and is false as multiple studies show people use guns in defense, without a boom. So, passive aggressive defense, show the gun they run. So as my opponent has failed to define defense, the argument fails.

Then, my opponent cites the many violent crimes. Note this argument fails, as the data shows conceal carry permit holders are more law abiding then other citizens. [1] So, the argument only works if he defines defense, in the case of this study, which it does not, and if he can prove conceal carry leads to more deaths, which he has not. 100,000 violent crimes =/= conceal carry related murders, the argument only works if he finds the violent crimes are committed by permit holders. My opponents argument is false.

Also, he misses most of my deterrence case. Extend arguments.

My opponent then claims Lott is biased, which is false. First, many studies are able to recreate his data. Second, many critics now claim his case is "bullet proof", and lastly as stated he cant be biased, as he was against even toy guns when he wrote the study. [1] Also, he cites hundreds upon hundreds of sources, I looked some of them up, he is nto cheating the data, your argument is not even an argument, just a source attack, generally seen when people are losing an argument. As seen with Lott's attacks on him not the data. [1]

My opponent foes not like the correlation, yet he goes into "what ifs" which have never occurred. lets look at the requirements for a CCW license:
"is at least 21 years of age;
· is a resident of the state;
· provides fingerprints and submits to a criminal and mental health background check;
· has not been convicted of a felony or any crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;
· is not a fugitive from justice;
· is not an illegal alien;
· is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
· has not been adjudicated mentally incompetent or been committed to a mental institution;
· has not been dishonorably discharged from the armed services;
· is not subject to a restraining or protection order;
· has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence;
· is not awaiting trial for, and does not have any charges pending for, a crime punishable by more than one year imprisonment;
· has completed a firearms safety or training course; and" [3]

These check make it hard for them to be criminals. Also, less use a non Lott source so my opponent can stop the red herring, they are more law abiding then normal citizens, they have never murdered anyone outside of self defense. [3]


My opponent drops almost all of the data, and results into arguing with my source "its bias", with no proof, and actual studies make segments on it, the 1) try to use data, see what the results are, they get his results, [2] 2) look into his past find he is anti gun, 3) find he has no biases. [2] Yes, studies are done on this, Lott is not bias, my opponent pretty much ditches the debate and enters a red herring on Lott. As my opponent has dropped the debate and results in source pointing, it is clear who to vote for, PRO, the one with arguments based on facts, not finger pointing and assumptions, PRO wins based on facts.

[1] Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010.
[2] Plassmann, Florenz, and T. Nicolaus Tideman. "Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say*." The Journal of Law and Economics 44.S2 (2001): 771-98.
[3] Snyder, Jeffery R. "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right ToCarry a Handgun." CATO, 22 Oct. 1997



“My opponent’s first argument is one source how is it credible.”

Now, I assume that Pro means to say that Lott is credible. Problem? Pro has no supporting evidence! His entire argument revolves around this point, and when we look back over his fourth round statement we see no justification for this statement. I see this as proof enough that Pro’sdata cannot be credible.

“If my opponent really wants 16 studies, he can have them”

I Do. How convenient (for Pro) that the debate is over and I cannot have 16 studies. I also question whether or not Pro understands these studies. I am forced to assume that, because he has failed to justify their credibility, Pro has no understanding of the numbers. Essentially, he has spewed “facts” with no logical explanation behind them.

"My opponent then insults Lott"

And again, a blanket statement with no support. I meant no disrespect. I believe that Lott is a professional, but professionals make mistakes. Professionals who have political interests make even larger mistakes. To adress the point that Lott was originally Anti Gun, I commend him for being oppen minded, but this is hardly a factor. Who knows what caused his change of heart? It can't be traced and could easily be false.

“First, he claims he left out black women”

And Pro accuses me of utilizing red herrings? How could he have possibly come to that deduction? I stated that removing black women from the equation had a greater effect on violent crime than this handgun law apparently did. This is only to show that “dummy”or not, hundreds of variables can easily affect his “facts.” Say Lott conductedhis study during a cold spell or suchlike. Any variable could play a larger role than CCW.

Ignored Points:

The central problem is that crime moves in waves, yet Lott's analysis does not include variables that can explain these cycles."

"all the other graphs... follow no such pattern."

"Correlation= Causation
Unfortunately, My opponent does nothing but make a statement with elaboration but no justification"

(Still no logic here)

"Lott credibility was brought into question after the 98% polling investigation"

(Once again, Pro diverts attention without adresing the issue.)

racial tensions
. 65 murders each day in hot blood

(once again, nothing but empty blanket statements here)---- Pro has nothing statistics to counter examples. In response to his accusation that none of my examples are grounded in reality, I counter with the Treyvon Martin case. I'm sure everyone remembers this.

The list goes on, but these cover the major areas without being overly overwhelming.

Voters, I see a simple choice here. Logic vs Unreliable statistics. Go ahead and read over the debate again, if you wish. Again and again, you will see that logic and applicable reference are ignored or masked by Pro's wave of statistics from a disreputable study that he has failed to support. Go and look at crime patterns, watch the news, or just go for a stroll through a shady neighborhood. It's clear that CCW is a damaging, illogical law that does much more harm than good.

Debate Round No. 4
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1dustpelt 6 years ago
Why are you people arguing about my Viking debate?
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
Arguing with peoples voted does not mean I win.

If the comments count then it should be tied, but whatever conduct points are worthless to me.
Posted by Ixaax 6 years ago
"Don't argue most votes"
You win most of your debates... Connection?

"Now conduct is tied as your insulting me"
Again, same issue as in the debate; exactly where?

Note to C&H
Telemachus is completely inapplicable!
Elaborate to make a point! Iron out cerebral wrinkles.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
You know I dont argue with most votes, right? You also implied down there deaths vote was a counter, hence that response.
Posted by CalvinAndHobbes 6 years ago
I agree with you. That's why I said even though he always votes for you it doesn't mean anything. I hope I don't have to point out the irony of your confusion.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
As long as death gives a good reason his vote is valid, he gave good reasons, but whatever.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
That voter did not counter you, I only counter VB's not biased votes.
Posted by CalvinAndHobbes 6 years ago
Also, you seem to be using the definition of biased as any thing that goes against you. In every debate that Deathbeforedishonour voted on that you were in, Deathbeforedishonour voted for you.

100% of the time...

It's easy to jump to conclusions but correlation does not always equal causation.
Posted by CalvinAndHobbes 6 years ago
Hmm... so I really needed to justify "5 ninjas would win against 5 vikings", come on as if it was a serious debate. Only 2 votes have been cast, this shouldn't be such a big deal. Perhaps if you lent enough time for a voter to read your counter they would re-delegate. But instead you go strait to the fox news defense of the "the biased liberals" are out to get me. If you look at my record you'll see the only issues I really care about are philosophy.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
Writing a debate, I'll be back
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Removing my vote because Marauder also vb'd and they cancel each other out. Marauder's vb was 5 points so there is still one point to counter.
Vote Placed by Marauder 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a stronger case and Con argued too much on the sources.
Vote Placed by miketheman1200 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: It was pretty close, but I felt Con better pointed out pros faults and had more convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by Deathbeforedishonour 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con just tried to refute pros sources (which he failed to do). he also avoided arguments and used non peer revived studies (which pro pointed out) and all of pros arguments had more credible backing. and he lost the conduct point by giving new arguments in the last round.
Vote Placed by CalvinAndHobbes 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Reasons in Comments