The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
Team_Policy_Debater
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Conceal carry laws reduce crime

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,017 times Debate No: 22606
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (5)

 

16kadams

Pro

I have a BOP to prove conceal carry laws reduce crime, 50% chance or more. My opponent negates this.

=note I know people want to debate me, challenge me now if you are one of those people=

=Definitions=

"Concealed carry, or CCW (carrying a concealed weapon), refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

---> Rules

try to stay away from semantics, NO SEMANTICS with the resolution. None of the [literal] law actually lowers crime. I argue, though, that when these laws are passed, there is a correlation with decreased crime.

No trolling, aka no imabench status.
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

And any other versions of obvious trolling. ok, basically a civil real debate.

First round acceptance.
Team_Policy_Debater

Con

My position is that concealed weapon laws and laws in general have little effect on crime.

Firearms (or any weapon) as a whole and their availability are what reduce or fail to reduce crime.

Fact 1: Poor communites are where crimes are committed more often

By and large acts of homicide, roberies, assualts, etc. take place in communities more suspeptible to crime and gang activity.


There might be the random sporatic shooting, or there may be the occasional robbery or burglary of an middle or upper class victim, but by and large you see crime is attached to poverty stricken communities.
Forinstance it has been empirically proven that crime (including violent) is connected to drug related activity (possession, dealing, trafficking, etc.). More often than not this will occur in communities and among citizens who don't have access to many occupational alternatives or are caught up in the societal stigma of the "revolving door of recidivism."

Having established that, we've seen from past gun bans(3)that the availability of guns have an impact on crime rates and not the laws themselves.

Contention 1: The state of economics effect crime rates
Europe is a great example for gun control policies.
For decades Europe has had restrictive gun control policies (largely restrictive).
Yet it is just in the last decade that crime rates in the country are rising (2).
The link?
Economic downturn.
As we've all read Europe and the world have taken some pretty severe economic hits.
And it has been empirically proven that bad economics means more crime.

Now compare this with Switzerland.
Switzerland actually has the lowest crime rate in the world.
They still have relatively restrictive rights on gun ownership though (3), more restrictive than the U.S.
But they also have a large stockpile of civilian firearms, as does the U.S.
But where do the two countries largely differ?
Economic stability.
As mentioned most crime in the US is committed in poverty sticken communities.
By and large upper class communities avoid the usual brute force crime (White Collar Crime still an issue).

Comparing the two countries economics though, the Swiss GDP per capita is $42,000 and the US' is $46,000.
This takes into account that over 42 Million Americans are on food stamps (4). We have an extremely wealthy population in this country, but it's brought down by millions of Americans dependant on our welfare system.

According to Nationals affairs.com (5) though, the Swiss have "all but eliminated 'welfare dependency.'"
We see the economic state of a nation has an even greater effect on crime rates than the availability of firearms do.
Switzerland has for along while enjoyed a prosperous banking system and unlike many of its neighbors never had to rebuild from two World Wars. It's remained incredibley stable for decades.

Contention 2: Availability of weapons is what deters crime
Putting aside economics for a moment. Gun rigths and concealed weapons rights have been limited in the past but it had no effect on crime rates (1). The reason being is that the availability of guns among individuals can help determine crime rates.

If you were to actually remove the firearms from the picture than this would be a different argument completely. But that's not the question, the question is whether concealed pemits reduce crime rate by 50% or more.

Which leads into my next point.
It would seem that the entire resolution is focusing on concealed weapon permits and not the ownership of guns as a whole.
If the Government were to ban concealed weapons permits, the availability of guns through normal or illegal registration would still contiue to deter crime.

There's no doubt that the risk of getting wounded would deter you from committing a crime, so in that sense firearms or any weapon as a whole would reduce crime.
If you were to take away guns and replace them with knives, axes, etc. then people would be detered by that.
If you gave everyone rocks and sticks it would be the same senario.
As long as one group doesn't have an advantage over the other in terms of weapon capability it's irrelvent what weapon (and the laws in place) they have to protect themselves, the weapon will stll deter.

Refereces
(1) Cliffnotes
http://www.cliffsnotes.com...
(2) Crime in Europe
http://www.justlanded.com...
(3)
http://www.gunpolicy.org...
(4) Forbes

http://www.forbes.com...
(5) National Affairs.com
http://www.nationalaffairs.com...
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

I would like to point out, as stated, first round was acceptance. That is also customary on DDO. I will not rebut my opponents arguments until third round, as he broke this rule and DDO... How do I say this, norm? So my opponents arguments are irrelevant until his second round post. I also ask for conduct.

The first part of my case will be essentially C/P'd from my blog. I will link too avoid plagiarism of myself ;)
http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com...

Deterrence

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 Stats

According to these numbers, the Florida murder rate was 36% lower after the conceal carry law was passed. [2] Similar results in Texas, where it average 30% lower after the law was passed. [2] Then Michigan has smaller results, 45 lower after the law was passed.

Lott's findings:

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]

He also draws preliminary conclusions in the introduction [note he used to be pro gun control if I can recall] using deterrence theory mentioned above. He finds a significant correlation that whenever a conceal carry law is passed, crime rates decrease significantly. In the third addition, the source I am using, he finds his original study said 7.7%, he says after new data and averages from the state and county level he saw a 10% decrease in murder. He also finds if one state/county passes a conceal carry law, the bordering states and counties also gain a crime decrease. He finds based on assaults per 100,000 people went from about 340 to under 320 on average [based on the neighbors passing the law]. [1] Now before I proceed with the empirical evidence, we must ask why does this occur, why does the county overs laws effect my crime rate? Border wars. When gangs fight they fight each other and attack other bystanders. If the bystanders are armed they are then scared to fight as the victim can always fight back [possibly] without warning if they had a conceal carry license. The famed Lott/mustard paper as well as my #1 source find in each of the studies find if each state passed a conceal carry law, it would prevent:

"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] [3]

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%.

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.

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 included arrest and conviction rates to this data, and the study concluded arrest rates lead to .34% drop in the overall murder rate, and the conviction only held .3%. So the arrest rates and the conviction rates lead to nothing essentially of the overall drop. He concludes the conceal carry law did, based on statistics and deterrence [above]. [1]

Now lets look at PA. They had a drop in murder of about 26%, and overall violent crime drop of 5.3%. Now, this too had the same variables accounted for, and said a 1% increase in arrest = .79% decrease in overall violent crime. So if we look at it neither of these variables account for the drop. [1]

Now lets look at Florida. Before the law the crime decreased at a .15% per year, about. After the law, it dropped by .35% each year. At the same time the amount of permit holders was almost 100,000. [1]

The last question is accidental deaths, it decreases. the suicidal deaths rose by 2.67% after the law, and decreased other methods by 6%. Other statistics show an essential double of that, 4% increase for guns decrease 10% for other methods. The statistical difference actually large enough to decrease these whoops moments.

CONCLUSION:

These laws have a strong deterrent effect on murders with or without guns. Despite the difference on gun ownership of women and men, it also has the significant deterrence in rape and other crimes relating to women. The law also does not raise accidental rates, and maybe decreases them. I could do more, but am out of room.

VOTE PRO

__________
[1] Lott, John R. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010. Print.
[2] http://www.justfacts.com...
[3] http://www.law.uchicago.edu... (lott mustard paper)
Team_Policy_Debater

Con

I concede...
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

we can do this again if you want.
Team_Policy_Debater

Con

Another thing
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro

lol you took my comment seriously ;) I am totally going to do that to people too.
Team_Policy_Debater

Con

And for the final post
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PeaceRequiresAnarchy 5 years ago
PeaceRequiresAnarchy
I didn't read the debate in full, but I wanted to mention that acts of enforcement of conceal carry laws can be seen as crimes themselves. Of course enforcing a government's law is legal so you could make a semantic argument against this claim, but the point is that a libertarian would argue that the government's act of forcefully preventing people from carrying around concealed weapons or punishing them for carrying around concealed weapons is an act of aggression--a violation of libertarian principle. The person carrying around a concealed weapon is not necessarily harming anyone. It is possible that they could be acting completely peacefully. The government's law, when enforced, would then amount to a threat of violence and an act of violence if the person refused to submit to it. I would call this a crime. Thus, the debate to me almost seems to be centered around "committing this one crime reduces crime overall." Even if it were true, I would not say hat it is justified.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Lol this was an open challenge imabench.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
relevant studies:

www.dvc.org.uk/dunblane/lottr.pdf
www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa284.pdf
http://www.law.uchicago.edu...
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
yes, you do
Posted by Team_Policy_Debater 5 years ago
Team_Policy_Debater
Do I have to do the final post?
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
no post an argument
Posted by Team_Policy_Debater 5 years ago
Team_Policy_Debater
Another thing...
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
post another thing so it ends and we can re-start :P
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
sure we can just re post the arguments. Say I concede or something, anything really, I dont care what it says, so we can end.
Posted by Team_Policy_Debater 5 years ago
Team_Policy_Debater
I it makes more sense if we restart the debate and I re-post my argument.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
16kadamsTeam_Policy_DebaterTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: failblog con.
Vote Placed by Contra 5 years ago
Contra
16kadamsTeam_Policy_DebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO had a stronger argument overall. CON did not refute PRO's arguments. Conceded to PRO
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
16kadamsTeam_Policy_DebaterTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Im guessing from the mail I got that 16k went around challenging peoples stances on conceal carry issues just to find someone who would disagree with him and debate with him. From the look of this 16k found the perfect person to noob snipe. Other than that here is your forfeited noob snipe win pro
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
16kadamsTeam_Policy_DebaterTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Rules broken and a concession
Vote Placed by SeelTheMan 5 years ago
SeelTheMan
16kadamsTeam_Policy_DebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: They agreed to restart.