The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Spartan136
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Concealed carry laws decrease 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 3 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,818 times Debate No: 22832
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

16kadams

Pro

Same rules as last debate. If needed one can make an external debate for sources.

(last debate, requested to re-make)
http://www.debate.org...

^same rules ok
Spartan136

Con

I, Spartan 136, accept this debate.
I also shall abide by my opponents rules.
I also find my opponents definitions to be enough for now.
My opponent did not say anything regarding to quotes, so i shall exercise this right by providing a few.

"Guns are neat little things, aren't they? They can kill extraordinary people with very little effort." - John W. Hinckley, Jr.

Since round one is for acceptance and no arguing, i shall close.
Good luck to my opponent in his next round.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

quote = lol. Guns save more lives then they take away.

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.

CONCLUSON:

VOTE PRO :P

[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

[3] Snyder, Jeffery R. "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right ToCarry a Handgun." CATO, 22 Oct. 1997
Spartan136

Con

Guns. What are guns? We should all know the answer to this question. But what is a gun in anyones hands? Is it a harmful device, or a protectful gaurdian? That is the question. The answer, not as simple as it may sound. How do guns being concealed decrease crime rates? I aim to answer that question in the following two contentions. Not only that, but i also aim to prove my opponent wrong, therfore, i contend the resolution.

Obsv. 1: What are the types of Concaled and carry laws? Many of us are not as familiar as others with this topic so i shall present the following observation. There are three Concealed carry laws, all of wich are explained below. All of these observations are from source [1].
Unrestricted: (Sometimes this is referred to as “Constitutional Carry”) requires no permit to carry a concealed firearm.
“Shall Issue”: These are the most common type of conceal and carry permits. Shall-Issue states require applicants to meet certain criteria defined by the law, but once a citizen meets the criteria the granting authority has no discretion to withhold permits. Typically states require residency, a minimum age, finger printing, background checks and attendance in a certified training program / firearm safety class.
“May-Issue”: These states require citizens to obtain a legal permit by meeting state requirements (similar to Shall-Issue states) but the granting authority has discretion to add additional requirements or withhold the permit if they do not feel sufficient cause warrants the permit. Typically these additional restrictions can include providing evidence that there is justifiable need for the permit.


Contention 1: Violence does not decrease.
In fact, I will be able to prove that violence tied to colcealed carry laws actually INCREASES. When guns are available to any citizen that passes the said tests, crime tends to increase. There is no option but to agree that when guns are involved, there will usaly be something bad tied to said gun. Moving on, GUNS are not to be taken lighlty. ANYONE with a gun can be considered dangerous. For example, if someone thinks he or she is doing good by trying to detter a criminal by using a loaded weapon, the events may escalate if the said "good guy" fires one to many a shot and harms an inoccent person. Furthermore, anyone with swift acces to a gun can lead to violence. Opponents of shall-issue licensing laws generally argue that such laws might raise levels of criminal violence, primarily by increasing the number of persons with easy access to guns in public places. According to this theory, assaults are often impulsive acts involving the most readily available weapons. Since guns are especially lethal weapons, more guns might result in more firearms-related homicides and injuries.[2]
Now, let us take a look at some statistics: 31,593 people died from gun violence[3]
How can one dissagree that if guns are redily and legaly available to citizens, this number would not increse? Take this for example, people engage in fights every day, be it verbal escalations or violent escalations. Now that citizens have direct acces to hiden firearms, these verbal and phisical escalations may step up a level and end up in the involvment of guns.
These escalations range anywhere from a person caught cheating to a person pushing someone on accident. Our human minds are very mysterious to say the least. We fight for seemingly stupid things all the time! Just today, i got in a fight with a friend because he took my pizza.
Furthermore, what if one of these stupid conflicts ends up in a phisical fight. What if one of the assaliants returns later on with a gun in his hand and disposes of the other party. Now, what if everyone had access to a loaded gun? Would you not agree that the assaliant would just skip the last step as a whole and take care of the other party then and there? All the assaliant has to do is pull out his LEGAL weapon and shoot the other party. There is nothing stoping these events happening. Now, this allows me to move on to my next point. My opponent clearly states "decreases crime" in the resolution . What type of crime? How can my opponent prove that concealed carry laws decrease the illegal use of marijuana? A crime is any act or omission that violates a law which results in a punishment [4]. Thus, my opponent fails to elaborate as to WICH crimes will be lowered. In their 2003 study published in the Stanford Law Review, Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue concluded that a proliferation of laws that permit concealed-carry licenses based on specific criteria (“shall-issue” laws, as opposed to laws that permit licenses based on proof of need) does not reduce crime and instead correlates to higher crime rates. Their study was in response to a 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime, written by John R. Lott of the Yale Law School [5].

Contention 2: Lotts research is not accurate enough.
My opponent bases his case off of John Lotts study of this topic. But, i say to the voter that John Lott has been proven wrong many times. In a 2003 article, Yale Law professors John J. Donohue III and Ian Ayres have claimed that Lott’s conclusions were largely the result of a limited data set and that re-running Lott’s tests with more complete data yielded none of the results Lott claimed [6]. Lotts reaserch is also faulty due to the following reasons:

Lott’s research did not account for the large increase in crack cocaine use from 1977 to 1992. As Ayres and Donohue point out, crack was likely more prevalent in urban areas within states that were reluctant to pass “shall-issue” laws than in more rural states that adopted “shall-issue” laws. If so, Lott may have erred in failing to recognize that crack was more directly linked to increased crime than was an absence of “shall-issue” laws. Ayres and Donohue point to several flaws in Lott’s reasoning that concealed weapons held by law-abiding citizens make criminals act more cautiously and, thus, deter crime. With concealed-carry laws, criminals could be more inclined to pack heat and be quicker to shoot. There’s also the concern that heated arguments can escalate into shootings [7].
Thus, one can now conclude that Lotts studys are not entirely accurate.
More Evidence:
Using publicly available media reports, the Violence Policy Center claims that from May 2007 through the end of 2009, concealed carry permit holders in the U.S. have killed at least 117 individuals, including 9 law enforcement officers (excluding cases where individuals were acquitted, but including pending cases). There were about 25,000 murders by firearm that period, meaning that concealed carry permit holders committed less than 1% of the murders by firearm. Furthermore, a large number of the victims were killed in extended suicides, most of which took place in the home of the shooter, where arms can be possessed without special permits.[8]
Ironically, putting more guns into the hands of law-abiding citizens means that more guns will end up in the hands of criminals. Mark Duggan of the University of Chicago estimates that 500,000 guns are stolen annually. Stolen guns mean more gun violence[9].

In conclusion:
I am down to 400 characters, so i shall be breif. There is no possible way one can prove that conceled carry laws decrese crime. Just because these so called " law abiding citizens" are in possesion of wepons that have the power to save lives, there is no way to prove that those same weapons have the power to DECIMATE a life. Thank you for even taking the time out of your day to read my case. Good luck to my opponent in his next round.

Cited:
1) http://www.concealandcarryhq.com...

2)http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us...
3) http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com...

i am out of charactrs
 


Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

Obsv1:

I agree to these. I believe most states have a shall issue though.

C1: Violence does not decrease

My opponents main claim here is guns kill, therefore conceal carry permit holders kill. Now, his main claim is that all conceal carry permit holders are dangerous. I dont want to run down the list o states, but will name 3:

Florida - 0.01% rate of people taking the permit away (government revoking it), of those 0.01%, the huge majority was walking onto restricted areas.
Indiana - 0.25% revocation rate, none of the revocations involved violent crime
Michigan - 0.1% revocation rate. Only one involved murder, but the murder did not involve a gun. And 3 accidentally discharged a gun, no one was hurt. [1]

My opponents claim only works if he can totally link conceal carry to a portion of gun violence, this is imposable. You find conceal carry permit holders save lives, and not destroy them. Now, my opponents argument is irrelevant unless he links it to his C2.

My opponent then continues to the liberal what if argument, not to be rude, but it gets old. The arguments on what IF they fight and shoot one another, well guess what? Since 1977 it has NEVER happened, not once. [2] Your argument fails as conceal carry permit holders are more law abiding then the average citizen,[1] and it has never happened. [2] You might claim "what if it does", that is nearly statistically impossible, and even if it happens once or twice, we must ask if it kills more people then it takes away, it does not, it saves more lives, and it takes away none. Your argument fails on a factual basis.

Also, you cite marijuana, if you are caught intoxicated with your gun you are arrested. Not to mention it never has happened.[2]

C2: Lott's research is not enough

My opponent claims one study is not enough, note I cited 3 studies earlier. He essentially forces a counter study, which is a viable refutation, but does not work. He claims his data was small, yet he had the largest study ever done on it, 1977 - 1997, then 1997 - 2000, then 2000-2010, then he compiled the data. [1] If you read his work, he used the LARGEST data set and the MOST data, whereas other studies continually cut out data. [1]

My opponent then cites the famous crack problem, this would increase crime preternatural causes, but in states that had CCW laws there was less of a rise, and some still decreased. Now, the argument also fails as his study went also through 1997, hence does not even refute his data. A study done by Plassman, looks into the viability of the study (finds Lott's work 100% correct), Plassman does the job for Lott in refuting the drug question, and actually notes the Lott study did account for the crack variables. They used dummy variables, that likely make the results evade that problem. Also, your quote does little to explain how cocaine would ruin the results, as if that was true there should be an increase of crime, but Lott found a decrease, hence the argument fails, helps my side as it shows CCW prevailed even under drug increases. Further, the book I am using of Lott is a newer edition, that uses new data from other studies as well that do account for the cocaine usage. [1] So, really, your argument fails to refute Lott.

Now one can conclude the Lott data is totally accurate.

More evidence

He uses the most bias source, violence policy center, to explain the results. He thinks more guns = more crime and suicides. First it is not true CCW always increases the gun count, as many go to the training. Second, the training these people get teaches them how to store them properly, and lastly many permit holders have their gun with em 24/7, your argument fails.

So, my opponent mainly claims I am ignoring the cost of gun violence. I admit guns are in violence, but you miss the point. CCW laws do not really kill people, they save lives time and time again. [1] You keep citing gun violence, but never prove CCW laws are responsible or even a part of it, hence your arguments are invalid.

Summary (different data):


http://www.debate.org...


CONCLUSION:

My empirical data was never refuted, so 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.

[2] Snyder, Jeffery R. "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right ToCarry a Handgun." CATO, 22 Oct. 1997
Spartan136

Con

I shall begin by attacking my opponents case then continue to defend my own case.
1: 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)
Okay, first of all, let me take the time to inform the Voter on what exactly an economist IS. An Economist is An economist is a professional in the social science discipline of economics. The individual may also study, develop, and apply theories and concepts from economics and write about economic policy. Within this field there are many sub-fields, ranging from the broad philosophical theories to the focused study of minutiae within specific markets, macroeconomic analysis, microeconomic analysis or financial statement analysis, involving analytical methods and tools such as econometrics, statistics, economics computational models, financial economics, mathematical finance and mathematical economics [1]. Sorry for that long explanation, but it was essential. In the definition above, there is not a single mention of CRIME. My opponent is using said studies by economists that don't specialize in the field of crime. So how can we know if these studies are accurate? We cant really because my opponent does not even SPECIFY as to what those studies were called, what book/ website they are from or what time period they are from. Thus, we see that my opponents arguments are very vague.

2: Also many surveys conducted show that criminals are more scared of people with guns then police officers
Once again, i point out that my opponent did not elaborate as to what the said surveys were. Therefore, we can agree that his argument about this is biased.

3: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.
I am not trying to be rude, but i read this sentence over and over again and could not find any sense to it. First my opponent argues that " they may get shot", and i ask, who is THEY? Is " they" the robbers or the people in the household? Also, one cannot simply say that burglars fear guns just by giving a statistic. One would have to delve into the actual psychology of these criminals to find out what they are afraid of. It could not be a fear of a gun, it could be a fear of a dog or fear of the actual OWNERS or fear of getting caught.

4:The apple and oranges analogy is strange in my point of view. I see no way you can tie this analogy to Deterrence.

5:Criminals wont know if they are attacking an old lady, or an old lady packing a .45 Springfield in her purse.
This could in turn, be reversed. As we get older the body’s tissues and organs start to work less efficiently[2} A normal person approaching the old lady from behind could easily be confused as a criminal due to the old ladies lack of eyesight, and reaction time. Thus, this argument is countered.

6:whereas open carry is much less scary, as you know who not to annoy
So my opponent is basically saying that seeing a person walk down the street with a gun is not scary. Well let me tell you something, i would be VERY scared. Concealed Carry laws DO threaten criminals more, but not in a necessarily good way. We aim to preserve life, do we not? Open carry laws PREVENT crimes before they happen, whereas CCL stop the crime in progress. When a criminal sees a person with a gun, he steers clear of said person, therefore causing no harm at all.
7: Empirical Data.
My opponent begins by citing a few of the crimes that have decreased due to the Concealed Carry laws. But i say that the drops were too small, therefore could have been due to something else. What more, my opponent defends the resolution" concealed carry laws reduce crime". He doesn't say Violent crime, he only says crime. I can prove that not all crime decreased, contrary to what my opponent might argue. The number of non-violent crimes increased as people influenced by the deterrent effect of confronting armed individuals switched from violent crimes
to property crimes; this is sometimes called the substitution effect (Kovandzic, 2005)[3]. Thus, we see that NOT all crime is reduced, which is what my opponent is saying by defending the resolution. The same is said for his other arguments below.

8:Essentially saying conceal carry laws make it harder for the psycho to kill when in the area where a conceal carry permit holder resides
But can one not agree that the psycho will still SUCCEED IN KILLING! As soon as the said "psycho" decides to pull out his weapon and shoot, it might take a few seconds for the permit holders to draw their concealed weapons.
9: The Chart.
We yet again see that only VIOLENT crimes are being talked about in my opponents argument. What about the increase of property crimes or other crimes? My opponent clearly defends that all crimes are reduced, when in fact, only violent crimes reduce. Thus, we see the flaw in this case.

I shall now defend my case to the best of my ability.
obsv. 1: yes, my opponent is correct, 36 states have Shall issue laws.
C1: Violence does not decrease.

I believe my opponent has misunderstood the main idea of my first contentions. My argument is that guns kill and are dangerous, therefore, anyone with possession of a gun could be potentially dangerous.
The percents that he gives are small, but they are still on the surface. My opponent himself proves that guns are dangerous in saying that there were "3 accidentally" discharges. No one was hurt, yet discharges are potentially dangerous.
My opponent makes a grave mistake by saying that "The arguments on what IF they fight and shoot one another, well guess what? Since 1977 it has NEVER happened, not once." I can easily disprove this. He believes that since 1977, NOBODY has gotten in a fight that ended up in the firing of shots. Well, take a look at this: Zimmerman, 28, is charged with second-degree murder in the Feb. 26 shooting of the 17-year-old Martin. He claims self-defense and has said Martin was the aggressor in their confrontation at a gated community where Martin was staying. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer at the community, where he also lived[4]. We have presumably heard about the Shooting of Trayvon Martin on the news, and it is a great example of my argument. Two parties engaged in a fight, one of them pulled out a gun and shot the other one and is now claiming self defense. So my opponent says that this NEVER happened since 1977? Think again.

C2: Lott's research.
We have yet more evidence that proves that lott reaserch is invalid. One study that countered Lott’s
results was published in 2003 by John Donohue and Ian Ayres; it analyzed Lott’s studies in
Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis and found that his results could easily be
manipulated by changing a few criteria or by using the exact same data but a different technique
for analyzing it. The result of the study showed that concealed carry weapon laws actually
increased the crime rates in states where they had been passed (Donohue, 2003)[3]. Thus, we continue to see why some of Lotts research is not enough. Whats more "The technique
used to analyze the data was the “statistical modeling of panel data by using a fixed-effects
model, in which there is a dummy variable for each city and year, except the first year and city to
avoid perfect collinearity.” This method resolved many of the issues that previous studies had in
dealing with the variables of the data (Kovandzic, 2005)[3]. The
overall result of this survey, which included numerous tests using different variables, was that
concealed carry weapon laws have little effect on crime rates [3].
I am out of characters AGAIN! Thank you for reading my arguments.
Cited
1- http://en.wikipedia.org...
2-http://www.bbc.co.uk...
3-http://www.uwplatt.edu...
4- Give lttr
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro

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.

Data

My 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. Lott

Again 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 PRO

My 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).
Spartan136

Con

Spartan136 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Spartan136 4 years ago
Spartan136
Nice debate. Sorry i dint have time to post last argument.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
lol my studies cited 1000s sources (the lott on more guns less crime)
Posted by Spartan136 4 years ago
Spartan136
Because they took were cited in the pf file i used. Youd have to read the whole thing to find out the other two.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
No you cited 3/4, not the other one you claimed.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Ares worked with donahue, o they are considered one.

You never cited the other two.
Posted by Spartan136 4 years ago
Spartan136
I used Kovandzic, Ian Ayres, Prof. Ken Wiegman just to name three.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
That is the only peer review study you used.
Posted by Spartan136 4 years ago
Spartan136
But i dont only use donahue's studies.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Ha ha, you keep saying Lott was countered, I refuted Donahue, he is the most biased study, Lotts original study (I used it) is the least biased.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I have read all of the studies, thats why I have my opinion.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by SANTORUM2012 4 years ago
SANTORUM2012
16kadamsSpartan136Tied
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 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: Pro clearly had the better argument
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
16kadamsSpartan136Tied
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 forfeited the last round, and also Con had trouble demonstrating his points: he stated that violence does not decrease, but actually increases, and then presents one stat about the gun deaths without showing the change over time. That was very annoying. His next contention says that Lotts research is not accurate enough, while he does not negate Pro's evidence, he just diminishes it, so Pro still receives the empirical evidence point. Pro demonstrated with overwhelming evidence his points.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
16kadamsSpartan136Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro for forfeit. I will come back later to read the arguments, but it looks like pro won.