TX CHL holders 16x less likely to be convicted of crime

[X_Digger]

The rate of conviction for CHL holders has hit an all-time low- 23 per 100,000, with ~520,000 active CHL holders. The rate among the general public over 21 years old? 362 per 100,000

Conviction Data: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm
Number of Licensees: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/demographics.htm
Population Data: http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/CHS/popdat/detailX.shtm

[Hoyt]

1. What's the rate among those who can qualify for permit, but don't think carrying a gun is necessary?

That's what you need to be comparing data to.

You guys will try anything to advance your gun agenda.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. Curently no such data to compare to.

But your point is generally correct. Apples/pears comparison.

[X_Digger]

3. The rate among first time offenders (over 21) for any crime is 182 per 100,000

http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/3_5_5.html
http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/PubSafety_CrimJustice/6_Links/RecidOffend.pdf

That's *still* eight times as high a rate.

eta, and yes, that's a derived rate, working backwards from the recitivism rate and the number of first time offenders.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. I would think that CHL holders would still have lower crime rates than the "qualified" population

Statistics & Population Behavior

Condidtionals...

For this thought experiment, there are only three sectors comprising TOTAL population:
Licensed CCW holders, Disqualified Persons, CCW Qualified. None of these may intersect.

The "Disqualified Persons" sector consists of all persons who have lost the right to carry a weapon (criminal conviction).

The "CCW Qualified" sector consists of all individuals qualified for CCW that do not have a CCW.
There are only two subsets of people in this group: Law abiding and unconvicted/future criminal.

The "Licensed CCW holders" sector consists of all individuals qualified for CCW that do have a CCW permit.
There are only two subsets of people in this group: Law abiding and unconvicted/future criminal.

The subset "Law Abiding" is unlikely to be convicted of a crime in the future.

The subset "Criminal" in criminally unconvicted but likely to be convicted of a crime in the future.
It can be safely assumed that criminals do not have a willingness to follow laws & regulations.

---------------------------------

Implied Effects of Conditoinals...

Clearly, CHL holders are a self-selected sect of the CCW Qualified population. They choose to go through the process of becoming CCW licensed. In becoming part of that self-selected group, one behavior that is demonstrated is willingness to follow the laws and regulations - jump through hoops, if you will. Typically, most states require coursework, fees, and registration with law enforcement. Given that criminals generally have no willingness to follow laws & regulations and that Licensed CCW holders is a self selected sect which inherently filters such behavior, it is not logical to assume that the "Licensed CCW Holders" sector contains the same rates of unconvicted/future criminal subset as the "CCW Qualified" sector. Thus it follows that if unconvicted/future criminals are likely to be convicted of a crime in the future, and the "Licensed CCW Holders" sector has a lower rate criminal inclusion (due to behavioral filtering), then the overall rate of conviction for the "Licensed CCW Holder" sector will be lower than the overall rate of conviction for the "CCW Qualified" sector.

Therefore, I believe if you compare rates of CHL licensees with persons that only qualify for CHL - the rate of CHL licensee conviction will be lower. There is a minor behavioral filtration process involved in obtaining the permit.

[Hoyt]

6. I offer Zimmerman and Holmes as evidence you are wrong. They were fine, law-abiding gun toters

right up till they started killing folks.

Holmes might have become a criminal when he acquired explosives, but that was roughly same time he prepared to shoot people for sport.

Personally, I think folks who don't tote a gun -- but could legally -- are less likely to be involved in crime, shootings, spousal abuse with a weapon, intimidation, racist activities, and all kinds of other undesirable stuff.

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. Just as you were a fine, law-abiding young man right up until you started robbing people.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

What additional restrictions would have stopped you?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

25. Ba-Zinga!

[Hoyt]

28. Well, I will say this -- You guys in the gun culture are similar minded. Can't read in context.

And, file away posts of people you stalk on the internet.

Finally, you likely cannot assess a situation in a few seconds to determine if you should pull the lethal weapon you strap on every time you venture out into the society.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. If you didn't want it discussed, why did you broach the subject on an DISCUSSION board?

And further, since you freely pass judgement on others, why should *you* be exempt from judgement in return?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

9. When speaking in terms of statistics & probability, single data points prove nothing.

It's the cumulative effect of all available data points compared to the respective populations that gives any sort of meaniful trands.

Of course there are going be undiscovered or future criminals in the group of Licensed CCW Holders... no screening or licensing process is foolproof. I merely presented the hypothesis that there is a behavioral screening process/phenomenon involved with the self selection process that separates Licensed CCW Holders from CCW Qualified people. The effectiveness of any such behavioral screening process poses as a deterrent (if any) to non-law abiding people would have to be empirically derived from data.

Also, Zimmerman would belong to the "Liscensed CCW holder" and Holmes would belong to the "CCW Qualified People". Your evidence is contradicting. All it indicates is that potential criminals belong to both groups... which is what I indicated in the post you replied to.

What group do you belong to, Hoyt... "CCW Qualified People" or "CCW Disqualified" ??

[X_Digger]

10. Assuming he ever got caught when he was robbing people, definitely disqualified.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

As a former robber, I locked the door to keep people out, especially police.

[Hoyt]

12. You know X-D, some people are just too ignorant to understand context.

Besides, why do some of you keep up with all my posts?

None of your posts are worthy of taking even a second to file away for future use.

Enjoy your guns, and petty posts.

[X_Digger]

15. Ooh, struck a nerve, did I?

Expect to see your own words repeated back to you- frequently. It sheds a lot of light on your position, as an ex-robber.

Face it, you've lost all credibility on the subject. Pat yourself on the back for that one, if you can reach around the foot in your mouth.

[Hoyt]

16. Not an x-robber, probably cleaner than you. And I don't practice shooting people either.

Read who I posted to in the your link, and try to summon up a little sense.

You, and our long-gone buddy Permatoxic (Permatex), sure enjoyed that post.

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. "Not an x-robber" What, you're still doing it?

Dude, a bit of advice- If you must rob people, become a banker. A lot safer, and the returns are higher...

[Hoyt]

21. Good point - I am NOT "not an x-robber." I have become a gun-grabber.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

26. what is your success rate?

grabbed any guns today, Hoyt?

[virginia mountainman]

24. Now we know why Hoyt hates guns so much...

That is the number 1 thing a thief is scared of, a armed, and angry homeowner... So, to make his "profession" easier, he advocates gun control...

&feature=related

It ALL makes sense now...

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. A concern for occupational safety, as it were...

[Hoyt]

11. But it's a data point you can understand, cutting through all the statistical junk. Politics

Politics involves much more than stats.

In fact, with politics you are looking for long-term solutions and trying to avoid problems down the road. Your stats are just trying to make gun toters look good, in a period where gun "enthusiasts" are looking pretty sad -- not unlike bankers, polluters, racists, etc.

[gejohnston]

13. Politics is simply

who gets a piece of the pie and how much. History is a good indicator of what will happen.

[Hoyt]

17. Numbers tell us little of what will happen in the future with a heavily armed society owned by the

NRA and affiliated right wing organizations.

[gejohnston]

18. actually they do

history predicts the future. It works with sports, stock market, human behavior (so says Dr. Phil).

[rl6214]

27. Does holmes have a concealed carry license?

That is what this thread is about is concealed carry holders, isn't it?

[slackmaster]

29. It's safe to assume that a subset of the people who have permits don't actually carry guns

So your question is kind of silly.

[Atypical Liberal]

30. Do you get to walk around in public surrounded only by people who can qualify for permits?

No. In public, you are surrounded by the public at large. So we compare CCW permit holders against the public at large.

[Hoyt]

31. Yes, and we get to walk around with Zimmermans, Stawickis, etc.

[Atypical Liberal]

32. Yes, that is true.

A very tiny number of CCW permit holders commit crimes, it is true.

This does not change the fact that compared to everyone else you walk around with in public every day, CCW permit holders are over a dozen times less likely to commit a crime.

Being against CCW because of a few Zimmermans is like being against walking out doors because of lightning.

[Hoyt]

33. Bull. The chances of your needing a gun in public are quite small too.

Of course, gun culture is not just about those with permits. How many of NRA members do you think pack? How many right wingers pack? How many give a damn about permits? You guys are all "related" in this context.

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. Ah, but society is not predicated on others' determination of your (or mine, or anybodys) need.

So claiming that others should be restricted because you don't perceive a need is just as arrogant as Pat Robertson declaring "what God wants"

[Atypical Liberal]

37. But that is irrelevant.

Bull. The chances of your needing a gun in public are quite small too.

That is irrelevant. Even if the chance of needing a gun in public was zero it would not be relevant. CCW permit holders are less likely to commit crimes than non-CCW permit holders. Even ones who are eligible to hold such permits and just choose not to.

So there is no harm in letting them carry even if it was useless to do so.

Do CCW permit holders occasionally commit crimes with firearms? Sure they do. But they are much less likely to do so than anyone else.

Of course, gun culture is not just about those with permits. How many of NRA members do you think pack? How many right wingers pack? How many give a damn about permits? You guys are all "related" in this context.

Wow, I think I see a glimmer of a light bulb coming on in your head, Hoyt. There is only one kind of person who bothers with concealed-carry permits in order to carry - a hyper-law-abiding person. A person who cares about the law and complying with it. A person who is willing to go to the trouble and expense of filling out the forms and paying the fees all to comply with the letter of the law to do something completely voluntary.

THAT is why CCW-permit holders are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime! These people are sticklers about complying with the law - even laws that are completely optional to comply with (by choosing not to carry)!

You're right, Hoyt - lots of people, namely criminals, don't give a damn about permits. They stick their gun in their waistband and call it good. No laws or permits are going to change their behavior in the slightest.

Only law-abiding people bother with permits.

[Hoyt]

38. Yeah, and those who could qualify for permits, but know guns in public aren't

a good idea areveven less likely to be involved in a gun crime, gun accident, etc.

[Atypical Liberal]

39. But still more likely to be involved in other crimes.

Yeah, and those who could qualify for permits, but know guns in public aren't a good idea areveven less likely to be involved in a gun crime, gun accident, etc.

Oh, it is certainly true that if you don't have a gun, you can't ever be involved in a gun crime.

But you will still be more likely to be involved in some other kind of crime than a non-CCW permit holder.

Remember, CCW permit holders aren't just less likely to be involved in firearm-related crime, they are less likely to be involved in any kind of crime. From Public Lewedness to Rape to Homicide, a CCW permit holder is less likely to be involved in those kinds of things than someone without a CCW permit.

[Callisto32]

5. Unpossible!

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. Word! He also failed to account for all the pollution those guns cause by being out in public...

[ileus]

19. but they're 16x more rude to society.

baser, gunner, toter, RW bigots. pollution....hate filled...poking in their pants...

[Hoyt]

22. Good to see you finally evolving. Maybe there's hope for humanity.

[Missycim]

23. You forgot

to add "strap a gun or two on before going to the store"

[Glassunion]

40. According to a Navy Seal

One is None and Two is One.

So... If you have one firearm, you have none. But if you have two you have one. Make sense to your baser toter, cowboy/cop wanna-be brain and stuff?