Rate of Concealed Carry holder's crime in Texas.

[Atypical Liberal]

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2007.pdf

For all of 2007, out of 61,260 convictions, CCW permit holders accounted for only 160 of them. That is .2612% of convictions - about one quarter of one percent.

What this shows is, like other states that publish this data, that people who bother to comply with the laws and bureaucracy to legally carry firearms are not just law-abiding, they are hyper-law abiding citizens.

Any fears of such people causing "blood in the streets" or otherwise engaging in widespread mayhem are entirely irrational and unfounded.

You are more likely to be struck by lightning than to be the victim of a crime from someone legally carrying a concealed weapon with a CCW permit.

Edit to provide data for other years:

2006: 0.2340% http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2006.pdf

2005: 0.2530% http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2005.pdf

2004: 0.1648% http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2004.pdf

2003: 0.1422% http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2003.pdf

2002: 0.1597% http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2002.pdf

2001: 0.2437% http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2001.pdf

2000: 0.2718% http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2000.pdf

CCW permit holders in Texas are 28 times less likely than the general public to be convicted of a crime!

[Lint Head]

1. That's 160 too many.

Lighting doesn't not choose to carry a lethal weapon. The right to carry, which I am for, should not be omnipresent. To say 160 were convicted doesn't account for the ones that got away because of technicalities in the law. There needs to be refresher courses for people that don't understand the original intent of the Second Amendment. Data doesn't bleed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

2. "Data doesn't bleed". True, but it does make for better law than do emotional appeals.

YMMV

[Atypical Liberal]

6. What?!?!

Lighting doesn't not choose to carry a lethal weapon. The right to carry, which I am for, should not be omnipresent. To say 160 were convicted doesn't account for the ones that got away because of technicalities in the law.

First of all, I'm not aware of anywhere where carried arms are "omnipresent". Only a very small segment of the population chooses to go through the hassle of legally carrying a weapon.

Yes, we only look at convictions because in this country people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

There needs to be refresher courses for people that don't understand the original intent of the Second Amendment.

The intent of the second amendment was to make sure that the People were armed with arms suitable for use in the infantry, so that they could serve as infantry at need.

Data doesn't bleed.

Data doesn't do anything, it merely is. As such, it is, or should be, the basis for rational, sound judgment and policy decisions.

And what the data shows is that CCW permit holders are far less likely to be involved in crime than non CCW permit holders. As a class, CCW permit holders are about the most law-abiding citizens we have. Policies aimed at restricting them are completely misguided.

[Callisto32]

23. I just laugh when I read the word "technicality" in any discussion of law.

HAHAHAHA... Ahhh, that's a good one.

[X_Digger]

3. I think you meant 28x less likely, not 28%..

I compared the rates among each group (CHL holders and the general public > 21)..

[Atypical Liberal]

7. fixed n/t.

.

[luvspeas]

4. So...how many legal gun holders had their weapons stolen from them in the last year?

LOTS.

[cleanhippie]

5. How many is "lots"?

You need to put a number up and support it with factual data.

Ready. Set. Go.

[DonP]

8. Won't see them again

You asked for facts. That's like using garlic on Dracula for gun control folks.

In their world their "feelings" or a single imaginary anecdote are all the facts they need.

[safeinOhio]

10. Hard to get factual data

when NRA lobbies to prevent research.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?_r=1&ref=us&pagewanted=all

Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was “redundant” and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centers’ budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.

The Senate later restored the money but designated it for research on traumatic brain injury. Language was also inserted into the centers’ appropriations bill that remains in place today: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”
The prohibition is striking, firearms researchers say, because there are already regulations that bar the use of C.D.C. money for lobbying for or against legislation. No other field of inquiry is singled out in this way.

[X_Digger]

11. Nice red herring..

I see you're expanding your repertoire, now that your 'empathy / forced teaming' cover has been blown.

There has never been a 'public health' study of how many firearms have been stolen, therefore this prohibition against studies "designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms." would have no impact. (http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2009/09/gun-possession-safety/).

[safeinOhio]

14. Hey, thanks for the link

everyone needs to read that one.

from your link.
PHILADELPHIA – In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

Related Links
Center for Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
University of Pennsylvania Health System
The study was released online this month in the American Journal of Public Health, in advance of print publication in November 2009.

“This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns are protective or perilous,” notes study author Charles C. Branas, PhD, Associate Professor of Epidemiology. “Will possessing a firearm always safeguard against harm or will it promote a false sense of security?”

What Penn researchers found was alarming – almost five Philadelphians were shot every day over the course of the study and about 1 of these 5 people died. The research team concluded that, although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of success are low. People should rethink their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures, write the authors. Suggestions to the contrary, especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a defense against a dangerous environment should be discussed and thoughtfully reconsidered.



always follow the link, grasshopper.

[Atypical Liberal]

17. Huge possible flaw in the research.

From the link,

"Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot."

So they looked at 667 random cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault. 6% of those people shot had a gun - 40 people.

But there is no mention about the criminal history of the people who got shot. I'd be interested in knowing if the people who got shot and carried firearms were people who routinely engaged in criminal behavior and thus were more likely to get shot anyway.

For example, soldiers carry guns and they are at a much greater risk of getting shot - because they are involved in an inherently dangerous activity where their chances of getting shot are high anyway. They still carry guns for their own protection, though, and they are still quite effective tools for the job.

I have written to the study author for clarification.

[X_Digger]

20. Quite a difference between case and control..

However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking (Table 1).

[Atypical Liberal]

21. Link?

I did not see this in the article.

[X_Digger]

22. You have to click through to the study..

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/AJPH.2008.143099v1.pdf

Damn, it's not available w/o subscription now.

The thread I mentioned below has quotes from this pdf.

[Atypical Liberal]

24. Here is the author's response:

We did control for this for our subjects- shot, not shot, in possession, and not in
possession. A copy of the full article is available at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/nihms173292.pdf . I hope
that helps. Thanks for your interest in our study.
Charlie Branas

[X_Digger]

25. And how many in Philly have a legal means to carry?

Inversely, how many of those 40 who were carrying yet shot were doing so legally?

How many were involved in a criminal enterprise at the time?

Lots of nice figures, but relevant criteria went unexplored.

[Atypical Liberal]

26. I asked.

I asked if the study took into account the prior criminal history of the people who were attacked. He said yes. I have gone through the study and cannot say one way or the other. It's been too long since my last statistics class to follow very closely what is being said. I'm pretty much having to take the author's word for it.

[X_Digger]

27. It is mentioned, but it doesn't appear in the 'confounding factors'..

However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly
more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations1,2, less educated, and
had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also
significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where
more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more
likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking (Table 1).

Table 1 lists all the 'confounding factors' -- being a criminal, doing criminal shit isn't one of them.

eta: Nor is licensed to carry listed.

[GreenStormCloud]

38. You can find the study here. 53% had prior arrest records.

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=dennis_culhane

The study has numerous, glaring errors. That a person who was shot was 4.4 times more likely to have a gun does NOT mean that having a gun on you makes you 4.4 times more likely to get shot.

There was no attempt to separate legal from illegal carry. The study uses mostly illegal carry to attempt to make a statement about legal carry.

24% were in high-risk occupations such as cashier. Are we to believe that being unarmed is a deterent to getting shot by a robber?

From the study:

We excluded selfinflicted, unintentional, and police-related shootings (an officer shooting someone or
being shot), and gun injuries of undetermined intent.

"Undetermined intent" is CDC code for legally shot in self-defense. CDC likes to pretend that self-defense shootings don't happen

Case participants with at least some chance to resist were typically either 2-sided, mutual combat situations precipitated
by a prior argument

WTF??? Who fight duels anymore? Likely this is a couple of criminals who are looking for each other. By including gangbangers in a gang war they insure that the person who was shot will have a gun on them.

[X_Digger]

19. Already discussed here-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=256837

Already torn to shreds.

[Hoopla Phil]

35. That about covers it.

"yup"

[cleanhippie]

12. Oh, please. Even if that is true, it is rediculous to spout stats when you have no stats,

which that poster did. The poster made a baseless claim. Do you support making baseless claims?

[Euromutt]

28. Nothing's stopping private funding of research

Organizations like the Joyce Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation are free to fund all the agenda-driven junk science that draws a preconceived conclusion regardless of the data "focused studies" they want and can afford.

In addition, there's nothing to prevent government funding of criminological studies, not performed by medical/public health researchers with a predetermined agenda, and not funded via the CDC.

And the claim that "the NRA lobbies to prevent research" is an extremely tendentious one. The studies that the NCIPC had funded to that point were, without exception, ones that concluded that Guns Are Bad, entirely in line with opinions the NCIPC's director, Mark Rosenberg, had voiced up to years before (see http://reason.com/archives/1997/04/01/public-health-pot-shots). "No other field of inquiry is singled out this way" for the simple reason that no other field of inquiry has been so blatantly yoked to an agenda. The studies the NCIPC chose to fund were never intended to produce "factual data"; they were intended to support Rosenberg's anti-gun agenda, using taxpayer money.

[Kennah]

30. States can publish factual data

NRA and most gun groups would back it.

I've asked the Department of Licensing, Firearms Section, in Olympia, more than once questions like, "How many people with a Concealed Pistol License have had their license revoked, each year, for the last 10 years."

We dunno comes back.

I don't see the harm in publishing not only the numbers, but also aggregates of the crimes for which they were convicted. Something like this.

27 CPLs revoked in 2010
4 convictions for murder/manslaughter
8 convictions for rape
13 convictions for assault in the first degree
...

That sort of thing. I suspect there would a lot of crossing of imaginary lines.

[Atypical Liberal]

9. What does the actions of criminals have to do with the discussion at hand?

Nothing.

[PavePusher]

16. What's your point? n/t

[lawodevolution]

13. I wonder how many of the CCW permit holders convicted were convicted of victimless crimes

[Atypical Liberal]

15. click the link and you can see.

It is broken down by about every crime you can imagine.

[Kennah]

29. The details and nature of the crimes is the Holy Grail of information

I've tried to get the information from Washington. I tried in Florida when I lived there. Folks in Tallahassee said I could come there, and review the records in the office, but even then they sounded hesitant to allow it. Might have needed to file a FOIA, but I never.

Concealed carriers can be convicted of crossing any number of imaginary lines, and there is some belief it is this crime which dominates most of the "convictions".

[spin]

18. In Florida 5,295 people have had their CCW license revoked for being convicted of a crime ...

after their license was issued in the last 23 years.

During that period of time 1,918,601 licenses were issued. That would work out to be 0.27%, an amount very similar to the Texas figure.

Only 168 licenses were revoked because the holder committed a crime involving a firearm. That would work out to be 0.009%

Source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

[Hoyt]

31. Blood in the streets would be bad. Almost as bad are people carrying guns in public.

Keep em at home where they belong.

[X_Digger]

32. Whoosh, that was the point parting your hair..

450,000 active licenses in Texas this year. A minuscule portion of those commit any crime, much less one with a firearm.

What is the 'problem' again?

[TPaine7]

33. The problem appears to be inherent wrongness.

Hoyt is being extremely honest. The mere fact that people bear arms--regardless of the lack of actual harm to anyone--is "almost as bad" as blood in the streets.

Guns publicly in non-state hands are evil in and of themselves, absent any harm to society. Obviously, then, even a perfect safety record by lawful concealed carriers could never remedy inherent "wrongness." Kudos to Hoyt for honesty; it's refreshing.

[X_Digger]

34. You're right.. it's not often we get to see an honest faith-based, fact free position here. n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

36. "Blood will run in the streets". Oh wait a second. . . .

[Big Al Mac]

37. How are you calculating that 28X ??

100% - .2612% = 99.7388%

99.7388 divided by .2612 is 381.85 which seems to mean that your 28X is really about 382X.

[GreenStormCloud]

39. Most of those convictions were for non-firearms related crimes.

In other words they CHL status was irrelevant. Scroll through the table yourself.