nerdgirl 0
10 things non-gun people should know about Concealed Weapons permit holders.
By
Clownburner, in Speakers Corner
Quotewww.guncite.com, while a pro-2nd Amendment site, has a broad range of information and links out to supporting documents.
Some examples of crime rates concerning CCW holders (Texas):
2002 - 19.62/100k rate for CCW, 5196.7/100k statewide.
2003 - 24.18/100k for CCW, 5144.1/100k statewide
2004 - 33.75/100k for CCW, 5032.0/100k statewide
2005 - 51.83/100k for CCW, 4857.1/100k statewide
So, it can be statistically shown that, in Texas at least, CCW license holders are MUCH more law abiding than their fellow citizens.
Oh yeah
Well, the crime rates concerning CCW holders rose 160 percent from 2002 to 2005, while statewide crime rates fell!!!
What do you have to say about that?
CCW crime rate nearly triples!
Statewide crime rate falls!
I wait your response.
And people don't think I pay attention to other's tactics.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
2005 - 51.83/100k for CCW, 4857.1/100k statewide.
Do you have the number of CCW holders per 100K? That would make the above comparison a lot more meaningful.
How would it make it more meaningful?
Well, say for example that in 2005 there where 60/100k holders, then that would suggest that a very large percentage of them were involved in crime (unless I am totally misunderstanding the numbers.)
I am not disputing anything, just curious. I can't provide similar numbers for any major city in SA, but as most folks know, the violent crime rate here is of the highest in the world and we too have vociferous anti-gun lobbies, with a government seeming hell-bent on disarming the populace.
For the examples I gave in my latest post, the rates showed the number of convictions for each 100k of the general populace and for each 100k of CHL holders.
I can provide conviction rates where it shows the CHL convictions as a percentage of the total convictions, if you prefer.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 1,679
QuoteThere's going to be some 'slop' in the numbers - I can find information for the number of CHL licensees *in good standing* at the end of each year, but I cannot find numbers for revoked/suspended licenses, which would go along with the "good" licensees in order to calculate rates. It's still probably an error that wouldn't show without going out several decimal places, but...
CONVICTION rate comparison between CHL and non-CHL holders for Texas
2002 - 139.32/100k general pop, 19.62/100k CHL
2003 - 149.37/100k general pop, 24.18/100k CHL
2004 - 159.30/100k general pop, 33.76/100k CHL
2005 - 153.86/100k general pop, 51.83/100k CHL
OK - this compares like to like - conviction rates for the same offenses for both demographics. This is about as good as can be done with the information given.
While, unfortunately, there has been an increase in convictions for CHL holders, the evidence still shows that they are less likely to break the law than their counterparts.
What's the rate among non CCW holders who qualify on character grounds for a CCW? THAT would be comparing like with like.
All your numbers show is that if you preselect a set containing no felons and compare it with a set containing all the felons, the felonious set commits more crimes. What a surprise! Whether it's CCW or being left handed you'd get the same result.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
Please disregard that post - as explained further down in the thread, I was mistaken in my initial comparison as I didn't notice that the CHL stats were for CONVICTIONS and not total crimes reported.
I corrected it further down in thread.
NB: The majority of the convictions appear to be in area of "unlawful carry handgun license holder" - from 64% in 2003 up to 87% in 2005. Unfortunately, I'm unsure of just what that charge entails - it isn't carrying in a bar, weapon free zone or correctional facility, as those are separately listed. My best guess is that they didn't have their CHL with them.
I corrected it further down in thread.
NB: The majority of the convictions appear to be in area of "unlawful carry handgun license holder" - from 64% in 2003 up to 87% in 2005. Unfortunately, I'm unsure of just what that charge entails - it isn't carrying in a bar, weapon free zone or correctional facility, as those are separately listed. My best guess is that they didn't have their CHL with them.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteThere's going to be some 'slop' in the numbers - I can find information for the number of CHL licensees *in good standing* at the end of each year, but I cannot find numbers for revoked/suspended licenses, which would go along with the "good" licensees in order to calculate rates. It's still probably an error that wouldn't show without going out several decimal places, but...
CONVICTION rate comparison between CHL and non-CHL holders for Texas
2002 - 139.32/100k general pop, 19.62/100k CHL
2003 - 149.37/100k general pop, 24.18/100k CHL
2004 - 159.30/100k general pop, 33.76/100k CHL
2005 - 153.86/100k general pop, 51.83/100k CHL
OK - this compares like to like - conviction rates for the same offenses for both demographics. This is about as good as can be done with the information given.
While, unfortunately, there has been an increase in convictions for CHL holders, the evidence still shows that they are less likely to break the law than their counterparts.
What's the rate among non CCW holders who qualify on character grounds for a CCW? THAT would be comparing like with like.
All your numbers show is that if you preselect a set containing no felons and compare it with a set containing all the felons, the felonious set commits more crimes. What a surprise! Whether it's CCW or being left handed you'd get the same result.
The amended information is using the same dataset to calculate CONVICTION RATES for the general populace AND for CHL holders - that is what I meant by comparing like to like. My comparison is valid.
I think your logic is a bit askew in this case, Professor.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteWhat's the rate among non CCW holders who qualify on character grounds for a CCW? THAT would be comparing like with like.
All your numbers show is that if you preselect a set containing no felons and compare it with a set containing all the felons, the felonious set commits more crimes. What a surprise! Whether it's CCW or being left handed you'd get the same result.
Doesn't that depend on what is being addressed?
I may be wrong, but I thought the gist of this thread was the character of CCW holders. Some people seem to imply they (as a group) are really not much different that the general population. The previously posted stats indicate they are a "cut above". They indicate a crime/conviction rate of CCW holders is dramatically lower than that of the general population.
kallend 1,679
QuoteQuoteWhat's the rate among non CCW holders who qualify on character grounds for a CCW? THAT would be comparing like with like.
All your numbers show is that if you preselect a set containing no felons and compare it with a set containing all the felons, the felonious set commits more crimes. What a surprise! Whether it's CCW or being left handed you'd get the same result.
Doesn't that depend on what is being addressed?
.
Of course it does. Trying to prove something about the selection process is different from trying to prove something about he attribute of having a CCW. One might say Mike's data, if accurate, indicate that the selection process works (the criminally inclined are mostly, but not completely, excluded). It doesn't say anything much about whether the subset of selected CCW holders is more law abiding than any other subset of Texans (for example, engineering professors) from whom the criminally inclined have also been excluded.
I mean, take any group of people and exclude known criminals, and you'd expect the rest to be pretty law abiding.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat's the rate among non CCW holders who qualify on character grounds for a CCW? THAT would be comparing like with like.
All your numbers show is that if you preselect a set containing no felons and compare it with a set containing all the felons, the felonious set commits more crimes. What a surprise! Whether it's CCW or being left handed you'd get the same result.
Doesn't that depend on what is being addressed?
.
Of course it does. Trying to prove something about the selection process is different from trying to prove something about he attribute of having a CCW. One might say Mike's data, if accurate, indicate that the selection process works (the criminally inclined are mostly, but not completely, excluded). It doesn't say anything much about whether the subset of selected CCW holders is more law abiding than any other subset of Texans (for example, engineering professors) from whom the criminally inclined have also been excluded.
I mean, take any group of people and exclude known criminals, and you'd expect the rest to be pretty law abiding.
The entire populace is law abiding up until they commit a crime.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 1,679
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat's the rate among non CCW holders who qualify on character grounds for a CCW? THAT would be comparing like with like.
All your numbers show is that if you preselect a set containing no felons and compare it with a set containing all the felons, the felonious set commits more crimes. What a surprise! Whether it's CCW or being left handed you'd get the same result.
Doesn't that depend on what is being addressed?
.
Of course it does. Trying to prove something about the selection process is different from trying to prove something about he attribute of having a CCW. One might say Mike's data, if accurate, indicate that the selection process works (the criminally inclined are mostly, but not completely, excluded). It doesn't say anything much about whether the subset of selected CCW holders is more law abiding than any other subset of Texans (for example, engineering professors) from whom the criminally inclined have also been excluded.
I mean, take any group of people and exclude known criminals, and you'd expect the rest to be pretty law abiding.
The entire populace is law abiding up until they commit a crime.
Indeed they are, but for any year whose data you quote, that point has already passed for many of them (those that have already committed a crime) and your data sort all of those into the same pile. You can't weasel out of it that way.
That the crime rate for CCW holders is non-zero indicates that some of those "law abiding" folks are going to go bad.
If you want to prove that there's something special about CCW holders, then your control group should have all the same attributes (passed the background check, etc.) except their CCW status, which should be unknown.
Your control group is the rest of the population, but you have already guaranteed that this contains all the known felons!
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteIndeed they are, but for any year whose data you quote, that point has already passed for many of them (those that have already committed a crime) and your data sort all of those into the same pile. You can't weasel out of it that way.
That the crime rate for CCW holders is non-zero indicates that some of those "law abiding" folks are going to go bad.
If you want to prove that there's something special about CCW holders, then your control group should have all the same attributes (passed the background check, etc.) except their CCW status, which should be unknown.
Your control group is the rest of the population, but you have already guaranteed that this contains all the known felons!
I could further narrow the dataset by removing any crimes that are CHL-only and recalculate, but the numbers are still going to show that CHL holders are convicted of far fewer crimes than the general populace (which also includes the CHL holders).
You use the same sort of comparison to show how Houston or Dallas is worse than Chicago - where is YOUR control group that is separate from the examples?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteQuoteIf you want to prove that there's something special about CCW holders, then your control group should have all the same attributes (passed the background check, etc.) except their CCW status, which should be unknown.
Your control group is the rest of the population, but you have already guaranteed that this contains all the known felons!
I could further narrow the dataset by removing any crimes that are CHL-only and recalculate, but the numbers are still going to show that CHL holders are convicted of far fewer crimes than the general populace (which also includes the CHL holders).
You use the same sort of comparison to show how Houston or Dallas is worse than Chicago - where is YOUR control group that is separate from the examples?
It seems like the good professor is saying you need to find a control group that undergoes the same background checks as CCW holders, but doesn't contain any CCW holders.
In other words - you need to compare CCW holders to a group that would be near impossible establish.
Rick 67
reply]In Fla. you can keep your pistol LEGALLY "in the glovebox locked OR UNLOCKED" last time I checked the laws. No CCW required
------------------------------------------------------
You are correct you do not need a CCW to carry in your car in Florida........but my friend is an Orlando Police Officer and he pushed me to get my permit.
He said you may get hassled by some police officers that mis-interpet the law even as far as getting arrested. You will win in court but why go to through that it is much easier to get you license IMHO
You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!
normiss 643
precisely whay...and what I said!
it's a "hassle reduction card"
and the cops really appreciate it when you have ID in hand, hands fully visible, and weapon declared and location specified when he gets to the window.
it's a "hassle reduction card"
and the cops really appreciate it when you have ID in hand, hands fully visible, and weapon declared and location specified when he gets to the window.
kallend 1,679
QuoteQuoteQuoteIf you want to prove that there's something special about CCW holders, then your control group should have all the same attributes (passed the background check, etc.) except their CCW status, which should be unknown.
Your control group is the rest of the population, but you have already guaranteed that this contains all the known felons!
I could further narrow the dataset by removing any crimes that are CHL-only and recalculate, but the numbers are still going to show that CHL holders are convicted of far fewer crimes than the general populace (which also includes the CHL holders).
You use the same sort of comparison to show how Houston or Dallas is worse than Chicago - where is YOUR control group that is separate from the examples?
It seems like the good professor is saying you need to find a control group that undergoes the same background checks as CCW holders, but doesn't contain any CCW holders.
In other words - you need to compare CCW holders to a group that would be near impossible establish.
Bullshit! Anyone who has a security clearance has gone through a criminal background check, and I'm sure that many of them aren't CCW holders.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
SkyDekker 1,152
I think the professor is right on the money when it comes to the data and the conclusions you can draw from it.
There is a significant increase in the stats for CCW permit holders, which could be attributable to a number of factors ranging from, more CCW holders turning into criminals, to a weakening of the selections process.
There is a significant increase in the stats for CCW permit holders, which could be attributable to a number of factors ranging from, more CCW holders turning into criminals, to a weakening of the selections process.
QuoteQuoteIn other words - you need to compare CCW holders to a group that would be near impossible establish.
Bullshit! Anyone who has a security clearance has gone through a criminal background check, and I'm sure that many of them aren't CCW holders.
How would you go about collecting the data on everyone who has a security clearance and their subsequent crime rate?
Is there an accessable database that contains such information?
QuoteThere is a significant increase in the stats for CCW permit holders, which could be attributable to a number of factors ranging from, more CCW holders turning into criminals, to a weakening of the selections process.
What are you talking about?
Is that cause, correlation, or coincidence?
Is the small upward trend 2004-2005 significant, especially given that the process to issue a CCW permit would seem to pre-select (by intention) those folks with history of being less inclined to criminal activities?
-----------
The 2nd to last paragraph made reference to an interesting observed phenomenon:
…“a Psychology Today study of "good Samaritans" who came to the aid of violent-crime victims found that 81 percent were gun owners, and many of them carried guns in their cars or on their persons.”
One could speculate that the CCW empowered those individuals to feel safer to in unknown situations. Of course, there are lots of additional variables to consider.
VR/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites