HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » TX CHL holders 16x less l...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 02:02 PM

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



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

40 replies, 8198 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply TX CHL holders 16x less likely to be convicted of crime (Original post)
X_Digger Jul 2012 OP
Hoyt Jul 2012 #1
AtheistCrusader Jul 2012 #2
X_Digger Jul 2012 #3
OneTenthofOnePercent Jul 2012 #4
Hoyt Jul 2012 #6
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #8
Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2012 #25
Hoyt Jul 2012 #28
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #35
OneTenthofOnePercent Jul 2012 #9
X_Digger Jul 2012 #10
Hoyt Jul 2012 #12
X_Digger Jul 2012 #15
Hoyt Jul 2012 #16
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #20
Hoyt Jul 2012 #21
Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2012 #26
virginia mountainman Jul 2012 #24
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #36
Hoyt Jul 2012 #11
gejohnston Jul 2012 #13
OneTenthofOnePercent Jul 2012 #14
Hoyt Jul 2012 #17
gejohnston Jul 2012 #18
rl6214 Jul 2012 #27
slackmaster Jul 2012 #29
Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #30
Hoyt Jul 2012 #31
Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #32
Hoyt Jul 2012 #33
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #34
Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #37
Hoyt Jul 2012 #38
Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #39
Callisto32 Jul 2012 #5
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #7
ileus Jul 2012 #19
Hoyt Jul 2012 #22
Missycim Jul 2012 #23
Glassunion Jul 2012 #40

Response to X_Digger (Original post)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 02:09 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 02:31 PM

2. Curently no such data to compare to.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 02:38 PM

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 02:50 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #4)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 03:08 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 03:10 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #8)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 09:04 AM

25. Ba-Zinga!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #8)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 07:38 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #28)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:42 AM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 03:27 PM

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" ??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #9)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 03:30 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #10)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 03:39 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #12)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 03:47 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #15)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 03:51 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #16)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 10:23 PM

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #20)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 10:28 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #21)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 09:05 AM

26. what is your success rate?

grabbed any guns today, Hoyt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #15)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 02:06 AM

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #24)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:43 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #9)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 03:35 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #11)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 03:41 PM

13. Politics is simply

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #11)


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #14)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 03:52 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #17)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 05:25 PM

18. actually they do

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 06:50 PM

27. Does holmes have a concealed carry license?

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 07:39 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 10:18 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #30)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 10:29 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #31)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:11 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #32)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:20 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #33)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:21 AM

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"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #33)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 06:45 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #37)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 06:50 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #38)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 10:37 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Original post)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 03:03 PM

5. Unpossible!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Callisto32 (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 03:08 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Original post)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 08:02 PM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #19)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 10:52 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #19)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 11:00 PM

23. You forgot

 

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


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #23)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 12:30 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread