We know it has happened, unfortunately. But it is quite rare, statistically speaking.
Whenever I see the Brady-type lists of criminal acts by CHL holders, my reaction is the same - "meh, so what?"
The important thing is that CHL holders are wildly under-represented in the criminal class.
I recently saw a statistic of about seven million. Do you have some sort of citation? I would love to be able to say the number is higher than I thought.When people start that line of argument, I interrupt with, "Yeah, isn't that great? Between 10 and 15 million CHL holders in the US
I think I read somewhere that the rate of violent crime convictions for CHL holders was actually lower per capita than that for nuns.
When people start that line of argument, I interrupt with, "Yeah, isn't that great? Between 10 and 15 million CHL holders in the US, and we still have few enough crimes by them that we can list them individually!"
Shouldn't you be asking about police officers UNLAWFULLY shot by CCW's
Myself in another thread said:Just for fun I crunched the numbers for 2007 (most recent year for available data). Some of the findings were pulled right from statistical information, some I derived myself...
Total # of convictions: 61,260
Total # of convictions where the criminal had a CHL: 160
% of convictions in which the criminal had a CHL: .2612%
# of "Active CHL Holders": 288,909
% of Texans with an "Active CHL": 1.208%
And just to go off of what Mike Irwin said,
# of murders in Texas: 1,420
# of murder convictions: 371
# of murder convictions in which the criminal had a CHL: 2
% of murder convictions in which the criminal had a CHL: .5391%
And what alloy said:
# of ALL child drowning deaths in Texas: 63
# of murder convictions in which the criminal had a CHL: 2
# of MANSLAUGHTER convictions in which the criminal had a CHL: 1
And car accidents:
# of Motor Vehicle Accident deaths in Texas in 2006: 3,781
That means that the general populace of Texas in 2007 is 4.624 times MORE LIKELY to be convicted of a crime than an "Active CHL Holder". The general populace of Texas in 2007 is 2.24 times MORE LIKELY to be convicted of murder than "Active CHL Holders".
Wasn't gonna source this but then I got carried away, so here are all sources:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis.../convrates.htm
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...Report2007.pdf
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...dInstr2007.pdf
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm
http://www.texascancer.info/scripts/mgwns.html
I don't trust their data, but, it might be worth a read.
I think I read somewhere that the rate of violent crime convictions for CHL holders was actually lower per capita than that for nuns.
I recently saw a statistic of about seven million. Do you have some sort of citation? I would love to be able to say the number is higher than I thought.
Shouldn't you be asking about police officers UNLAWFULLY shot by CCW's?
I recently saw a statistic of about seven million. Do you have some sort of citation?
Double Naught Spy said:Classic example, but usually it is given that CCW folks have crime rates much lower than the general population as if that somehow shows that they are safer. Well of couse CCW people have crime rates lower than the general population because many of the crimes committed in the general population are specifically things that keep people from being able to obtain CCWs. The general population is composed of a goodly percentage of felons and repeat felons. So this makes for a decidedly biased presentation of the data that is done for politically motivated reasons.
Did you know that women are less likely to get prostate cancer than the general population?
So with the nun example, you can be a felon and be a nun. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Double Naught Spy said:You never see the comparison between CCW people and their crime rates against the general population of CCW eligible people from the general population who opt not to get a CCW. Do CCW people actually commit less crime than their "equals" in the general population?
Is that right? Would you care to elaborate upon this peculiar logic? Are you really saying that you would consider lawful and unlawful shootings in the same manner?Distinction without a difference in this instance.