Police Officers shot by CCWs
- Thread starter Wagonman
- Start date
Kreyzhorse
New member
I was trolling over at the Brady Campaign site yesterday (got to keep up with what the crazies are doing) and they actually had a article on crimes committed by people with CCW licenses. I don't trust their data, but, it might be worth a read.
stargazer65
New member
I have read the article. One of the things they neglect to mention as BillCA pointed is:
The point they are trying to convey in the article is that CCW requirements should be more stringent. Which they will continue to push incrementally until CCW is eliminated, or so restrictve as to be impractical for the common person. The fact is you can't ever weed out somebody who is law abiding but will someday in the future break the law. It's impossible and I believe it would be unconstitutional.
The point they are trying to convey in the article is that CCW requirements should be more stringent. Which they will continue to push incrementally until CCW is eliminated, or so restrictve as to be impractical for the common person. The fact is you can't ever weed out somebody who is law abiding but will someday in the future break the law. It's impossible and I believe it would be unconstitutional.
ScottRiqui
New member
Whenever I see the Brady-type lists of criminal acts by CHL holders, my reaction is the same - "meh, so what?"
No one ever promised that no CHL holder would ever commit a criminal act. These stories, while tragic, are no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The important thing is that CHL holders are wildly under-represented in the criminal class. And as long as we're behaving ourselves better than the general public, leave us the hell alone.
No one ever promised that no CHL holder would ever commit a criminal act. These stories, while tragic, are no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The important thing is that CHL holders are wildly under-represented in the criminal class. And as long as we're behaving ourselves better than the general public, leave us the hell alone.
Kreyzhorse
New member
I agree. I actually get a kick out of reading them though.
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!"
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
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.
Last edited:
The number of police shot by people who have CCWs is 9 according to the BC. Now I haven't read the cases, but I would look at: did the person use the license to help them commit the shooting? If not, it doesn't matter if they had a CPL... in fact it doesn't matter at all, because anyone anywhere can illegally buy a gun and then go shoot a cop. Did the person even use their carry weapon in the crime? A lot of these criminals use rifles or other weapons. Were they carrying illegally? A lot of them are drunk, which is carrying illegal (imagine that, if you make something illegal people will still do it, well damn).
Anyway here is the link: http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/facts/ccw-crimes-misdeeds.pdf
The simple fact that years of murders can be summed up in 35 pages should tell you something. I made a post about this earlier in another thread... after some searching I found it. The following is data from Texas:
Anyway here is the link: http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/facts/ccw-crimes-misdeeds.pdf
The simple fact that years of murders can be summed up in 35 pages should tell you something. I made a post about this earlier in another thread... after some searching I found it. The following is data from Texas:
Myself in another thread said:
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
New member
Right. Pretty much you should never trust the data presented by a group with a strong political agenda.
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.
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?
No, actually, I made some rough calculations of my own. I checked a few states whose figures were readily available, calculated that as a percentage of their population, then extrapolated that to the US population. I figured that the no-issue states might be balanced by the states where no permit is required. I did this because I couldn't find any decent figures. The figure you found, depending on its source, may be just as valid or more so. My means was admittedly rough in its estimation.
Still, the point remains that even with "just" seven million CCW holders, the per capita rate of violent crimes among them is miniscule. Even if the nuns pass us up, it won't be by much.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
CCW/CHL population is usually older, better educated, better incomes than the general pop.
I haven't seen a study of the gun pop vs. a matched demographic population on crime. Might be out there somewhere.
However, even if the crime rates were equally low, it would argue that the presence of the gun per se doesn't lead to aggressive behavior as they drive you crazy. Of course, the demos of that population might be resistant to gun primed aggression.
There's a bit of evidence that gun presence in not so charming demographics leads to more aggressiveness.
The argument revolves around whether the action of bad people with guns should lead to a prohibition that includes good people with guns.
I haven't seen a study of the gun pop vs. a matched demographic population on crime. Might be out there somewhere.
However, even if the crime rates were equally low, it would argue that the presence of the gun per se doesn't lead to aggressive behavior as they drive you crazy. Of course, the demos of that population might be resistant to gun primed aggression.
There's a bit of evidence that gun presence in not so charming demographics leads to more aggressiveness.
The argument revolves around whether the action of bad people with guns should lead to a prohibition that includes good people with guns.
Double Naught Spy said:
Double Naught Spy makes a very good point here. But I still find the comparison valid because the Brady Campaign wishes to make the comparison. If the BC is going to begin publishing emotional stories of kids killed by people with CCWs they to look at statistics.
It is very true that the statistics are skewed because you cannot be convicted of a crime and then hold a CCW, bringing about a bit of an issue with repeat offenders. But remember, license carriers are by nature law-abiding because they spent sometimes hundreds of dollars to make sure they are following the law when they carry their weapons. The same cannot be said for criminals. That is the argument I make when someone tells me that I just want to shoot the place up, etc etc: That I spent hundreds of dollars and went through various background checks and hours of training to get this license and cannot continue to carry this license if I have a felony conviction. Thus, the fact that I still have one is a pretty good indicator I'm a law abiding citizen. But again, this is not fool proof.
Double Naught Spy said:
This would be interesting, but you risk running the same fallacy. Either way, we can speculate. Between 1990 and 2002, 56% of felonies resulting in conviction were committed by repeat offenders (SOURCE: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4441/is_200609/ai_n17194955/) So we can cut out over half of felonies when we would examine the data of comparing CPL holders to the eligible population. This lends credence to your original statement, but remember we are talking about rates. It is very possible that people with CPLs are just as likely to commit a felony as their eligible counterparts, but logic does not sway that way. If someone was going to a crime, they would do it regardless of their license status (they are already breaking the law after all). I would also ask in how many of those cases, if the eligible person would have had a CPL, would that have mattered? Conversely, in the crimes people with CPLs commit, do the CPLs come into effect (ie: if they committed murder-suicide in their home with a shotgun, that has no bearing on their CPL status, anyone could do that).
Statistics are a sticky issue, but we can draw some conclusions from logic. My argument is rarely ever that the CPL population is much less likely to commit a crime because of the fallacy DNS stated. It is much more often that the process, time, money, and hassle one has to go through to ensure that they are following the law when carrying their weapon is a much better indication of their intentions when it comes to committing crimes.
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?
Let's be honest - there are countless examples of LEO's acting illegally - many even committing criminal assaults and even murders upon citizens. It isn't far-fetched, by any means, to consider that one or more of CCW's shootings of law enforcement officers were fully justified under the self defense laws of the state in which it occurred. How on earth would you sconsider that in the same vein as an illegal shooting? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.