Concealed Carry Permit Holders are One Third as Likely to Commit Murder as Police Off

[Dean Weingarten]

Frank Etten:

Why do you say the data is bad? The population figures for the police are from the UCR, which you accept as a source. The number of domestic homicides committed by sworn officers over the four years are all individually documented. You can look at them for yourself. So where is the bad data?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

As noted by Double Nought Spy, both sources are highly motivated to come up with cases.

Funny how you left out the fact that I also noted that they were BIASED. It is this very sort of faulty reporting that casts significant dispersions on what you are reporting and that your results are not to be trusted because you are obviously interjecting your own significant biases into the what is reported.

If you can't get this right, then I would not expect you to get the other data right either. You are cherry-picking what you want to report and that is a No-No.

 

[Dean Weingarten]

So how are the data biased, if the individual cases are as stated in the news articles? Yes, the source web sites are certainly biased, but that doesn't mean they cannot collect data that is valid. If just means that you have to look at the data to remove those cases that have been inappropriately included.

For example, at the domestic police web sites, there were a number of firemen included, and I did not include those as sworn officers with arrest powers.

 

[Dean Weingarten]

Double Naught Spy:

Please explain how I can cherry pick domestic homicide cases. I can see how cherry picking might lower the number of cases, but I do not see how it could raise them.

 

[mac66]

There is a whole lot of 'when faced with the facts you don't like, you discount the methodology' in this thread. I think the data is pretty good and it at the least shows a possibility of a trend which IMO is worth looking into. Is it a significant trend? Maybe not but worth looking into. BTW I was in law enforcement for 34 years. I've only carried a gun with a concealed permit the last three years since I retired.

 

[krupparms]

Once again we have this turning into a argument between the LEOs & a member that would dare to bring up this topic. If you disagree with the OP.on the data he is useing, then come up with your own. But all that will do is show there can be any conclusion you want, just by the data you use. If this wasn't an important topic, it would not keep coming up! You can argue all you want! But clearly there is a huge gap growing between L.E. & Citizens! Especially when we see news stories that confirm that! If we cannot talk about this without all the bickering, then how can we resolve it out in the real world where it counts?

 

[armoredman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by armoredman
...I think most of the naysayers and such have missed an obvious question - if your information is incorrect, methodology wrong, conclusions flawed, etc., then at the least you have raised a question that does deserve and answer....

Balderdash!

A good question is one thing. But incorrect or questionable information, faulty methodology and flawed conclusions are another.

It's fine to ask a good question, but if you have bad data and faulty methodology you have no business purporting to answer that question. And you have no business drawing a conclusion like:
Quote:
Concealed Carry Permit Holders are One Third as Likely to Commit Murder as Police
Based on bad data and faulty methodology such a conclusion is worthless and no use whatsoever in helping answer the question -- no matter how good the question is

Mr Ettin, you owe me an apology. You failed to read that one line you posted. Let me post it again, from your quote.

if your information is incorrect, methodology wrong, conclusions flawed, etc., then at the least you have raised a question that does deserve an(corrected) answer

Your answer,

Balderdash! A good question is one thing. But incorrect or questionable information, faulty methodology and flawed conclusions are another.

Wasn't that JUST WHAT I SAID?!? In my post I neither agreed with his findings nor his methodology, merely thanked him for bringing up the question, and for what information he had accumulated, that was all. Now perhaps we can get past that portion and perhaps find some information that answers the question raised, and who here is qualified to do such?

 

[krupparms]

It would seem that us former LEOs who have seen some of these things with our on eyes are to be discounted! I was injured in the line of duty, trying to save people whose lives were in imitate danger! That is why I am no longer a police officer! Not because I quit! I have seen this growing crime by the police & L.E. getting away with breaking the law! It must stop! How do we do that? By following the example of the U.S.government? Fighting until it comes apart! That makes a lot of sense don't it! Can anyone answer the questions I asked? It would be nice to get a civil answer, instead of the same old stuff!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

There is a whole lot of 'when faced with the facts you don't like, you discount the methodology' in this thread.

LOL, the "facts" of this thread are not actual "facts" but summarized statistical renderings from dubious sources. Funny thing is, I think the general end conclusion is probably correct in terms of basic trends of raw numbers (though they cannot be counted on from the OP sources), though how they were categorized was wholly inappropriate. However, I don't have a dog in this fight and really could not care one way or the other what the outcome of this unscientific study is except to point out that whatever conclusions you want to draw from the information drawn from the sources started off as secondary data with no controls cannot be considered reliable. It is a GIGO issue from the onset.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Some defects --

1. The data comes from multiple secondary and tertiary sources without validation of the bases used by each.
   
   
2. The VPC data on Florida includes a wide range of homicides. In some cases fault or culpability appears not to have been decided. Others are classes as negligent. Exactly which ones have been determined to be "domestic homicides" and on what bases?
   
   
3. The police domestic violence data base appears to be national. When I open the link in the Blog (linked to in the OP) to the site supposedly tracking domestic homicides by police and I find only two cases involving Florida LEOs.
   
   
4. How has it been established that the bases for classifying the Florida incidents as "domestic homicide" the same as used in connection with the police violence?
   
   
5. The data is a hodgepodge and unrelated to the conclusion. The conclusion is broad and unequivocal: CCW holders [apparently nationally] are one third as likely to commit murder (unjustified intentional killing of another with malice) than police officers. The conclusion as thus stated is completely disconnected from the data.

 

[krupparms]

If you don't have a dog in this fight, why are we aways faced with this 'FIGHT '? THERE IS NO NEED TO 'FIGHT '! Let's all just stick to what we DO KNOW! This is becoming a growing issue! We should be able to discuss this like grown -ups. Let's try to at least act HIGH ROAD HERE! CAN WE PLEASE GET BACK TO THE THREAD & SUBJECT?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Wasn't that JUST WHAT I SAID?!?...

Very well. I withdraw the "balderdash" and apologize for my use of that intemperate word.

...I neither agreed with his findings nor his methodology, merely thanked him for bringing up the question,...

But I can't find it in my heart to thank the OP for raising an important (if obvious) question and then purporting to answer it with lousy data and faulty methodology.

While the "gun community" might like the results, the OP's specious reasoning is actually worse than useless for our cause. It's too easily attacked and damages our credibility.

We need solid, verifiable facts and rigorous analysis that can stand up to close, hostile scrutiny.

 

[Mike1234567]

I didn't read the entire thread and, like others, I don't know all the "facts". But I can say, IMHO, that power really does corrupt. It's inevitable, again IMHO, that "some" LEOs can be turned to the dark side as a result of being empowered over others. It's just human nature. The bottom line is there are psychos and narcissists in every group. For example, it's no coincidence that many people with emotional issues go into psychology and others with certain tendencies go into the priesthood or boy scout leadership positions. Go ahead and flame me but this is simple truth. Some people do take advantage of their power and limited culpability and they intentionally place themselves into those "protected" power positions.

The above stated, my most sincere thanks and admiration to the majority of those LEOs who don't let that power go to their heads and don't take advantage of their power.

 

[krupparms]

Can someone answer the questions I asked about as they do apply to this discussion?

 

[Sam Cade]

It is a GIGO issue from the onset.

I'd say that is an accurate analysis.

 

[Old Dog]

I finally had time to peruse the websites to which Mr Weingarten's blog linked ...Did anyone else?

For police, I used a web site that tracks domestic homicides committed by police officers,

LaneJudson.com? BehindtheBlueWall.com? I could not find any statistics there. Simply a litany of blurbs, admittedly some quite tragic stories, recounting instances of homicide linked to domestic violence. Included within: a number of state DOC corrections officers (not sworn police officers), some jail deputies, several "ex," "fired," and "retired" law enforcement officers, some "ex department employees" (exact nature of job unknown) and a few cases of murdered agency personnel (i.e., dispatchers) in which the occupation of the alleged killer also wasn't named.

The data is comparable to the VPC data in that it relies on publicly reported stories.

No, it is not comparable data.

Sadly, Mr. Weingarten relies on anecdote and confuses it with data. As most of us here become irritated or even furious when the anti-gun factions attempt to string together lists of all the tragic deaths caused by firearms, claiming such things as "a firearm in the house is X-times more likely to be used against its owner" etc., we should not allow ourselves to confuse tragic recounting of fatalities with statistical data.

then krupparms again

Can someone answer the questions I asked about as they do apply to this discussion?

Which questions?

It would seem that us former LEOs who have seen some of these things with our on eyes are to be discounted! I was injured in the line of duty, trying to save people whose lives were in imitate danger! That is why I am no longer a police officer! Not because I quit! I have seen this growing crime by the police & L.E. getting away with breaking the law! It must stop! How do we do that? By following the example of the U.S.government?
Fighting until it comes apart! That makes a lot of sense don't it! Can anyone answer the questions I asked? It would be nice to get a civil answer, instead of the same old stuff!

This one?

have seen this growing crime by the police & L.E. getting away with breaking the law! It must stop! How do we do that? By following the example of the U.S.government?

All I can answer here is ... huh?

The above stated, my most sincere thanks and admiration to the majority of those LEOs who don't let that power go to their heads and don't take advantage of their power.

And this has exactly what to do with someone trying to compare the likelihood of lawful concealed carriers committing murders as opposed to the likelihood of police officers committing murders? Do you actually think that if a police officer commits a murder, it is because he has "let all that power go to his head?" Seriously?

I had to laugh a bit to myself when a gent earlier claimed he was seeing all the usual suspects jumping in to defend the police ... I still haven't seen that, only people noting that the original post actually doesn't contain any valid statistical analysis.

 

[Dean Weingarten]

Old Dog, Frank Ettin:

Did you read the data link that show a link to each incident used as data and describes the selection basis for incidents?

It does not appear that you did.

 

[Dean Weingarten]

Here is the link to the data, for those of you who missed it in the original article:

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/10/links-to-2011-domestic-homicides-by.html

 

[Frank Ettin]

Old Dog, Frank Ettin:

Did you read the data link that show a link to each incident used as data and describes the selection basis for incidents?

It does not appear that you did.

Considering that there are so many links and the material overall is so poorly presented, I'm surprised we were able to find anything. If you are going to write these kinds of articles, I suggest that you study scientific writing in scholarly journals to learn how to properly organize things in a manner that can be followed.

And I stand by my earlier comments. Among other things, you have national data for police and Florida for private citizens. Why are they comparable?

Looking at your data found here, there were two domestic homicides (to use your term) in Florida during the subject period. You also claim 14 domestic homicides by CCW holders in Florida for the same period.

So can we then conclude that Florida CCW is seven time more likely to kill an intimate partner than a Florida police officer?

 

[Frank Ettin]

And it's true that I did not correct for sample size. But I was just drawing a absurd conclusion from questionable data.

 

[Frank Ettin]

On the other hand, let's play with Florida data a bit.

• We seem to have 2 domestic homicides out of a population of, let's say, 45,000 full-time sworn officers (FBI data for 2009). That gives us a rate of 0.0000044 homicides/officer.
  
  
• We seem to have 14 domestic homicides out of a population of 600,000 CCW holders (OP's claim). That gives us a rate of 0.0000023.
  
  
• That gives us, in Florida, a police rate of 1.9 times that of CCW holders.
  
  
• That's of course suggests that the OP overstated the difference by about one-third.
  
  
• But we also have a tiny sample, making the results extremely sensitive to errors and providing a very low confidence level.
  
  
• The sensitivity issue is significant because one of the Florida incidents might be questionable (Bomia). The perpetrator is identified as a "former police officer." It's not clear if he was a police officer when he committed the crime, and thus includible, or had left such employment some time before his crime, and thus not includible. (Or are we looking at homicides by anyone who had ever been a police officer, and therefore need also to be looking at anyone who had ever had a CCW?)

ETA: Of course that still leaves open the question of whether a factor of two difference is even statistically significant with such a tiny sample size.

 

[Mike1234567]

Some of us need to calm down a little bit and just breathe... breathe... breathe...

I'm sorry if my generalized comments offended anyone. But they were/are identified as personal opinion and they are based on personal observations regarding human nature in general.

 

[Dean Weingarten]

Frank Ettin:

Sorry that you are having a hard time reading the information at the data link. It was the first link shown in the list of links at the bottom of the article.

It clearly states that only incidents that involve individuals who were sworn officers with arrest powers at the time it happened were included. The reason for including all state and local sworn officers was to obtain a population of comparable size to the resident Florida CCW population, as stated in the article.

At the beginning of the data link:

Police domestic murders (homicides) in 2008 - 2011. I counted domestic homicides that had a legal outcome or were murder/suicides, and where the person committing the homicide was a sworn officer with arrest powers. Former officers, people who were not sworn officers, or retired officers were not counted. For example, not all corrections officers are sworn officers, but those in California and some other states are. Virgil Millon, as a California Corrections Lt. appears to have been a sworn officer at the time of the killings, so they are counted as police domestic murders. The Chu Vue case in California was counted because the motive was said to be a love affair between the murder victim and Chu Vue's wife. Pending cases were not counted.

As stated in the article, suicides are not counted.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...It clearly states that only incidents that involve individuals who were sworn officers with arrest powers at the time it happened were included...

So was Bomia included? The article refers to him as a former police officer. If you included him, how did you determine that he was a police officer at the time of the incident?

...The reason for including all state and local sworn officers was to obtain a population of comparable size to the resident Florida CCW population, as stated in the article...

And on what basis do you conclude that is statistically valid?

And on what bases do you characterize a particular homicide as a "domestic homicide"?

 

[Dean Weingarten]

So was Bomia included? The article refers to him as a former police officer. If you included him, how did you determine that he was a police officer at the time of the incident?

Bomia is included.

YouTube video of news report showing that Mark Bomia was an officer at the time of the killing.

Domestic Homicide was defined as the illegal killing of an immediate relative, family member, boyfriend or girlfriend, or former boyfriend, girlfriend or ex, and others killed as part of the incident.

One incident , the Chu Vue incident in California in 2008, was included where the motive was said to be that the victim was having an affair with the officer/murderer's wife. The inclusion of that case was a judgement call, but as one case out of 52, removing it would only change the rate from 1.854/100,000 to 1.809/100,000. It is specifically referenced in the data set to allow people to make their own judgements on it.

One of the difficulties in coming up with the data set is exactly what you have shown. Many news reports of trials and convictions refer to the person convicted as a "former officer". In such cases the incident was only included if a report could be found showing that the person convicted was a sworn officer at the time the incident occurred.