Texas concealed stats - older but still relevant.

[Brad Johnson]

I searched for this before posting, so my apologies if its a repost.

I pulled some numbers from the Texas CHL page (The Texas Dept of Public Safety). The numbers are for 2001 convictions of licensees vs non-licenees. Again, these are convictions, not arrests.

All ratios are by statistical relevance, not total convictions

Category - NonCHL:CHL

Murder - 157:1

Kidnapping - 124:0

Sexual Assault - 151:1

Robbery - 1360:0

Aggravated Assault - 132:1

Assault - 320:1

Terroristic Threat - 245:1

Burglary - 5675:1 (not a typo)

Indecency with a child - 108:1

Unlawfully carrying a weapon - 132:1

Deadly Conduct Discharge of Firearm - 102:1

Harrassment - 48:1

Total all categories (some not included above) - 194:1

If you want the raw data you can find them on the Tx Dept of Public Safety CHL conviction stats page.

Brad

 

[Brigrat]

These stats would have more meaning if they told you the total ration of Non-CHL:CHL's in Texas. 194:1 average sounds good, but if the the Ration of Non-CHL:CHL is 400:1, then these numbers don't have much value.

 

[Stand_Watie]

The current number of CHL holders is 237,000 according to the website, so to figure the ratio (if it was the same in 2001 as it is today) you'd need to divide that into about 20 million.

Kind of risky going on one years data though I'd say. I imagine there are a lot of years when there are zero convictions for murder by a CHL holder.

 

[Brad Johnson]

These stats would have more meaning if they told you the total ration of Non-CHL:CHL's in Texas. 194:1 average sounds good, but if the the Ration of Non-CHL:CHL is 400:1, then these numbers don't have much value.

I disagree - I think they are absolutely invaluable! The fact that this shows non-CHL holders being convicted of murder at a rate one hundred and fifty seven times greater than CHL holders is slap-in-the-face astonishing. It's a number guaranteed to make an anti bristle, and it's from an official source that can be easily accessed.

Although having the ratio of non-CHL vs CHL in the general populace would be a nice bonus, it would not change the relevance of these figures.

Brad

 

[brookstexas]

Much better data

On the Texas State Rifle Association website!

http://www.tsra.com/DPS_convictions.htm

 

[morganm01]

20,000,000:237,000

comes out to

84.39:1

84.39 non-chl holders for every one chl holder. Based on that the numbers are good and bad.

Category - NonCHL:CHL

Murder - 1.87:1

Kidnapping - 124:0

Sexual Assault - 1.79:1

Robbery - 1360:0

Aggravated Assault - 1.56:1

Assault - 3.79:1

Terroristic Threat - 2.9:1

Burglary - 67.25:1 (not a typo)

Indecency with a child - 1.28:1

Unlawfully carrying a weapon - 1.56:1

Deadly Conduct Discharge of Firearm - 1.21:1

Harrassment - 0.57:1

Total all categories (some not included above) - 2.30:1


CHL holders apparently have a higher incidence of Harrassment than the non's. Overall really good though.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I think everyone is falling prey to the mass-media statistics game. Why introduce the per capita data when most Texans are law abiding? The real question is this - Of the criminal element (using actual convictions as the criteria) how many are CHL holders.

The additional data artificially dilutes the numbers. We should be concerned with showing that We Are Not The Criminals! By showing actual convictions we are proving beyond ANY doubt that licensee are most definitely NOT the problem.

The per capita ratios are great for trending studies, but the conviction data is absolute, irrefutable proof that CHL holders are not the bloodthirsty maniacs we're made out to be.

Brad

 

[westex]

Brad
I want everone to continue to think I'm a "bloodthristy maniac" (I'm really a sheep in wolfs clothing). It's saved me a lot of hassle over the years.

 

[TheOtherOne]

On the Texas State Rifle Association website!

http://www.tsra.com/DPS_convictions.htm

So, in Texas, CCW holders are more likely to harass and be indecent with a child than non-CCW holders. I like playing devil's advocate sometimes.

 

[Brigrat]

All I am trying to do is push my accuracy in statistics policy. the origional data set was incomplete, as it assumed equal portions of CHL:Non-CHL. the second data set is far more statistically accurate, and still proves the point that CHL holders are less dangerous, not more dangerous as the Liberals would have you believe.