DPS statistical information is available here:
The total number of CHL holders at the end of 2004 is available here:
The numbers of convictions of violent and weapons-related crimes in 2005 are available here
Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to do tables in this forum, so stick with me.
General population: 20,000,000
Number of convictions: 34,791
Probability of conviction: 0.174%
Odds of conviction: 1 in 575
CHL population: 239,940
Number of convictions: 129
Probability of conviction: 0.0538%
Odds of conviction: 1 in 1,860
Now here is where it gets tricky: 1,860 divided by 575 = 3.24
575 divided by 1,860 = 0.31
I took statistics decades ago and I wasn't good at it. I can't remember if this is a valid way to compare probabilities.
If it is, I think we can say that CHL holders are about one-third as likely as the general population to be convicted of one of the reported crimes.
If we limit the crimes to those that actually result in death, injury, or property loss, the number would be better. Many of these crimes are trespassing and weapons possession offenses where no injury occurred.
Also note that many of the crimes committed by CHL holders did not necessarily involve use of a weapon.
CHL holders committed a total of 1 murder, 1 criminally negligent homicide, 1 manslaughter, 1 kidnapping, and 1 robbery. The number of CHL holders is about the same as the population of Plano, Texas. If Plano were populated exclusively by CHL holders, its crime rate would be incredibly low.
I'm using the 2004 license holders because most of the 2005 convictions would have been of people whose offenses occurred the year before.
The population of Texas is around 24 million, but I am using 20 million as the approximate number of people old enough to be charged with a criminal offense.
Edited to correct number of convictions.
Understanding CHL statistics from DPS
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Understanding CHL statistics from DPS
Last edited by seamusTX on Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
frankie_the_yankee
- Banned
- Posts: 2173
- Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:24 pm
- Location: Smithville, TX
Your comparison is reasonable.
The CHL crime rates for violent crimes, roughly 0.4 per 100K population, are much less than 1/3 of the general population violent crime rate.
This should be no surprise, since you have to have a clean record to get a CHL.
It is well established that most people who have criminal tendencies, especially violent ones, express these tendencies long before reaching adulthood.
Murder is hardly ever the first crime that someone commits.
So on the one hand you have a population who have been "clean" all their lives, and on the other you have a mixed population of "cleans" and "dirties" (to coin an expression). It's obvious that the mixed population will exhibit a higher crime rate over time as the "dirties (dirtbags?) express their criminal tendencies.
The CHL crime rates for violent crimes, roughly 0.4 per 100K population, are much less than 1/3 of the general population violent crime rate.
This should be no surprise, since you have to have a clean record to get a CHL.
It is well established that most people who have criminal tendencies, especially violent ones, express these tendencies long before reaching adulthood.
Murder is hardly ever the first crime that someone commits.
So on the one hand you have a population who have been "clean" all their lives, and on the other you have a mixed population of "cleans" and "dirties" (to coin an expression). It's obvious that the mixed population will exhibit a higher crime rate over time as the "dirties (dirtbags?) express their criminal tendencies.
Ahm jus' a Southern boy trapped in a Yankee's body
Thanks.
A couple more belated thoughts:
While CHL holders have committed a small number of criminal homicides over the years, there is no evidence that having a CHL was a factor in any of these crimes.
I don't recall reading an account of one. My guess would be that they were the type of murder usually committed by a person who is not a career criminal: an argument between acquaintances or family members that got out of control, or a love triangle.
No Texas CHL holder has been convicted of criminal homicide in the kind of scenario that the opponents of concealed carry predicted, such as road rage.
I also don't recall any Texas CHL holder accidentally shooting an innocent bystander. (There was one such case in Oklahoma recently.)
All of this compares favorably with the record of police officers and armed military personnel, who occasionally go wrong.
- Jim
A couple more belated thoughts:
While CHL holders have committed a small number of criminal homicides over the years, there is no evidence that having a CHL was a factor in any of these crimes.
I don't recall reading an account of one. My guess would be that they were the type of murder usually committed by a person who is not a career criminal: an argument between acquaintances or family members that got out of control, or a love triangle.
No Texas CHL holder has been convicted of criminal homicide in the kind of scenario that the opponents of concealed carry predicted, such as road rage.
I also don't recall any Texas CHL holder accidentally shooting an innocent bystander. (There was one such case in Oklahoma recently.)
All of this compares favorably with the record of police officers and armed military personnel, who occasionally go wrong.
- Jim
seamusTX-
I too am statistically challenged. For my final exam in college the professor fooled all of us in the class. Everyone studied like crazy for the final but when the time came he called each one of us out of the class one at a time and asked us one question for our final grade. The question was “What have you learned about statistics in this class�. My answer was “If I am ever in a position to need and use statistics in the future, I will hire a statistician�. I got an A in the class!
The table from the DPS web site reflects Convictions for the year, in this case use 2005. That is, the numbers reflect the final litigation of a crime. The crime could have been committed in 2004, or even in 2001. The more serious the crime, the longer the litigation in normal circumstances. If you look at the conviction rates for 2002 thru 2005 you will find the percentage of convictions for CHL holders creeping up. I believe that the reason for this is that the crimes were committed in previous years but were litigated in future years.
The numbers and percentages of the general population that were convicted in 2005 VS the numbers and percentages of CHL holders convicted is an accurate reflection of the trend for any one individual to be convicted of a major crime. The rate of 0.3708% conviction rate for CHL holders reflects the propensity of CHL holders to commit a major offence relative to the general population as well. I think.
The one stat that I do understand is The Sexual Assault of A Child stat. How anyone could sexually assault a child is beyond me, but CHL holders’ doing this is just something that needs to be addressed. 5 in 2005, 1 in 2004, 1 in 2003, and 7 in 2002. I am at a loss to explain it. How does someone that goes thru the background investigation that we do, hide the propensity to sexually abuse a child? 14 is not a large number, but it is 14 too many!
I too am statistically challenged. For my final exam in college the professor fooled all of us in the class. Everyone studied like crazy for the final but when the time came he called each one of us out of the class one at a time and asked us one question for our final grade. The question was “What have you learned about statistics in this class�. My answer was “If I am ever in a position to need and use statistics in the future, I will hire a statistician�. I got an A in the class!
The table from the DPS web site reflects Convictions for the year, in this case use 2005. That is, the numbers reflect the final litigation of a crime. The crime could have been committed in 2004, or even in 2001. The more serious the crime, the longer the litigation in normal circumstances. If you look at the conviction rates for 2002 thru 2005 you will find the percentage of convictions for CHL holders creeping up. I believe that the reason for this is that the crimes were committed in previous years but were litigated in future years.
The numbers and percentages of the general population that were convicted in 2005 VS the numbers and percentages of CHL holders convicted is an accurate reflection of the trend for any one individual to be convicted of a major crime. The rate of 0.3708% conviction rate for CHL holders reflects the propensity of CHL holders to commit a major offence relative to the general population as well. I think.
The one stat that I do understand is The Sexual Assault of A Child stat. How anyone could sexually assault a child is beyond me, but CHL holders’ doing this is just something that needs to be addressed. 5 in 2005, 1 in 2004, 1 in 2003, and 7 in 2002. I am at a loss to explain it. How does someone that goes thru the background investigation that we do, hide the propensity to sexually abuse a child? 14 is not a large number, but it is 14 too many!
Good decision.mbw wrote:My answer was “If I am ever in a position to need and use statistics in the future, I will hire a statistician�.
I have two comments about that.The one stat that I do understand is The Sexual Assault of A Child stat. How anyone could sexually assault a child is beyond me, ...
First, what we call "domestic" crimes, offenses against family members, seem to be a different sort of evil than ordinary robbery, theft, and aggression against strangers. We've seen many examples of people who were otherwise law-abiding, productive citizens who victimize members of their own family.
Second, many charges and convictions of domestic violence and sexual assault of a child stem from ugly divorces and are obtained on evidence that I, if I were a juror, would never accept as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Jim
It would be interesting to learn how many, if any, of the convictions were in other states. The definitions at the bottom of the statistics page says -
"Convictions of CHL Holders" includes any conviction reported to the Concealed Handgun Licensing Bureau for which the convicted individual held a license to carry a concealed handgun at the time the offense was committed.
The reason I bring this up is because some States have very unusual laws, by Texas standards. For example, in New Jersey you could be convicted of Unlawful carrying a Weapon if you were caught with an unregistered BB gun.
I have done about 2,000 background checks in the last few years (one of my responsibilities at work) and come accross eyeopening situations on a regular basis. Bottom line - it's doesn't always mean what you think it means.
"Convictions of CHL Holders" includes any conviction reported to the Concealed Handgun Licensing Bureau for which the convicted individual held a license to carry a concealed handgun at the time the offense was committed.
The reason I bring this up is because some States have very unusual laws, by Texas standards. For example, in New Jersey you could be convicted of Unlawful carrying a Weapon if you were caught with an unregistered BB gun.
I have done about 2,000 background checks in the last few years (one of my responsibilities at work) and come accross eyeopening situations on a regular basis. Bottom line - it's doesn't always mean what you think it means.
Excellent point.Lodge2004 wrote:It would be interesting to learn how many, if any, of the convictions were in other states.
This might explain how 27 CHL holders were convicted of unlawfully carrying weapons.
AFAIK, the only way a CHL holder can be found in violation of PC 46.02 is to be carrying without a license on his person. However, I rather doubt that 27 Texas CHL holders were caught carrying without a license on their person and then prosecuted. That would be like prosecuting a driver who had a valid license but forgot his wallet.
It would be very easy to get into an unlawful situation in one of the state that has reciprocity with Texas, but different rules such as all places that sell alcoholic beverages being off-limits.
I'd also like someone to explain this line:
UNL CARRY HANDGUN LIC HOLDER 16 14
The first number is supposedly non-CHL holders convicted.
- Jim
What you want to compare the risks of being indited is the odds ratio. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds_ratio. It sounds like your set-up of the problem is reasonable. Your main underlying assumption would need to be that crime rates would be essentially constant and the numbers of people at risk constant from year to year. If you want to make the comparison a bit stronger, use several years of crime statistics. You're dealing with very small numbers and a random blip in a give year could really throw the numbers off if you're only using 1 year. Take 5 or 10 years of crime statistics and you'll have a better comparison.
Keith
Keith
Thanks. The odds ratio according to the formula given on the wiki is 0.308, which still boils down to a CHL holder having less than 1/3 the likelihood of being indicted compared to the general population.Zero_G wrote:What you want to compare the risks of being indited is the odds ratio.
I can work the formulas, but I just don't understand this stuff on an intuitive level, unlike, say calculus.
- Jim
CHL population as of 2005=248,874
TX general population in 2005= 22,859,968
Major crimes litigated in 2005= 34,791
% of the general pop that were convicted of a major crime in 2005=0.00152%
% of CHL holders who were convicted of a major crime in 2005=0.00052%
The general pop apprears as though they are 2.92 times more likely to be convicted of a major crime than CHL holders, at least in 2005.
TX general population in 2005= 22,859,968
Major crimes litigated in 2005= 34,791
% of the general pop that were convicted of a major crime in 2005=0.00152%
% of CHL holders who were convicted of a major crime in 2005=0.00052%
The general pop apprears as though they are 2.92 times more likely to be convicted of a major crime than CHL holders, at least in 2005.
seamusTX wrote:Thanks. The odds ratio according to the formula given on the wiki is 0.308, which still boils down to a CHL holder having less than 1/3 the likelihood of being indicted compared to the general population.Zero_G wrote:What you want to compare the risks of being indited is the odds ratio.
I can work the formulas, but I just don't understand this stuff on an intuitive level, unlike, say calculus.
- Jim
perfect number.