The Future of LEO Attitude Towards CHL Holders

[Liberty]

I am sorry that you see it that way. I knew of the research and trusted the source. Even though Charles has decided not to share the exact details. I can not see where I was bashing anyone. I was stating facts as I understand them. You may not realize sir, but there is a movement to allow CHL holders the right to carry anywhere that offduty officers have the right to carry. I maintain that we are as a group more trustworthy than the the LEO community. It is in this spirit that I raised the issue. And that is the reason why I bring it up. That sir, is not a slam on the LEO community but praise of the CHL community. Please consider that an LEO who believes that they are better behaved than any other demographic may be the one who is driving wedges.

Charles, I apologize for putting you on the spot about those figures, BTW: it was me that posted the so called wedge driving comments not Stephen but Liberty AKA Raymond.

Nuff said, I gonna go and spit out some nails now.

The bold part is where I have a problem. I agree that someone with a CHL should be able to carry just anywhere a LEO can with a few possible exceptions. I agree that most CHL holders are upstanding citizens, and when looked at as a whole are less likely to commit a crime than the balance of the population.

If you read what I have written I have never stated that LEO's are more trustworthy than CHL's. I simply can not agree that a LEO is less trustworthy as a whole, or that they are more likely to behave poorly, than some other group of citizen.

You may not like it. That doesn't make it so. I didn't know that claiming that CHLers are better behaved as group than LEOs was bashing. I also believe that Franciscan monks are more trustworthy than either CHLers or LEOs. Sheesh!!!

[Morgan]

KRM45... do you believe that the statistics prove that CHL carriers get convicted of crimes at a lower rate than the general populace of over 21 NON-CHL carriers? And ergo, under one definition of the word, are "more trustworthy"?

[KRM45]

You may not like it. That doesn't make it so. I didn't know that claiming that CHLers are better behaved as group than LEOs was bashing. I also believe that Franciscan monks are more trustworthy than either CHLers or LEOs. Sheesh!!!

This could clearly go on for a while with no positive outcome... I personally have never met a Franciscan Monk.

[KRM45]

KRM45... do you believe that the statistics prove that CHL carriers get convicted of crimes at a lower rate than the general populace of over 21 NON-CHL carriers? And ergo, under one definition of the word, are "more trustworthy"?

You have missed the point of the debate. We concur that CHL holders as a whole are less likely to comit a crime than the genral populace. The debate is between LEOs and CHLs. And apparently the side debate is whether saying LEOs are less trustworthy and more likely to behave poorly is LEO bashing....

[Morgan]

No, my friend, it's you who've missed the point. I asked you the question I asked for a reason.

Statistics show that CHL owners are less likely to commit crimes than "everyone else" and you can admit that... and to you it isn't "bashing" of non-CHL people.

But SOMEHOW the same statistic that show that CHL owners are also less likely to commit crimes than Law Enforcement Officers IS bashing LEOs. There's no logic there.

Statistically, LEOs commit serious crimes at a rate higher than CHL carriers. CHL carriers commit DUI at a rate higher than the Amish. The first fact isn't bashing LEOs. The second fact isn't bashing CHLs.

[KRM45]

No, my friend, it's you who've missed the point. I asked you the question I asked for a reason.

Statistics show that CHL owners are less likely to commit crimes than "everyone else" and you can admit that... and to you it isn't "bashing" of non-CHL people.

But SOMEHOW the same statistic that show that CHL owners are also less likely to commit crimes than Law Enforcement Officers IS bashing LEOs. There's no logic there.

Statistically, LEOs commit serious crimes at a rate higher than CHL carriers. CHL carriers commit DUI at a rate higher than the Amish. The first fact isn't bashing LEOs. The second fact isn't bashing CHLs.

My first post in thread asked for those statistics. Are you willing to show them? As I said before it would not surprise me to see the results either way.

[Morgan]

Am I misremembering a thread here? I could have sworn someone else posted those statistics in this thread, and I'm not finding the related link at this time. I thought you were arguing your point after seeing those statistics, not asking for them. I have seen them but don't recall where, which isn't of course a proof. LOL But I do recall that LEOs were convicted of fairly serious crimes at a higher rate than CHLs... IE, per 1000 LEOs and per 1000 CHLs, more LEOs were convicted of things like theft and assault... but I don't recall where to find that, I apologize.

[heliguy972]

Non issue. TX population is 23M+. Currently 250k CHL's. Even if this doubles to 500k in the next 20 yrs this is only 2.2% of the population. And the probability of having a certain % of the 500k CHL's (who are highly law abiding) come into direct contact with a LEO, is extremely low...

[Skiprr]

This just in: DPS 2008 year-end summary counts.

And I have to admit I'm impressed that DPS posted these numbers so quickly, on January 5, in fact.

As of the end of December 31, 2008, we had 314,574 active CHL holders, and 1,511 certified instructors.

We gained 25,665 net license holders last year. So while we didn't make quite as much progress as we did in 2007, when we gained 30,747 licensees, it was still a far better showing than any other recent year.

Now, I just pulled 320,000 out of my hat, but I've seen no reason to believe the number exceeds that. My bet is that when we see the 2008 year-end report, the number will be close, if not lower.

I can't claim insider knowledge. I just guessed right.

[DoubleJ]

This could clearly go on for a while with no positive outcome... I personally have never met a Franciscan Monk.

Adrian Monk lives in San Francisco, does that count....

[Morgan]

This just in: DPS 2008 year-end summary counts.

And I have to admit I'm impressed that DPS posted these numbers so quickly, on January 5, in fact.

As of the end of December 31, 2008, we had 314,574 active CHL holders, and 1,511 certified instructors.

We gained 25,665 net license holders last year. So while we didn't make quite as much progress as we did in 2007, when we gained 30,747 licensees, it was still a far better showing than any other recent year.

Now, I just pulled 320,000 out of my hat, but I've seen no reason to believe the number exceeds that. My bet is that when we see the 2008 year-end report, the number will be close, if not lower.

I can't claim insider knowledge. I just guessed right.

So that's what, less than 2% of the adult population?

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

I wonder how many applied in 08 and are still awaiting their plastic?

[Kawabuggy]

Can you see me sitting here holding my hand up?

Took class in April of '08.. Due to a couple minor brain-farts on my part, I'm still waiting on my plastic. I'm hoping to have it before the 1 year mark...