Texas CHL stats that prove CHL Holders are menaces.

[Purplehood]

Just to be a fly-in-the-ointment, what figure do you get if you divide the total number of CHL convictions by the total number of CHL holders?

Without looking at the numbers (yet again), I'm going to speculate that they won't change. The numbers are convictions were x number of people. I'm pretty sure that means convictions per 100,000 of general population vs convictions per 100,000 of the CHL holder population.

Edit: Yup, I was right. Here's the titles of the columns: Total Convictions in TX Conviction Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants Convictions of CHL Holders Conviction Rate Per 100,000 CHL Holders

So the numbers show that CHL holders as a group compared separately from the general population have a much lower conviction rate than the general population as a group.

For example, for 2011 there were a total of 120 convictions of CHL holders in a population of 518,625 or 122/5.185625 = 23.15 convictions per 100,000. The general population rate is 63,679/175.68188 = 362.47 convictions per 100,000. So 362.47/23.15 = 15.66, meaning the general population is 15.66 times more likely to be convicted of a crime than the CHL population.

Nice. Thanks!

[Jumping Frog]

If you are going to bring LEO's into this, post the proof. I have read Charles post that as well, but he won't post the stats he uses to justify it. If there is a new thread with those stats let me know. I am most interested in the LEO's if they are on or off duty incidents, but that is another topic.

If you want me to publish the proof here on the Forum, just say the word. I've refused to do so in the past for the reasons I've stated; I don't want to make this to appear as an attack on LEOs. You won't like it, but say the word I'll post it.

texanjoker, I hope by your comment that you are not impugning Mr. Cotton's accuracy or integrity. His reluctance to publicly publish those numbers has been explained with a perfectly understandable reason. Perhaps you are unaware that Mr. Cotton served in law enforcement for a long time himself, he simply doesn't tolerate blatant LEO bashing when he sees it, and thus has no desire to provide the ammunition to those who would be inclined to use the information in a more damaging fashion.

I'd respectfully recommend that if you are in fact curious about the statistics, then you address the question privately with Mr. Cotton via PM or email instead of publicly calling him out in his forum.

[recaffeination]

I wish he would publish the analysis. It might cut back on trolling by certain members of a protected class.

[texanjoker]

If you are going to bring LEO's into this, post the proof. I have read Charles post that as well, but he won't post the stats he uses to justify it. If there is a new thread with those stats let me know. I am most interested in the LEO's if they are on or off duty incidents, but that is another topic.

If you want me to publish the proof here on the Forum, just say the word. I've refused to do so in the past for the reasons I've stated; I don't want to make this to appear as an attack on LEOs. You won't like it, but say the word I'll post it.

texanjoker, I hope by your comment that you are not impugning Mr. Cotton's accuracy or integrity. His reluctance to publicly publish those numbers has been explained with a perfectly understandable reason. Perhaps you are unaware that Mr. Cotton served in law enforcement for a long time himself, he simply doesn't tolerate blatant LEO bashing when he sees it, and thus has no desire to provide the ammunition to those who would be inclined to use the information in a more damaging fashion.

I'd respectfully recommend that if you are in fact curious about the statistics, then you address the question privately with Mr. Cotton via PM or email instead of publicly calling him out in his forum.

I am not questioning anything about Mr. Cotton as I respect what he does. I did reply to a person quoting a stat nobody has seen. As we have seen in the gun control issues each side comes up with their own stats. Frankly I still don't see why CHL want to keep comparing themselves to LEO's. IMO 2 different reasons for carrying one being defense and one being to do a job. But hey that is my opinion. I have said, including in this thread that CHL are not the problems. The stat I am interested in, which is what the anti's want, are stats showing CHL's doing bad things with the gun. There are not many incidents and that is why the anti's don't throw it out, as it doesn't exist. That shows the CHL program does work.

On all these arrest stats, regardless if chl/leo or neither, I would also like to see #of arrests vs #of convictions as people are innocent until proven guilty. Many people may get arrested and charges are dropped or they are found not guilty. This could show the likely hood that CHL are even more law abiding then what the stat is showing.

Here are some stats of PO license suspensions/revocations in TX. This comes after a LEO is arrested and it breaks it down by charge. It is all public info. There may be some dwi's that didn't get suspended, but I recently read about 75%? do loose their license for 10 years.


http://www.tcleose.state.tx.us/publicat ... d%20PO.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Charles L. Cotton]

Frankly I still don't see why CHL want to keep comparing themselves to LEO's.

Only because those who oppose HB3218 or campus-carry take the position that it is safe to allow LEO's to carry everywhere (HB3218) including on college campuses, but not so for CHL's.

On all these arrest stats, regardless if chl/leo or neither, I would also like to see #of arrests vs #of convictions as people are innocent until proven guilty.

The DPS statistics and those I received from TCLEOSE are for convictions, not arrests.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Here are some stats of PO license suspensions/revocations in TX. This comes after a LEO is arrested and it breaks it down by charge. It is all public info. There may be some dwi's that didn't get suspended, but I recently read about 75%? do loose their license for 10 years.


http://www.tcleose.state.tx.us/publicat ... d%20PO.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Something is amiss. According to your link, total suspensions for 2010 are 64 and in 2011 there were 47 suspensions. Compare this to the TCLEOSE statistics that show 119 LEO convictions in 2010 and 103 convictions in 2011.

Here's the data for Texas LEOs (Must be grossed up since there aren't 100,000 LEOs):

• 2010: 75,073 peace officers; 119 convictions; convictions per 100,000 = 158.51. CHL rate = 26.21; General public = 442.78
  2011: 74,998 peace officers; 103 convictions; convictions per 100,000 = 137.37. CHL rate = 23.14; General public = 362.47

All convictions were for crimes listed on the DPS website for CHLs and the general public.

Chas.

[texanjoker]

Here are some stats of PO license suspensions/revocations in TX. This comes after a LEO is arrested and it breaks it down by charge. It is all public info. There may be some dwi's that didn't get suspended, but I recently read about 75%? do loose their license for 10 years.


http://www.tcleose.state.tx.us/publicat ... d%20PO.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Something is amiss. According to your link, total suspensions for 2010 are 64 and in 2011 there were 47 suspensions. Compare this to the TCLEOSE statistics that show 119 LEO convictions in 2010 and 103 convictions in 2011.

Here's the data for Texas LEOs (Must be grossed up since there aren't 100,000 LEOs):

• 2010: 75,073 peace officers; 119 convictions; convictions per 100,000 = 158.51. CHL rate = 26.21; General public = 442.78
  2011: 74,998 peace officers; 103 convictions; convictions per 100,000 = 137.37. CHL rate = 23.14; General public = 362.47

All convictions were for crimes listed on the DPS website for CHLs and the general public.

Chas.

Thanks for posting that. The link I posted was one I found on the TCLEOSE site when looking for info. I guess not all convictions resulted in a loss of a PO license depending on what they were or the LEO was fired/resigned and the LE agency submitted a form indicating that, but that would not be a suspension per se.

RE your other post. I personally support CHL holders carrying in a lot more places then they are allowed to under the current law, to include campus carry.

[bizarrenormality]

Frankly I still don't see why CHL want to keep comparing themselves to LEO's.

Only because those who oppose HB3218 or campus-carry take the position that it is safe to allow LEO's to carry everywhere (HB3218) including on college campuses, but not so for CHL's.

These statistics show that the people who killed HB 3218 this session don't actually care about public safety. They have no interest in reducing crime or protecting innocents.

They oppose CHL improvements in Texas because they're anti gun, plain and simple No sophistry can hide that now.

[SherwoodForest]

I like to offer analogies to help understand statistics. Consider enrollment, recruitment, or any "selection" process.

If any given sample of a population is large enough a "drop-out" rate will begin to appear. Whether it is the F.B.I. Academy, a police department, a military organization, a truck driving school, high school, or the CHL program. There will always be some drop-outs, wash-backs, or simple casualties in the process. Usually those participants who have no tolerance for failing - won't.