PDA

View Full Version : Arguments used in the Brady Campaign website


KLRANGL
April 17, 2009, 02:26 PM
So every once in a while I read through the anti gun websites just to see what they have and whether their information and arguments are correct/valid. I'm no experts at either debate or statistics, so I was curious as to what retorts you smart folk out there would have for some of the arguments listed in the anti-CCW section of the Brady Campaign have.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/concealedcarry/
Specifically to references of lax CCW laws = more crime, and CCW permit holders not being law abiding citizens.

Between 1992 and 1998, the violent crime rate in states which kept strict CCW laws fell by an average of 30%. The violent crime rate for the states that had weak CCW laws during this same time saw their violent crime rates drop by only 15%. Nationally, violent crime declined by 25% during that same period.

From 1996 to 2000, Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 81 percent higher than that of the general population of Texas, aged 21 and older. These weapon-related offenses include arrests for 279 assaults or aggravated
assaults with a deadly weapon, 671 unlawfully carrying a weapon, and 172 deadly conduct/discharge firearm.

JuanCarlos
April 17, 2009, 04:27 PM
Between 1992 and 1998, the violent crime rate in states which kept strict CCW laws fell by an average of 30%. The violent crime rate for the states that had weak CCW laws during this same time saw their violent crime rates drop by only 15%. Nationally, violent crime declined by 25% during that same period.

On this one, you're going to want a list of the states. And you're going to want to analyze that list to identify any other variables that could have caused this discrepancy. To do it right will require a bit of statistical analysis, but hypothetically you could show that either A) the variance among both populations is such that the difference in means isn't necessarily significant or B) that there is an equally strong or stronger correlation with another key variable besides CCW laws.

From 1996 to 2000, Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 81 percent higher than that of the general population of Texas, aged 21 and older. These weapon-related offenses include arrests for 279 assaults or aggravated
assaults with a deadly weapon, 671 unlawfully carrying a weapon, and 172 deadly conduct/discharge firearm.

Couple points here. One, permitholders are arrested at a rate 81% higher for weapon-related offenses...but how much higher is the rate at which they carry? If permitholders carry at, say, a 5000% higher rate than non-permitholders, they're obviously going to potentially expose themselves to weapon charges at a vastly higher rate.

Tying into that, you'll note that the 80% figure is for "weapon-related offenses," whereas for the violent offenses (assaults, deadly conduct, etc.) they give absolute numbers rather than rates. They also mention arrests, not convictions. Basically it's entirely possible that many of that 81% are more akin to "paperwork violations," which while non-trivial aren't necessarily a danger to public safety.

Basically I see a lot of potential for cherrypicking in that paragraph. A classic example of such statistical cherrypicking is the old "you're more likely to be killed by your own gun than defend yourself" line, which almost always includes suicides. In this case the burden would be on you to investigate these numbers further, and determine if there might be some statistical shenanigans going on.


In both instances, however, you have to try and remain objective...accept the idea that they may be correct. At that point your argument needs to be centered around how significant these dangers actually are, and if there are other positive effects that may outweigh them for a net benefit (or insignificant net harm).

jfrey123
April 17, 2009, 04:29 PM
Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested

Arrested! Not convicted. That's the flaw with their argument here, because yes a lot of CCW guys get arrested when using their firearm in self defense, which is "deadly conduct/discharge firearm." I'd venture to say about 99% were released without incident after the facts were straightened out.

Also, if their CCW permits are valid, why are the 671 "unlawfully" carrying the weapon? How does that work?







This is why I stay away from the Brady Campaign's website. Yes, it's good to know what the enemy is thinking, but their "facts" are so flawed it makes me want to go on a bow and arrow rampage.......

JuanCarlos
April 17, 2009, 04:33 PM
Also, if their CCW permits are valid, why are the 671 "unlawfully" carrying the weapon? How does that work?

I'm guessing there are areas in Texas where permitholders are not allowed to carry?

Carry in a bar, carry in a church, carry while drunk, carry in a government building, and so on, and so forth. I don't know the specifics of Texas CCW law, but merely having a permit doesn't mean you cannot be carrying illegally.

EDIT: Also, as you point out, an arrest for illegal carry does not mean it stood up in court. Said offender may have been one of the many who beat the rap, but not the ride.

KLRANGL
April 17, 2009, 04:34 PM
Just the kind of response I was hoping to get JC, thanks...

Also, if their CCW permits are valid, why are the 671 "unlawfully" carrying the weapon? How does that work?
haha, yeah I noticed that too. Carrying in bars, schools, or posted gun free zones perhaps? That is probably a big argument for less CC restrictions right there. Keep the good guys out of jail on technicalities...

JuanCarlos
April 17, 2009, 04:34 PM
Also, good call on arrests for defensive gun uses jfrey.

EDIT: On a side note, I heartily encourage people to apply these same levels of critical thinking to pro-gun arguments as well. I've seen many similar fallacies perpetuated by our "side" as well.

carguychris
April 17, 2009, 05:12 PM
Tying into that, you'll note that the 80% figure is for "weapon-related offenses," whereas for the violent offenses (assaults, deadly conduct, etc.) they give absolute numbers rather than rates. They also mention arrests, not convictions. Basically it's entirely possible that many of that 81% are more akin to "paperwork violations," which while non-trivial aren't necessarily a danger to public safety.
Arrested! Not convicted. That's the flaw with their argument here, because yes a lot of CCW guys get arrested when using their firearm in self defense, which is "deadly conduct/discharge firearm." I'd venture to say about 99% were released without incident after the facts were straightened out.
+1 to both! This is a classic example of cooking the statistics to make the point you want to make.

Let's look at some statistics ourselves...

Conviction (not arrest!) rates of CHL holders vs. the general population in 2007:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2007.pdf

Total number of CHL permit holders was 288,909 in 2007:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/PDF/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr2007.pdf

Estimated population of Texas in 2007 was 23,904,380 according to the U.S. Census Bureau:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

Let's crunch some numbers.

# of non-licensed persons in TX per CHL holder:
(23,904,380 - 288,909) / 288,909 = 81.7

This means that for any given crime, if all else is equal, the number of non-CHL holders committing a crime should be 81.7 times the number of times that crime was committed by a CHL holder. For the sake of time, let's pick a handful of violent crimes. Keep in mind that we are discussing actual convictions for actual violent crimes, not nebulous ill-defined "Weapons Related Arrests".

Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon:
(2,513 - 7) / 7 = 358

Assault Causing Bodily Injury, Family Violence:
(18,507 - 24) / 24 = 770

Deadly Conduct:
(1,432 - 15) / 15 = 94... this is the only one with a large number (>10) of CHL convictions that's even close to 81.7...

Murder:
(371 - 2) / 2 = 184.5

I like this one... Robbery: 1,791 vs. zero! The same number of CHL convictions for well over 3/4 of the crimes on the list! :)

The big one:

Number of Texas residents per criminal conviction:
(23,904,380 - 288,909) / (61,260 - 1,806) = 397

Number of CHL holders per criminal conviction of a CHL holder:
288,909 / 160 = 1,806

1,806 / 397 = 4.55. In 2007, non-CHL holders were convicted of crimes at 4.55 times the rate of CHL holders!

I'm sure a statistician would insist on a detailed analysis of all years of data available, but for now, I rest my case. :)

KLRANGL
April 17, 2009, 05:32 PM
and a car guy no less ;)
well done sir... thanks

Kreyzhorse
April 17, 2009, 08:05 PM
This is why I stay away from the Brady Campaign's website. Yes, it's good to know what the enemy is thinking, but their "facts" are so flawed it makes me want to go on a bow and arrow rampage.......

Their site irks me too, but I can't help but check it out every month or so. It's a good idea to keep up with the crazies.

I got a big kick out of their recent rant on stopping border violence article. The article blamed the border violence solely on our weak gun laws. Never once did the article mention that the violence is being caused by drug cartels or that drugs were ever a factor in the on going violence.

I'm sure the cartels would stop smuggling drugs and killing each other if only we could stop them from getting a semi auto SKS.:rolleyes:

a7mmnut
April 17, 2009, 08:23 PM
When y'all get tired of reading that trash, just click on over on PETA's arena for some real giggles and fits.:barf:



-7-

KLRANGL
April 17, 2009, 08:28 PM
just click on over on PETA's arena for some real giggles and fits
Oye, dont remind me. I live 20min away from their headquarters, I get to see their crap quite enough thanks...

Al Norris
April 17, 2009, 09:47 PM
Such political rants are off-topic.