[carguychris]

One particular so-called "myth" got my attention because it strikes rather close to home. It's the second one under #3, "An Armed Society Is A Polite Society":

Originally Posted by MJ

• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.

The link leads to an article titled "When Concealed Handgun Licensees Break Bad: Criminal Convictions of Concealed Handgun Licensees in Texas, 2001–2009", published in the Jan 2013 issue of the American Journal of Public Health. You have to pay to download the article from the website, so it seems that few of us in the shooting community have read the whole thing. However, I was able to download it from the research database on my local library website.

After reading the article, I believe that the summary in MJ is a cherry-picked misrepresentation of the study's contents, and I find many aspects of the study to be flawed, particularly the 4.8/4.7 figure (more on that discrepancy below).

Problem #1: The study uses cherry-picked data.

The data used in the study was from the Texas DPS Concealed Handgun Conviction Rates database, which is conveniently accessible below:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl.../convrates.htm

First, the study only included the years 2001 through 2009 because, from the article...

Originally Posted by AJPH

...this range provided a view of current criminality and yielded a large enough number of convictions of CHL holders to make the results relatively stable.

Presumptive translation: "We excluded 1996 thru 2000, 2010, and 2011 because they didn't give us the dramatic results we were after."

Second, the study does not compare apples to apples. It compares convictions to arrests, and backs up this methodology with specious and circular reasoning:

Originally Posted by AJPH

To investigate differences in licensee and nonlicensee populations, we compared the 2001 to 2009 Texas CHL conviction data with national arrest data for the same years that provided information on both the offense alleged and the arrestees’ demographic characteristics (age, race, and gender). Arrests obviously differ from convictions. However, our interest was not in direct comparisons of these 2 populations but in comparing the distribution of arrests across different types of crimes and the distribution of convictions across different types of crimes.

Read the last two sentences closely. Presumptive translation: "We knew we were comparing apples to oranges from the outset, but we did it anyway!"

Problem #2: The MJ article conveniently disregards the primary results of the study- that CHL holders are NOT a significant danger overall.

The results are summarized in boldface text in a box at the top right-hand corner of the first page:

Originally Posted by AJPH

CHL holders were much less likely than nonlicensees to be convicted of crimes. Most nonholder convictions involved higher-prevalence crimes (burglary, robbery, or simple assault). CHL holders’ convictions were more likely to involve lower-prevalence crimes, such as sexual offenses, gun offenses, or offenses involving a death.

The study goes into more detail on the 2nd page. After excluding crimes for which CHL holders could not be convicted, and vice versa for non-CHL holders:

Originally Posted by AJPH

...after exclusions, [the DPS lists] had information on 516 958 convictions of nonlicensees and 934 convictions of CHL holders.

IOW the study found that there were 553 times more convictions (516,958 / 934) of nonlicensees than CHL holders! Yet MJ wants us to believe that CHL holders are highly dangerous...?

Problem #3: The MJ article is wrong about the 4.8 figure!

The actual number is 4.7.

Originally Posted by AJPH

A larger proportion of CHL holders’ than nonholders’ convictions were for deadly conduct (threatening someone with a firearm; ratio = 4.7).

I'm aware that an error of only 0.1 is relatively miniscule, but IMHO it belies a lack of competent (or honest!) editorial oversight in Mother Jones.

Problem #4: The 4.7 figure itself is highly misleading because the researchers did NOT characterize "Deadly Conduct" correctly.

Let's reread the previous quote and include another quote from a previous paragraph:

Originally Posted by AJPH

A larger proportion of CHL holders’ than nonholders’ convictions were for deadly conduct (threatening someone with a firearm...

Originally Posted by AJPH

Deadly conduct involves threatening a person with a firearm when that person has reason to fear that the firearm will be used to harm them.

The DPS lists include two classes of deadly conduct that were presumably used in this study: "DEADLY CONDUCT" and "DEADLY CONDUCT DISCHARGE FIREARM". The AJPH article includes a table on the second page stating that 2 types of "Deadly Conduct" were included, so I assume the calculations include both classes. However, based on reading Texas law, the first class does NOT exclusively include crimes involving firearms. From Section 22.05 of the Texas Penal Code:

Sec. 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:
(1) one or more individuals; or
(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.
(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.
(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation," and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01.
(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.

I presume that "DEADLY CONDUCT" includes incidents under the section (a), whereas "DEADLY CONDUCT DISCHARGE FIREARM" includes incidents under the section (b) because section (e) prescribes more severe penalties. Here's the clincher: SECTION (a) SAYS NOTHING ABOUT FIREARMS. One can presumably be convicted for deadly conduct using any one of a variety of non-firearm weapons, or with no weapon at all. There is no way to differentiate between firearm and non-firearm "DEADLY CONDUCT" incidents using the DPS lists. Characterizing ALL such incidents as "...threatening a person with a firearm..." is misleading at best and highly deceptive at worst.

BTW y'all might be interested to learn that the number of convictions of CHL holders for "DEADLY CONDUCT DISCHARGE FIREARM" during the study period was a whopping 3- 1 each in 2005, 2006, and 2009.

PROBLEM #5: The 4.7 figure is spurious anyway!

The number was calculated by adding up the total crimes by CHL holders vs. nonlicensees, calculating the percentage of Deadly Conduct crimes in each total, and dividing the two percentages. Here are the figures from the study, with the percentages in brackets.

Deadly conduct [CHL] 124 (13.3) [Nonlicensee] 14 591 (2.8)
Total convictions [CHL] 934 (100) [Nonlicensee] 516 958 (100)

The researchers simply divided the percentages: 13.3 / 2.8 = 4.75. (I assume it's quoted as 4.7 due to a hidden round-off error.)

When you think about it, this really tells us almost nothing meaningful about CHL holders OR nonlicensees in terms of actual impact on the population in general. All it proves is that CHL holders are convicted of different types of crimes than the convict population in general- something the study itself admits.

Originally Posted by AJPH

Most nonholder convictions involved higher-prevalence crimes (burglary, robbery, or simple assault). CHL holders’ convictions were more likely to involve lower-prevalence crimes, such as sexual offenses, gun offenses, or offenses involving a death.

While this seems alarming on the surface, researchers could probably find similar anomalies if they compared conviction rates based on other arbitrary criteria, such as being named John, being able to play the guitar, or being a member of the Rotary Club. (No offense to people named John, guitarists, and/or Rotarians intended. )

A more meaningful comparison would be to compare the relative prevalence of Deadly Conduct offenses by CHL holders to the population in general. At the risk of being accused of cherry-picking, I'll use 2010 numbers, simply because they're readily available.

Number of Active CHL Holders + Instructors in 2010: 463,888 (DPS)
Deadly Conduct convictions of CHL holders in 2010, both classes: 14 (DPS)

463,888 / 14 = 33,135 active CHL holders and instructors per Deadly Conduct conviction by a CHL holder

TX Population in 2010: 25,145,561 (US Census Bureau)
Deadly Conduct convictions in 2010, overall, both classes: 2,006 (DPS)

25,145,561 / 2,006 = 12,535 TX residents per Deadly Conduct conviction in TX

33,135 / 12,535 = 2.6

IOW using 2010 numbers, a member of the overall population of TX (including CHL holders) was 2.6 times more likely to be convicted of a Deadly Conduct offense than a CHL holder would be.

Who seems more dangerous now?