"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
:

On 08 Apr 2012 19:04:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 08 Apr 2012 17:42:30 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
om:

On 08 Apr 2012 15:06:48 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news8ydnef20PhjFBzSnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earth link.com:

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible
for 101 of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I
could find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was
done by a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105
vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...ecords/chl/Con
vi ct io nRatesReport2009.pdf

Interesting. Would you think this might mean that only people who
are properly instructed and/or licensed should have access to
guns?

How in the hell would a even a lefty mind come up with this one?

It's really simple logic, dear krw. The rate of convictions among
CHL is much lower than in the general population, so either we
should just hand out CHlicenses, or we should make everyone take the
test and (if passed) hand out the licenses. Any rightie should be
able to follow that.

Dear moron lefty, it's even simpler than that. Licensed gun owners
are a self-selected group, who by nature are law-abiding. As usual,
your lefty mind has cause and effect reversed; most illogical.

No, I AM right. If you make sure people follow a course and pass an
exam before handing out guns, much of this world could be a better
place. You have just proven to me that you basically agree with me -
that licensing guns is better than just handing them out. Obviously
you now will also agree with me that gun sellers should keep records
of whom they are selling weapons to.

Absolute nonsense. Statistics don't support your silly position.

Heybub posted some data. Followed to their logical conclusion, those
data support keeping guns away from the hoi poloi, and only licensing
them to people who have proven to be able to handle them properly. It is
really quite simple. Only the interpretation of the NRA of the reading
of the second amendment is standing in the way. And guess, which
companies profit?

Quoting the relevant porion of his post:
But as to "how much crime they [CHL holders] commit," my state DOES keep
track.

Of 65,561 convictions in my state, CHL holders were responsible for 101
of these (0.1541%). This was in 2009, the latest year I could find.

Some interesting comparisons: Of 406 murder convictions, one was done by
a CHL holder. For manslaughter, the tabulation was 105 vs zero.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...hl/ConvictionR
atesReport2009.pdf



No causality in the numbers
Why don't you give us the crime rates for Vermont where there is NO
requirement for training or licensing
If the crime rates are higher, you MAY have causality
If they are not, your claim to causality is destroyed
Another good test is give us the rates for Alaska in the years before and
during that they installed carry licensing. ANd then compare them to the
years after they converted to NO LICENSING AT ALL

If there is an increase in the rates after they dropped their licensing, you
MIGHT have a claim causality
If there was NO CHANGE, then your claim to causality is demolished.

By the way the answer can be easily found.