Jump to content


Photo

Data on crime by FOID card holders


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
33 replies to this topic

#1 Carteacher

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 150 posts
  • Joined: 02-May 13

Posted 03 June 2013 - 10:42 PM


I am in a debate with an anti-carry friend.

Does anyone have a source for data that would show the percentage of gun related crime done by legally owned FOID card holders? I have heard others say it is 0% but I have not be able to locate a credible source for the data.

Thanks in advance.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

#2 Grey Beret

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,528 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 03 June 2013 - 10:51 PM

I have heard that ISP does not keep track of that. If that is a lie, and stats do exist, I am sure that it is not zero but it would be very low. Even McCarthy admitted in a committee meeting that the killings in Chicago did not involve FOID card holders.

#3 nulloverride

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 13

Posted 03 June 2013 - 10:54 PM

My understanding is that the numbers are not statistically significant. It's pretty low.

I'll edit this post in a few minutes if I can find something. Might be easier to do the search on a national level than on the state level.

Edit 1:

Based on some information out of Kansas (not IL but the article is about concealed carry permit holders who commit crimes with guns):

Since 2007 about 51000 CCW permits have been issued (apparently they didn't have a law prior to that). In that same amount of time, 44 of those people have committed some offense involving a firearm (about 0.09% - ie: not statistically significant). However, MOST of those people did not commit an offense great enough to justify having their permits taken away, and most of the ones who DID have their permits taken away have gotten them back. According to the article there were only 7 people out of over 51000 who haven't gotten their permit back yet or had it permanently revoked. That's about 0.01% - an even less significant amount. I'm sure you could extrapolate that same rate to pretty much any other state in the Union, but I'll keep looking for IL.

http://www.kansas.co...-concealed.html

Edited by nulloverride, 03 June 2013 - 11:05 PM.


#4 Carteacher

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 150 posts
  • Joined: 02-May 13

Posted 03 June 2013 - 11:03 PM

Thanks. We are debating Carry for Illinois. He is a typical liberal anti-gun type. "I support the second amendment, but..." Kind.

The debate is his belief that legal carry will increase gun violence. We argued the term 'violence' in the debate and settled on the term 'crime' to eliminate justifiable defensive gun use. ie the legal CCW holder shot and killed the burglar attacking him. He is grabbing all sorts of irrelevant data or twisting numbers to suit his opinion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

#5 papa

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,041 posts
  • Joined: 13-December 07

Posted 03 June 2013 - 11:08 PM

If citizens carrying concealed weapons caused increased crime , why would most police support concealed carry? Why has no state revoked concealed carry after it is passed if it causes more crime? Seems he should look at more facts and not react to how he feels about it.

#6 TyGuy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 10,580 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 03 June 2013 - 11:16 PM

During committee the ICHV lady brought up the 500 murders committee by CCW permit holders. Of course she failed to not how many total CCW permit holders there are.

ILSP Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member

Buy my stuff!

My favorite post ----- Walmart Thread ----- Ammo Alert Thread ---- Daily Deals Thread


#7 johnsxdm

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 12

Posted 03 June 2013 - 11:34 PM

During committee the ICHV lady brought up the 500 murders committee by CCW permit holders. Of course she failed to not how many total CCW permit holders there are.

Or how many were justifiable defensive shootings.

#8 C0untZer0

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,994 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 04 June 2013 - 12:11 AM

Did she say homicides or murders?

Murder by definiion cannot be justified.

Homicide can be murder, or it can be justifiable homicide.
‘Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive...those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.‘
- C. S. Lewis

#9 Carteacher

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 150 posts
  • Joined: 02-May 13

Posted 04 June 2013 - 12:40 AM

Thanks null override.

It started as an over generalization of some fox report. They listed the top ten states on gun violence. He said Illinois wasn't even in the top 10 and we didn't have legal carry yet. Implying states with carry are more violent or Illinois isn't as violent as people believe it to be.

I whittled the general term "Gun violence" down to something more specific to his side that legal carry will increase murder. This eliminated, justifiable use of a gun for protection in a crime. So to prove my side that legal gun owners almost never use a gun to commit a crime in Illinois. The only way I could show this with out years of legal carry already was to find data on illegal use of a gun by someone who has a FOID card (that has not been revoked).

I knew the numbers were extremely low, but since I like to back up opinions with non biased data, I wanted to know if it was actually published somewhere to verify.

Thanks for the help though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

#10 IL-Logical

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 13

Posted 04 June 2013 - 05:03 AM

If citizens carrying concealed weapons caused increased crime , why would most police support concealed carry? Why has no state revoked concealed carry after it is passed if it causes more crime? Seems he should look at more facts and not react to how he feels about it.


Technically a lot of the crime had been committed by citizens carrying concealed weapons. The only reason it's not all the crime committed by citizens is you have the illegal immigrants, who are not citizens.

The greater truism would be "if citizens legally carrying concealed weapons"....
I hate to nit pick, but omitting even 1 word changes the statistics. That's how the anti's come up with their statistics.

Edited by IL-Logical, 04 June 2013 - 05:04 AM.


#11 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,770 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 04 June 2013 - 05:33 AM

I'll see if I can get the latest stats. basicly they go off revocations, so something bad enough to get your card yanked.
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

#12 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,027 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 04 June 2013 - 05:38 AM

Did she say homicides or murders?

Murder by definiion cannot be justified.

Homicide can be murder, or it can be justifiable homicide.

I doubt the distinction matters to the ICHV lady.

IC Supporting member
NRA member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#13 Mustang31

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • Pip
  • 92 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 04 June 2013 - 05:40 AM

This might help...

Florida firearm violence hits record low; concealed gun permits up

http://www.abc15.com...-gun-permits-up

http://www.naplesnew...its-record-low/

Edited by Mustang31, 04 June 2013 - 05:41 AM.


#14 brianj

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts
  • Joined: 17-September 12

Posted 04 June 2013 - 10:25 AM

Did she say homicides or murders?

Murder by definiion cannot be justified.

Homicide can be murder, or it can be justifiable homicide.

I doubt the distinction matters to the ICHV lady.


I remember listening to that live. I'm PRETTY sure she didn't use the word 'murder'. It was either 'homocide' or 'x people have been killed by ccw holders.'

If I get bored today, I'll try to go back and dig it up.

Brian

"Your father's 1911..  Not as random or clumsy as a Glock.  A more elegant weapon for a more civilized age." -- Obi Wan Kenobi


#15 Feh

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 12

Posted 04 June 2013 - 10:48 AM

http://www.txdps.sta...s/convrates.htm

Here's the Texas Dept. of public safety statistics. Latest is 2011. Shows 120 convictions by concealed permit holders out of the 63,700 total convictions in the entire state. And most of them are due to carrying into gun free zones.

I have no idea how many CHLs are there in Texas, but say it's 400,000. 120 / 400,000 = 0.03% ... and that's being conservative.

Edited by Feh, 04 June 2013 - 10:49 AM.


#16 brianj

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts
  • Joined: 17-September 12

Posted 04 June 2013 - 12:20 PM

http://www.vpc.org/f...totalkilled.pdf

I think this is what ICHV was talking about. Note that this document doesn't necessarily come from the most impartial of sources. They've lumped in AD/ND deaths, suicides, and basically any homocide where an arrest was made. After a quick perusal, I didn't see any acquittals mentioned in there, so they may take acquittals back out of the PDF once they happen.

Note also that, even if absolutely correct and factual, they're saying that they had to go back 5 years and go completely nationwide to find the same number of firearm related murders that we had last year in Chicago alone.

Nope. Not buying that "CHL holders are violent psychopaths" argument. Not buying it one bit.

Brian

Edited by brianj, 04 June 2013 - 12:29 PM.

"Your father's 1911..  Not as random or clumsy as a Glock.  A more elegant weapon for a more civilized age." -- Obi Wan Kenobi


#17 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,677 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted 04 June 2013 - 12:39 PM

http://www.vpc.org/f...totalkilled.pdf

I think this is what ICHV was talking about. Note that this document doesn't necessarily come from the most impartial of sources.

Note also that, even if absolutely correct and factual, they're saying that they had to go back 5 years and go completely nationwide to find the same number of murders that we had last year in Chicago alone.

Nope. Not buying that "CHL holders are violent psychopaths" argument. Not buying it one bit.

Brian

I read through that list a few years ago, there were several dubious inclusions, such as a long list of suicides in Michigan with no details (IE whether a gun was even involved or not)
A murder by strangling (no gun involved)
A boy who accidentally shot his brother (the father had a CCW permit)
A group of 4 people who broke into a home and killed someone. One had a permit the others did not (no info on who actually pulled the trigger)
Several justifiable self defense cases (VPC said they remove names if charges are dropped or person is acquitted, but they don't)

Even including all of those the figures show a much lower rate of homicide for permit holders than for the general population

#18 Hi Impact

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 13

Posted 04 June 2013 - 12:49 PM

I would suggest reading the 7th circuit opinion. It contains many research publications that look at this. I also think John Lott's book More Guns Less Crime is a great place also. Bottom line is that while some argue that CCW does not reduce crime, there are no studies that show it does. And when looking at studies, only peer reviewed studies have any legitimacy. All data is provided for others to also review. Here is a great article by Ann Coulter. Do your research, there is plenty out there.

John Lott: America's Most Feared Economist
By Ann Coulter | May 01, 2013 | 18:44

You can tell the conservatives liberals fear most because they start being automatically referred to as "discredited." Ask Sen. Ted Cruz. But no one is called "discredited" by liberals more often than the inestimable economist John Lott, author of the groundbreaking book "More Guns, Less Crime."
Lott's economic analysis of the effect of concealed-carry laws on violent crime is the most thoroughly vetted study in the history of economics, perhaps in the history of the world.
Some nut Dutch professor produces dozens of gag studies purportedly finding that thinking about red meat makes people selfish and that litter leads to racism -- and no one bothers to see if he even administered questionnaires before drawing these grand conclusions about humanity.
But Lott's decades-long studies of concealed-carry laws have been probed, poked and re-examined dozens of times. (Most of all by Lott himself, who has continuously re-run the numbers controlling for thousands of factors.)

Tellingly, Lott immediately makes all his underlying data and computer analyses available to critics -- unlike, say, the critics. He has sent his data and work to 120 researchers around the world. By now, there have been 29 peer-reviewed studies of Lott's work on the effect of concealed-carry laws.
Eighteen confirm Lott's results, showing a statistically significant reduction in crime after concealed-carry laws are enacted. Ten show no harm, but no significant reduction in crime. Only one peer-reviewed study even purported to show any negative effect: a temporary increase in aggravated assaults. Then it turned out this was based on a flawed analysis by a liberal activist professor: John Donohue, whose name keeps popping up in all fake studies purporting to debunk Lott.
In 1997, a computer crash led to the loss of Lott's underlying data. Fortunately, he had previously sent this data to his critics -- professors Dan Black, Dan Nagin and Jens Ludwig. When Lott asked if they would mind returning it to him to restore his files, they refused. (One former critic, Carlisle Moody, conducted his own analysis of Lott's data and became a believer. He has since co-authored papers with Lott.)
Unable to produce a single peer-reviewed study to discredit Lott's conclusions, while dozens of studies keep confirming them, liberals have turned to their preferred method of simply sneering at Lott and neurotically attaching "discredited" to his name. No actual discrediting ever takes place. But liberals think as long as they smirk enough, their work is done.
Average readers hear that Lott has been "discredited" and assume that there must have been some debate they didn't see. To the contrary, the leading source for the claim that Lott's research doesn't hold up, left-wing zealot Donohue, has been scheduled to debate Lott, one-on-one, at the University of Chicago twice back in 2005. Both times, Donohue canceled at the last minute.
Donohue accuses Lott of libel for pointing this out. Suggestion for Mr. Donohue: Instead of writing columns insisting you've been libeled, wouldn't it be better just to agree to a debate? It's been eight years!
Scratch any claim that Lott's research has been "debunked" and you will find Donohue, his co-author and plagiarist Ian Ayres, or one of the three "scholars" mentioned above -- the ones so committed to a search for the truth that they refused to return Lott's data to him. (Imagine the consequences if Lott had been forced to admit to plagiarism, as Ayres has.)
Donohue's previous oeuvre includes the racist claim that the crime rate declined in the 1990s as a result of abortion being legalized in the '70s. (Nearly 40 percent of the abortions since the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade were of black children.)
This study was discredited (not "discredited") by many economists, including two at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, who pointed out that Donohue's study made critical mistakes, such as failing to control for variables such as the crack cocaine epidemic. When the Reserve economists reran Donohue's study without his glaring mistakes, they found that there was "no evidence in (Donohue's) own data" for an abortion-crime link.
Curiously, the failure to account for the crack epidemic is one of Donohue's complaints with Lott's study. It worked so well against his own research he thought he'd try it against Lott. The difference is: Lott has, in fact, accounted for the crack epidemic, over and over again, in multiple regressions, all set forth in his book.
Donohue and plagiarist Ayres took a nasty swipe at Lott in the Stanford Law Review so insane that the editors of the Review -- Donohue's own students -- felt compelled to issue a subsequent "clarification" saying: "Ayres and Donohue's Reply piece is incorrect, unfortunate, and unwarranted."
When you have to be corrected on your basic anti-gun facts by an ABC correspondent -- as Donohue was by "Nightline" correspondent John Donvan in a 2008 televised panel discussion -- you might be a few shakes away from a disinterested scholar.
But the easily fooled New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has repeatedly called Lott "discredited," based on a 2003 article by charlatans Donohue and Ayres -- a non-peer-reviewed law review article. In a 2011 column, for example, Kristof dismissed Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime," with the bald assertion that "many studies have now debunked that finding."
The details of the chicanery of Donohue, plagiarist Ayres, as well as all of Lott's other critics, are dealt with point by point in the third edition of Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime." There, and in a number of published articles by Lott and others, you can see how his critics cherry-picked the data, made basic statistical errors, tried every regression analysis imaginable to get the results they want and lied about Lott's work (such as Donohue's claim that he neglected to account for the crack epidemic).
Suffice it to say that of the 177 separate analyses run by all these critics, only seven show a statistically significant increase in crime after the passage of concealed-carry laws, while 90 of their own results show a statistically significant drop in crime -- and 80 show no difference.
"Discredited" in liberal lingo means, "Ignore this study; it didn't come out well for us."
Peace through superior firepower

#19 cgs

    Help me get my FFL, Click my Profile for more info!

  • Members
  • 6,128 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 12

Posted 04 June 2013 - 01:18 PM

During committee the ICHV lady brought up the 500 murders committee by CCW permit holders. Of course she failed to not how many total CCW permit holders there are.

That 500 murders was in like a 5 year period of time and didn't say if they were justified defensive situations/shootings or flat our cold blooded murder. Senator Kostowinsky (sp) brought up the same.


And that was nationwide over a few year period of time, where as Chicago has that many homicides in just one year by gang bangers and other riff raff.

Edited by cgs, 04 June 2013 - 01:19 PM.

-Thomas

Member, ISRA; Life Member, NRA; NRA Certified Instructor, AGI Certified Gunsmith, Illinois Carry Conceal Instructor

http://www.chicagogunsmith.com

http://www.firearmtrainingchicago.com

#20 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,657 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 04 June 2013 - 01:39 PM

I doubt the distinction matters to the ICHV lady.


But because of her political leanings, I'm sure she supports abortion and sees the distinction between killing a baby in the womb and killing one outside of the womb.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#21 dorvinion

    Still living too close to the Iron Curtain

  • Members
  • 2,841 posts
  • Joined: 10-March 05

Posted 04 June 2013 - 01:43 PM

I'm gonna guess there are at least 5 million persons with permits in the US, an average of one hundred per year means a high end rate of 2 murders per 100,000 permit holders. This is about one third the overall rate.

If I recall correctly, a good number of the instances they document are murder suicide love triangle stuff. Not excusable of course, but don't really have anything to do with concealed carry.

I think they also started including many homicides in Arizona since they became a constitutional carry state.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2


Did you ever notice that when you blow in a dog's face, he gets mad at you,
but when you take him for a car ride, he sticks his head out the window?

#22 JPD158

  • Validating
  • 18 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 13

Posted 05 June 2013 - 05:58 AM

Tell him he doesn't need to get his permit and leave it to the men to protect him.

#23 Amused

  • Members
  • 19 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 13

Posted 07 June 2013 - 03:26 PM

You can download a report from http://www.scribd.co...D-cards-by-city . Of an estimated 1.5 million cards issued, fewer than 12,000 have been revoked. (0.8%) This would be an UPPER LIMIT on serious crime by FOID owners; see NOTE below.

About 1/3 of the revoked cards have been recovered by ISP (these people can still (illegally) buy ammo but won't pass a background check on a new firearm). Dart's been rounding up revoked cards and firearms owned by those people...he just announced that his gun taskforce has nabbed 80 guns and 106 FOIDs in 7 weeks, or an average of 11 guns and 15 foids per week.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Many of these revocations may be as a result of non-gun related activity: any felony, act of domestic violence, object of a protective order, suicidal behavior, assault, or ? Presumably, this includes felony DUI...http://chicagocrimel...tic-felony-dui/

Edited by Amused, 07 June 2013 - 03:36 PM.


#24 Amused

  • Members
  • 19 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 13

Posted 07 June 2013 - 03:33 PM

You can also point your friend to this article: http://www.beauforto...the-crimes.html

"Texas study: Concealed carry permit holders commit less than 1% of the crimes."

Edited by Amused, 07 June 2013 - 03:34 PM.


#25 whowe82

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 248 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 13

Posted 07 June 2013 - 05:58 PM

I'll see if I can get the latest stats. basicly they go off revocations, so something bad enough to get your card yanked.


Todd,

Would the FBI track this?

#26 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,276 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 07 June 2013 - 08:24 PM

Ol' Coach filed a FOIA request of the ISP, IIRC, to get data on criminal arrests with FOID cards and was told they don't track that data. Conveniently...

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#27 Ocellairs

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,282 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 05

Posted 07 June 2013 - 11:38 PM

During committee the ICHV lady brought up the 500 murders committee by CCW permit holders. Of course she failed to not how many total CCW permit holders there are.



I saw that, well actually heard her say it. Also noticed the failure to communicate the total # of holders,

Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.
Richard M Nixon


For I dipped into the Future, far as human eye could see; saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be.

Alfred Lord Tennyson

1842


Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.


#28 Joebie

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,334 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 13

Posted 08 June 2013 - 04:52 AM


During committee the ICHV lady brought up the 500 murders committee by CCW permit holders. Of course she failed to not how many total CCW permit holders there are.



I saw that, well actually heard her say it. Also noticed the failure to communicate the total # of holders,


Didn't she say that also included off duty police as well? There was something else she said that was a major major red flag.
The naivety of few effect the majority.

#29 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 10,813 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 08 June 2013 - 07:26 AM


During committee the ICHV lady brought up the 500 murders committee by CCW permit holders. Of course she failed to not how many total CCW permit holders there are.



I saw that, well actually heard her say it. Also noticed the failure to communicate the total # of holders,


A few years ago I got hold of some if the actual case they were counting.
Lets just say they took liberties with the truth and common sense.
Example - if the shooting was in a Constitutional Carry state like AZ they counted it because you don't need a CCW permit??!!

They had a section for single victim and multiple victims. They counted shooting twice, once for each category.

In one case the permit holder stabbed his wife but it was counted because he had a permit.

And so on........

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#30 cbrown1311

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Joined: 23-January 13

Posted 08 June 2013 - 04:09 PM

Not trying to be an a**, just hoping to help people understand correctly. There is a distinct difference in the meaning between the terms "significant" and "statistically significant." We all know what significant means, but statistically significant means that there is a meaningful difference between two values that cannot be totally or even partially explained by intrinsic or extrinsic error in the measurement, analysis, etc. Generally two values are considered to be significantly different (statistically) if less than 5% of the difference can be explained by error. I'll give an example. if you have two states that report ccw crime statistics, one reports a 10% crime rate among ccwers and the other reports 20%. Intuitively, you would like to think wow, thats double the crime rate. But I think everyone can see the logic in saying that the difference is not "statistically significant" if the first state had 1 of 10 total ccwers commit a crime and the second state had 2 out of 10. This is in contrast to a situation where the first state reports 1 percent crime among ccwers, and the second state reports 1.2 percent crime among ccwers. You would like to intuitively say that this is not "significant" and you would probably right, but that does not mean that the difference is not "statistically significant." If there were 10 million ccwers in each state then your looking at a difference in crime of 20,000 incidences. In this case, if the data was collected in a robust and reproducible way, then that 0.2% may very well be "statistically significant", even though its probably not "significant."

Again, not trying to call anybody out or be that a-hole, just hoping to help some people understand the terminology so they can critically and effectively critique the various articles and statistics for themselves instead of reading what someone else writes and concludes.

Also, PM me if you dont understand, I can provide some alternative explanations or someone else who can better explain the difference.