I just read the news blurb about the number of revocations of concealed weapons permits in Utah, and the spin of the antis regarding the same.  As a Utah resident and as a long-time firearms enthusiast/dealer/military/law-enforcement/gun nut, I decided to do a little research.  I found the following statistics interesting, and quite surprising.

From the above-mentioned article, we know that from 1994-2001, 4 murders were committed by Utah concealed weapons permit holders.  I found state population figures from 1994 through 2001, and found that the average population in the state of Utah during those years was 2,091,376.  From crime statistics published on the state's Bureau of Criminal Identification website, I found that an average of 55.625 murders were committed each of those years.  Since you have to be at least 21 years of age in Utah to acquire a concealed weapons permit, its not fair to compare crime rates for permit holders to rates for the population at large.  From the 2000 census data, I discovered that only 62.3% of the Utah population is 21 or older.   (We have the youngest median age in the country, at something like 23.4 years old!)  This equals 1,302,927 persons over the age of 21 in the state.  These data suggest that one in 23,423 average citizens commits murder, compared to one in 11,043 permit holders.  Am I entirely off base, or do these figures support the hypothesis that an average concealed weapons permit holder is a little more than twice as likely to commit murder than the average adult citizen??!!!  

eswanson,

Thanks for the reply - your numbers are fine, but so far I think they still support the original idea.  Basically, your numbers mean that 3.4% of the population over 21 (CCW holders)is committing .89% of the murders, compared to 96.6% of the population committing the remaining 99.11% of the murders.  Still a roughly 2 to 1 disproportion. . . Really, I don't want to believe it!!

Since the numbers are so small a single incident gets a lot of weight.  Let this run for another 50 years and it might be interesting.  Watch-Six

You are assuming that no one under 21 committed murder, which is likely false.  I would guess that the 16-25 age group commits over half the murders.

Also, four is a very small number from which to draw statistically significant conclusions.  If there had only been two murders or six murders by that group, that wouldn't be that big of a numerical change.  Random chance could do that.  Yet it would have a huge effect on your conclusion.

Also, are the four all separate incidents, or was it one mass murder?  I would think CCW holders would tend to be more effective at killing once they decided to do it. [:)]

3.4% of pop of 2.1m has CCW, commits 4 murders.
96.6% of pop of 2.1 m commits 441 murders.

Chance of CCW holder murdering=0.0056%
Chance of non CCW holder murdering=0.0219%

CCW holder is only 1/4 as likely to murder.

Your method of removing the under-21 crowd is not accurate.  A fair comparison would be look only at murders committed by persons over 21 and over.

Well, that makes sense.  I can understand how such a small sample may be statistically misleading, and that's where I would put my money on the error being.  And what TeaParty said about more murders being committed by persons younger than 21 is probably true, and would have a huge impact on the stats.  I'm going to do some more research along those lines, and see what I come up with.  Thanks for your help!!

300th MIBde, your mathmatical troubles stem from the fact that you are using the [i]total[/i] number of murders by Utah CCW holders for the period 1994-2001 (4), but the [i]average[/i] number of murders per year for the general population for those years (55.625).   You should be using 451 murders for the general population (55.625 x 8 - 4).  You are essentially understating the number of murders by the general population by a factor of 8.

Now get down and give us 50.  [;)]

Whew!!!  I *KNEW* something was wrong!!  Geez!  I can't believe I didn't catch that!!  Sorry!  (...48...49...50!!)  :)  

A couple minor flaws in logic...

If CCW holders are supposed to be (legally) 21+, then comparing them to TOTAL murders would not be entire fair.  We now have murderers as young as SIX.  You are not accouting for adolescent or pre-adolescent murderers.

How many of the total murders were committed by population <21?  An important figure, as it would account for likely drug and gang activity - two segments of the population with disproportionally high homicide rates...

How do CCW holders compare to other segments of the populace - individually?

How many permit holders committed the four homicides?  Were they individual, or in a group?  Were the incidents related?  Were the CCW holders acquainted?

YOUR ASSIGNMENT - Provide an analysis of the following:

An accounting of homicides for CY2001, broken between commission by adults (21+) and minors (up to, but not including, age 21.)

An accounting of homicides, regardless of age, related to gang activity and proportion to the whole.

Number of homicides committed by CCW holders vs. number found to be lawful (it is not uncommon for the press to choose words that are emotionally charged, and "murder" is one of those.  "Homicide" is better, which can be further subdivided into "unlawful" (murder) and "Lawful" (self-defence, line of duty, etc.)

Be sure to integrate other pertinent factors in your analysys...

Repeat to cover CY 1996-2001 in total.

You may submit your results either here or directly via email - [email protected].  I will be interested in seeing your results.

ADDITIONAL MARKS - If possible (and data available,) correlate with drug activity (gange-related and non-gang-related,) crimes of domestic violence, homicide during the commission of other crime (burglary, robbery, rape, etc,) and differing methods of homicide (in course of Arson, beaten, stabbed, shot, strangled, etc.)  Also include statistical survey of data where CCW holders were found to PREVENT homicides.

BONUS MARKS - Present statistical analysis of general law-abinig tendencies between the following populations -

Members of Armed Forces (active, reserve, and retired)
Members of Law Enforcement (all levels)
Armed Citizens (NOT LEO or MIL)
Population at large (anyone not covered by the three previous categories.)

FFZ

Were any of the murders justified uses of deadly force? Did the murderers use firearms to commit these acts? Where they suspended from carrying at the time? Just checkin for leaks.

I have been carrying for 2 years and have used it to save my six once. I was working as the night monitor at the apartment complex that I live in when 5 gang-bangers decided to break into some cars. I called the cops and they took their sweet time getting there. While waiting for them to arrive, the bad guys decided to break into my car with me in it. I put a G22 with 225 lumen surefire right into their faces as they tried to smash my front driver's side window. They took off and the cops caught them coming out of their safe-house, which was just down the road a bit. They found guns, drugs, stolen property on them, in the car, and in the house. Turned out to be some armed robbery suspects from a few weeks prior. 2 deported, 3 put away for awhile. Too bad that they never really talk about this kind of stuff in the news. It tends to put CCW holders in a different light-ya think?!?!

If you don't stop spreading these rumors I will be forced to shoot...[}:)]

Imposter is right you would have to exclude murders comitted by those under 21 and use the correct totals.

FreeFireZone has good points also.  And another factor you may be able to exclude (which NEVER gets excluded in America, but does in all other nations) is suicide.  That is why we look so bad compared to the rest of the world.  If you can get stats on how many of the murders in both groups are suicides, that could also change the ratio.  It WILL reduce the true murder rate.  

And I am not sure if anyone asked, but are these murders by firearms, or just murders?