What you're saying is that every demographic group, if analyzed individually, commits crime at a below average rate

No. I'm saying a cherry picked group, not "every" or "any" group.

You seem to have two conclusions. That CHL holders have greater personal responsibility (more law abiding on DPS tote board), and obtaining CHL itself imparts responsibility. Virtuous stuff. I'm not convinced.

CHL holders is a number, like total car registrations. It doesn't tell us anything about who/what/why demographically. Auto owners are of no more redeeming character than non-owners (that I'm aware of.) Should we extrapolate that if CHL greatly increases, the CHL crime percentage will remain stable. And doesn't this make the robustness of the dataset (who/what it represents) suspect. It does to me, as a lay person.

CHL holders is 2.7% of population. My sense is this won't increase much but who knows. I know it's important to proponents that CHL appear popular.

Regarding social science and axe grinding, John Lott is a poster child. Lott's discredited work with econometric analysis underlies more than two decades of "guns make us safer" theology and is the source of the wild 92% defensive gun use multiplier. In 2004 the National Institute of Research convened a 15 member panel to arbitrate the controversies flourishing around Lott's models and methods. 14 of the scientists concluded Lott's work had no value. The sole outlier agreed with Lott on just one arcane point. Lott subsequently masqueraded as blogger Mary Rosh to promote his work and attack his critics, until he was outed (busted) by a CATO Institute peer. 11 after the NIR, Lott's flawed and discredited econometrics remains the backbone of the RTC movement. Lott still appears as an "expert" analyst on FOX news, does book tours and still holds a dark corner of academia. To her credit, Michelle Malkin unequivocally denounced Lott as a "complete fraud." The NRA appears divided regarding Lott.