To speak of only situations where criminal intent is absent is to artificially limit the scope. To represent the population, it would need to include situations where someone wasn't intending to commit a crime and situations where crimes where intended but not carried out.
Because you are a single person. Your liklihood of playing tennis is binary. You either play it (1) or you don't (0). There's no likliehoods involved because it's either 100% or 0%. If we get a 100 people like you who don't like to play tennis, give them a tennis racket, and if some of those people turn around play tennis with it, and if the number of people is significant, we can abstract that to the population to say "people, who don't like tennis, if they have access to a tennis racket, are more likely to turn around and play tennis."
But, you're again going back to talking about intent (if I don't like tennis). How much of gun crime is domestic? How much of it is relatively spontaneous? Your notion of intent flies straight out the window in crimes of passion. These typically fall back to the weapon most available to them, the hands. But, if those aren't available (the victim is fleeing), the available weapon capable of the crime would be?
But, all in all, you can't just seperate it saying intent or interest is a catch all discriminator.