Re: UA President rejects guns on campus
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:17 pm
Good point!warhorse10_9 wrote:
...I don't want to secure the campus, I want to secure myself and my love ones no matter where I may be....
The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
http://texaschlforum.com/
Good point!warhorse10_9 wrote:
...I don't want to secure the campus, I want to secure myself and my love ones no matter where I may be....
Terry, you make a good point, on another reading, I see what you are saying. The main points in my posting are still vary valid in the whole campus carry debate. srothstein, I apologize for jumping on you the way I did.terryg wrote:Heartland Patriot wrote:A lot of the time, I appreciate what you have to say. This time, I don't and here is why. I don't care about the statistics in regards to whether or not each school is made safer as a whole. I am not an LEO and I am not going to "secure" the school. ...Guys, I think you should go back and re-read srothstein's posting. He did not actually take any position on the subject or try to make it about campus safety. He was merely commenting on possible statistical fallacies of using the figures in the Cato Study presented by RoyGBiv. He was essentially cautioning that the figures in the studies, as presented, might not paint a completely accurate picture. The same concerns went through my mind as I read the Cato post - or at least some of the same concerns ... i.e. how did the population change, the culture of the varying schools.warhorse10_9 wrote: srothstein, you are falling into the same trap the legislature fell into this last session. They made it about campus safety and not personal safety a person's right to it. ...
RoyGBiv was making an argument about campus security. srothstein merely cautioned that using the data in isolation may not be a statistically sound way to support that argument. He didn't say one way or the other that he supported it. In fact, my take away from his final statement was that he probably does not favor using campus security as an argument for campus carry.
SCCC skillfully makes the case that college campuses cannot be secured by the same means as primary and secondary schools and then goes on to impugn its own credibility by suggesting, “One of the most disturbing trends is the dramatic rise in crimes in recent decades. The survey spanned 108 years, yet 60 percent of incidents were recorded within the past 20 years. The number of documented incidents has risen every decade since 1900.”
Is it possible that the discrepancy between the data from 2000-2008 and the data from 1900-1910 could have something to do with the fact that enrollment in post-secondary degree-granting institutions has increased by more than 5,500% in the past 100 years? Could the fact that 60% of recorded incidents occurred within the past twenty years have something to do with the fact that the Clery Act, which requires colleges to report and maintain records of crimes committed on and near campus, didn’t take effect until 1990—twenty years ago this November?
Yes, SCCC gives lip service to the possibility that increased enrollment might be a contributing factor (“One factor may be rising college enrollment, but clearly a collegiate population influx carries worse pitfalls than just crowded dormitories”), but the acknowledgment is nothing more that a throw-away statement designed to cover their backsides if and when one of their opponents picks up on the essay’s fundamental flaw.
When campus carry proponents suggest that colleges are exceptionally dangerous places and/or that the recent advent of campus “gun free” zones has led to a dramatic influx in campus crime, they make us all look silly. The crime rate on a college campus is typically comparable to that of any affluent neighborhood in the same city.
College campuses are not war zones. But they’re also not crime-free zones. Just like those nearby affluent neighborhoods, college campuses play host to assaults, rapes, murders, and every other type of violent crime found in the rest of society. And there is no pragmatic, fact-based reason why trained, licensed, carefully screened adults (age 21 and above) shouldn’t be allowed the same measure of personal protection on a college campus that they’re already allowed virtually everywhere else.
The case for campus carry can be made on the basis of solid facts. There is no reason to contort reality to suit our ends. Those types of tactics are best left to our opponents.
That's essentially what the NAS statistical review showed regarding the More Guns, Less Crime hypothesis. That is, at the very least, concealed carry laws DO NOT INCREASE crime. Which refutes the wild west argument of the other side. And carrying concealed might make me safer.srothstein wrote:The best we can do with statistics is shoot down the other side and say it might make us safer and it can't hurt overall.