UA President rejects guns on campus

Colleges are places to learn, not die at the hands of attention-starved mass-murderers.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

Oldgringo
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 10721
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Pineywoods of east Texas

Re: UA President rejects guns on campus

#31

Post by Oldgringo » Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:17 pm

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....
Good point!

User avatar

warhorse10_9
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 12:15 am
Location: Plano, TX

Re: UA President rejects guns on campus

#32

Post by warhorse10_9 » Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:42 am

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. ...
warhorse10_9 wrote: :iagree: 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. ...
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.

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.
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.
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters."
- Frank Lloyd Wright (1868-1959)

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

User avatar

Heartland Patriot
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 2453
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:15 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: UA President rejects guns on campus

#33

Post by Heartland Patriot » Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:13 am

srothstein's posting was full of what I will term minutia of lack of something better. I understand it was that way due to the topic he was speaking on. My reply was NOT intended to have beef with srothstein (as I pointed out, he usually has great stuff to say) but with the argument about campus safety by belaboring statistics and digging and digging tiny details...however, I should have also said that I have beef with CATO for making that argument, as well. I believe that safety of the sort we are all talking about is perhaps an intangible, except in a very big picture sort of way. There ARE so many variables that how can anyone or group account for them all? They simply cannot. I would like to think that we all do things to minimize our chances of encountering bad guys. But, any one of us may win or lose any unfortunate engagement that we may unfortunately find ourselves in with a criminal adversary. However, NOT having a firearm on you almost assuredly makes your chances of winning said encounter not so good. I just want to level the playing field and be given a chance...that has been already been granted to me in other areas of the state through the good graces of the almighty government...my apologies for the sarcasm, but this stuff really chaps my hide. (I have nothing but respect for those who have worked so hard to regain our once lost rights to self-defense.)

I hope this makes sense, I'm kind of in a hurry this morning. Hope folks have a great and SAFE day.
“If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you’re misinformed“.---Mark Twain


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3997
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: UA President rejects guns on campus

#34

Post by srothstein » Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:42 pm

Perhaps I should have been more clear. I apologize. My recent schoolwork has made me much more sensitive to studies and statistical analysis of events. My whole point is that we should not depend on statistics for our arguments.

I think using the campus safety argument is bad because it depends on statistics and rare events. It is very hard to get a good statistical base when you are talking about rare events like school shootings. Even crime on campus is fairly rare, but we should be able to make a decent study on that. One of my arguments against our side depending on statistics is that they may not help, even in an honest study. I am positive we can disprove the claims of safety going down, but if it remains the same, does it help us or hurt us?

You get a CHL to defend yourself and your family. Crime may be rare, but if it occurs, you should be able to defend yourself. Fires are rare, but everyone recommends fire extinguishers, so this analogy is one I like to use. 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.

I also like to argue that it is a basic right to own property and to carry it when you want to. To deprive me of a right, the legislature should be required to prove it is a significant benefit to the community. I don't think this can be done.

I look forward to dismantling chapter 46, piece by piece.
Steve Rothstein


Douva
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 390
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:08 pm

Re: UA President rejects guns on campus

#35

Post by Douva » Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:09 pm

I tend to more or less stay out of the campus carry debate these days; however, I did want to add my two cents regarding the debate over the numbers cited in the recent CATO study.

David Burnett, one of the coauthors of the CATO study, has dedicated as much time and energy to promoting campus carry as anyone alive. In 2007, I gave David his first position on the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus media team, and in 2008, I was one of two SCCC board members to nominate him for an at-large position on the board. About a year after I resigned as SCCC's national media coordinator/director of public relations, he took over the position from my successor. He later went on to serve as SCCC's second president, all the while maintaining his role as the head of SCCC's media team. Though I have moved on to other pursuits, David is still fighting the good fight. He is a good speaker and a great writer, and his dedication to the cause is without question. However, like all of us, he can sometimes be blinded by devotion, and I believe that his insistence that crime on college campuses has skyrocketed in recent years is an example of such blind devotion.

I haven't read the full CATO study, but the first paragraph quoted in this discussion thread was originally part of an essay David published on the SCCC website (ConcealedCampus.org) in June 2010. At that time, I took issue with David's claims about college crime rates, in an article on CampusCarry.com. Here is an excerpt from my article:
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.

User avatar

J.R.@A&M
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 723
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:41 pm

Re: UA President rejects guns on campus

#36

Post by J.R.@A&M » Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:57 pm

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.
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.

If the above applies to concealed carry in general, then it also applies if CHLs extend their range on campus. Which goes to that other thread on legal nomenclature... "The CHL Coverage Expansion Act."
“[T]he liberties of the American people [are] dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box; that without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country.” Life and Times of Frederick Douglass

Locked

Return to “Concealed Carry on College Campuses”