Guns in Texas universities

[andrewcellini]

From the above you must have found the sources with all the key data.

Now you're being absurd. I gave one article which seems to contradict the point you were trying to make with your lone infographic and it carried with it credible sources. You responded with something along the lines of "it does not provide data" which is evidently false if you bother to click the hyperlinks to their sources and have a quick read.

I simply said "I haven't had time to read it in detail".

For the record you didn't say that either.

You will also have the fun of making a fool of me. Go for it.

That doesn't sound fun or even worthwhile unless either (or both) of us learn something.

Edited August 3, 2016 by andrewcellini

[Function]

 

Not the worst.

 

 

Aren't things bad enough already, for you, to even consider it the worst?

 

You needn't compare it to other countries it can hardly compare itself to on many domains; the statistics are what they are, that is, really bad, whether you compare the US to other countries or not.

[iNow]

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.

That's unfortunate. It was anything but a subtle, nuanced, or even complex point.

[ajb]

All the data I have read tells me that gun ownership full stop is not good for your health. But this is another subject for another thread. What I am getting at is that allowing guns on a campus is not going to make the campus safer - there is no evidence so far that where they do allow guns the area is actually safer or that guns reduce crime - what guns on campus do is just increase the risk of accidents and mistakes. I really think that universities should make a stand here and not allow guns on campus whatever the law says - no institute should be forced to accept the NRA lies. Look at the evidence and not simply accept the BS that people cannot back up.

 

 

So go find data showing that those who carry firearms and have a concealed carry permit are increasing violent crime. Until then you don't have and argument.

The statistics are showing that owning a firearm does not actually reduce the chances of you being a victim of crime.

 

This can be extrapolated to crimes on university and collage campuses - in fact the link I gave earlier talk about just this. For example, allowing female students to carry guns does not reduce their chances of a sexual assault - the FBI data tells us that very few women who own a gun are able to get to it quickly enough when in trouble. In fact, what the statistics tell us is that a woman is far more likely to get shot by her own gun that shoot a would be rapist.

 

So once again, there is no evidence that a campus with guns is safer, the evidence is quite the opposite.

Edited August 3, 2016 by ajb

[zapatos]

I really think that universities should make a stand here and not allow guns on campus whatever the law says - no institute should be forced to accept the NRA lies. Look at the evidence and not simply accept the BS that people cannot back up.

My understanding is that public universities in Texas no longer have the ability to ban guns on campus, although they are allowed to regulate to some extent where the guns are allowed.

 

No private university in Texas thus far has opted to allow guns on campus.

[ajb]

zapatos -- thanks for that clarification.

[waitforufo]

For the record you didn't say that either.

 

For the record.....

Violent crime has dropped significantly since 1990. I have already shown that concealed carry laws have been significantly liberalized in that time frame. So there is a demonstrable correlation between liberalized concealed carry and a reduction in violent crime. No correlation does not mean causation, but you are arguing that the liberalization of concealed carry should increase violent crime, and that did not happen. You talk about more risks. Can you show data that as concealed carry has been more liberalized that more accidents have taken place? If you can then you have an argument. No data, no valid argument. You say the university is the place where our brightest go to study and develop. I have no doubt that our brightest can figure out how to be safe with firearms. If that is not the case, they must not be too bright. You fail to see the benefit of concealed carry on campus. I fail to see the harm. You provided one link to support your argument. I haven't had time to read it in detail, but most of what I read is supposition or lacked significant detail. For example campus rape. They say when the state passed concealed carry forcible rape went up on campus. They don't say if the campus was a gun free zone however. That is an important fact to leave unmentioned don't you think? Then they talk about how good guys with guns rarely stop bad guys with guns. Well people with concealed carry permits don't always carry so why is that a surprise? Then they talk about how more guns cause more fatal accidents. The US does not have an unusually high fatal accident rate. Then they argue that guns can make arguments lethal. This gets trotted out every time concealed weapons liberalization is argued. After the laws are passed this canard never materializes. People in arguments that turn to gun fights don't have concealed carry permits.

 

As I have pointed out, liberalized concealed carry has not made anything worse.

 

 

Now you're being absurd. I gave one article which seems to contradict the point you were trying to make with your lone infographic and it carried with it credible sources. You responded with something along the lines of "it does not provide data" which is evidently false if you bother to click the hyperlinks to their sources and have a quick read.

Like I said, If you have read all those hyperlinks in the article you provided, why not simply provide the ones with all the important convincing data and make a fool of me? Why provide a fluff article with hyperlinked sources when you can simply provide the sources?

 

That's unfortunate. It was anything but a subtle, nuanced, or even complex point.

More cars on the road is not an appropriate analogy to law abiding citizens with concealed carry permits attending university with concealed weapons.

 

For the record you didn't say that either.

[andrewcellini]

 

For the record.....

 

 

That wasn't your response to me so I don't know what point you're trying to prove. You actually said in response to me:

 

 

This article claims that good guys with guns were not responsible for the reduction in crime rate. It does not provide any data that it increased the crime rate or decreased its reduction. So there should be no harm in permitting concealed carry.

Like I said, If you have read all those hyperlinks in the article you provided

I didn't read them all, not all of them are relevant to the topic. Some link to papers from conceal and carry proponents before later rebutting them with others.

 

why not simply provide the ones with all the important convincing data

Do you want me to read them to you before bed as well?

Edited August 3, 2016 by andrewcellini

[iNow]

More cars on the road is not an appropriate analogy to law abiding citizens with concealed carry permits attending university with concealed weapons.

 

The analogy works fine if the metric being considered is whether a greater concentration of guns in a given space results in more or fewer shootings in that space.

[waitforufo]

Do you want me to read them to you before bed as well?

Gee that would be swell. The fact that you can't even provide one hyperlinked source in support of your position from the article you posted tells a lot. You read something you liked and didn't bother to check the sources. If you can't bother, why should I?

 

The analogy works fine if the metric being considered is whether a greater concentration of guns in a given space results in more or fewer shootings in that space.

Does that apply to police stations?

[andrewcellini]

You read something you liked and didn't bother to check the sources. If you can't bother, why should I?

Your inference does not represent reality.

 

The fact that you can't even provide one hyperlinked source

 

I can, here's one:

"The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership."

http://www.nber.org/papers/w8926

 

and you can even click the pdf as I did. As you would probably say:

 

Gee that would be swell.

Edited August 3, 2016 by andrewcellini

[iNow]

Does that apply to police stations?

Interesting counter point, but the exception doesn't disprove the broader trend. It's akin to saying that because it still snows in Canada global warming is false. It misses the point, basically.

[waitforufo]

Your inference does not represent reality.

 

 

I can, here's one:

"The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership."

http://www.nber.org/papers/w8926

 

and you can even click the pdf as I did. As you would probably say:

 

Interesting paper on gun ownership and burglary but this topic is about concealed carry on campus. Not really relevant.

[andrewcellini]

Interesting paper on gun ownership and burglary but this topic is about concealed carry on campus. Not really relevant.

Oh my...

 

The point of the article is that increased conceal and carry does not deter crime and was in response to your unsubstantiated claim that it does. Read the article and understand this papers usage in its proper context.

 

Do you even remember what you wrote?

Edited August 3, 2016 by andrewcellini

[waitforufo]

Oh my...

 

The point of the article is that increased conceal and carry does not deter crime and was in response to your unsubstantiated claim that it does. Read the article and understand this papers usage in its proper context.

 

Do you even remember what you wrote?

Here is the title of the paper.

 

The Effects of Gun Prevalence on Burglary: Deterrence vs Inducement

 

Here is the sum total of what is says about carrying firearms.

 

 

The balance between virtuous and vicious uses has traditionally favored keeping a gun at home over carrying one in public, with the latter subject to more stringent regulation.

 

How do you justify saying that the point of the source you provided " is that increased conceal and carry does not deter crime " The source you provided is about burglary.

Edited August 3, 2016 by waitforufo

[iNow]

Let me take a moment to highlight the clever tactic being used here. waitforufo is shifting the burden of proof on to others to share data that more guns are connected with more gun death, specifically in concealed carry situations.

 

The "fun" part in all of this is that the CDC has been blocked from doing gun research for over two decades, so such data is exceedingly difficult to come by.

 

Again... Clever debate move.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-launched-comprehensive-gun-study-15-years/story?id=39873289

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html

Edited August 3, 2016 by iNow

[andrewcellini]

Here is the title of the paper.

 

The Effects of Gun Prevalence on Burglary: Deterrence vs Inducement

 

Here is the sum total of what is says about carrying firearms.

 

 

How do you justify saying that the point of the source you provided " is that increased conceal and carry does not deter crime " The source you provided is about burglary.

Waitforufo, this is frankly asinine. I was talking about the content of the article, not the paper that is used as a source.

 

Read the article and understand this papers usage in its proper context.

I even gave you a tip.^

Here is the sum total of what is says about carrying firearms

That is the sum total if you refuse to read that specific paper and look at what data they analyzed. It seems the farthest you got was the introduction.

Edited August 3, 2016 by andrewcellini