TexasCHLforum.com

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.

RoyGBiv wrote:This Cato study is already discussed in another thread.
Here's my takeaway regarding campus carry.

after Colorado’s 2003 concealed
carry law was enacted, Colorado State University
decided to allow concealed carry,
while the University of Colorado prohibited
firearms. The former observed a rapid decline
in reported crimes, while the latter, under
the gun ban they claimed was for safety,
observed a rapid increase in crime. Crime
at the University of Colorado has risen 35
percent since 2004, while crime at Colorado
State University has dropped 60 percent in
the same time frame.

All I can say is.....

I did not read the Cato paper, so my objection might be answered in it. I make it here so anyone who wants to use this can understand some of the possible objections. My understanding of a time series analysis is fairly weak as this is more advanced statistics than I have been involved in. But one of the things I have learned in my recent studies is how to read things like this more objectively.

The quote certainly makes it look like the phrase "more guns, less crime" is true, but we are predisposed to believe that viewpoint. In a fair and honest study, there are numerous factors to be considered. From this article, we do not know if these were considered or not. For example, how did the population (enrollment and faculty) at each school change during the same period, especially in reaction to the policy decisions? It is fairly easy to show that as population goes up, crime goes up, until a certain point where it starts to drop. Were the demographics similar enough earlier to be a valid comparison, or was it more like a UT vs. A&M comparison? If something like this rule were to happen in Texas, I would expect UT to keep guns banned while the Aggies would be more likely to remove the ban. The same difference in political attitudes might also account for other factors that might have affected the crime rate. Which brings up a final point to consider, but were there other policy changes made that might have affected the crime rate? For example, say that one school decided to allow guns, but beefed up the police department on campus because they expected more problems.

I think that we now have enough schools that have made this decision, or had it made for them in the case of Utah, that a valid study could be made by a proper scientific analysis. But, as I said, this type of analysis is beyond my skill level right now. I would love to see the NRA and the Brady Bunch jointly fund a study by some university criminal justice department to see what the results are. It would take both of them together to fund it to avoid the accusation from either side of bias in the study if they did not like the results.

And I have to point out that an honest and fair study, properly controlling for all other variables, might not be to our liking. My gut feeling is that it will say there is no net effect either way on safety on campus. I don't know if that will help us or hurt us.