Quote:
Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS
I am speaking in general about the findings of years of research because, again, my point of reference is different than yours. It would be extremely tedious and boring to go study-by-study (and translate certain findings so laypersons can follow) and that's why the gun control debate is rarely supported by research on either side, beyond low-level surveys. Findings can be twisted, which is why this isn't a gun control discussion. This is a discussion of why guns should not be allowed on campuses--and why many students, faculty, and staff are not willing to test whether the pros and cons of gun control are a reality.
Decreases in violence are a combination of factors just as increases are. Refer back to what I said in my other post about gun violence in the 1990's. where my point is that gun access did not reduce violence the way people assumed that it would. Gun violence increased for reasons including but not limited to gun access, however new people became involved because they now had guns that they attempted to use or had guns taken from them (which put more guns on the streets). Law abiding citizens were not going to let people take over their communities and they wanted to both protect themselves and fight back. Well, that made the would-be assailants think of better ways to be better assailants and prepare for wannabe Rambos with guns.
Other variables do not dismiss a studies usefulness.  Other variables with effects that are not controlled for provide limitations that reduce the strength of the findings.
It isn't about winning or losing because this isn't a formal debate.  But I don't consider anything you typed to be a challenge to any of my assertions. And the fact still remains that guns will never be allowed on the average campus. |
What I mean is that an inner city study on an increased violence in a bad neighborhood may not have any bearing on what would happen on the average college campus. I meant that other variables could remove the usefulness of application, like the demographics of the area, the training of those involved (untrained people vs. those licensed to carry, etc).
It isn't about winning or losing, you're right. I said that because I didn't want you to interpret my continual responses as beating a dead horse, considering the circular nature of the argument. I just didn't want your assertions to go un-responded to.
Threaded Mode
