Shooting at Northern Illinois University

[shinerbock]

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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 should. The goal is to move from "certain types of people in certain environments" to a more inclusive discussion of "learned behaviors and other criminal motivations that may be increased with criminal opportunities including gun access."

Other variables do not remove the usefulness of the study. Demographics are always controlled for. Gun training isn't controlled for because that data is not available. There is no central agency that monitors that and reports the data. That data also won't be available if students get guns on campuses, just like it isn't available now with the concealed weapons permits.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I just didn't want your assertions to go un-responded to.

I like this choice of words better than "unchallenged."

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

It should. The goal is to move from "certain types of people in certain environments" to a more inclusive discussion of "learned behaviors and other criminal motivations that may be increased with criminal opportunities including gun access."

Other variables do not remove the usefulness of the study. Demographics are always controlled for. Gun training isn't controlled for because that data is not available. There is no central agency that monitors that and reports the data. That data also won't be available if students get guns on campuses, just like it isn't available now with the concealed weapons permits.



I like this choice of words better than "unchallenged."

Demographics certainly should be controlled for. However, I suspect that they might yield disparate results which may lessen or increase the appropriateness of their application to the campus context. However, I don't know anything about the data you're referring to, and whether or not it applies across a swath of variables that would lend support to this argument is speculation from my angle. Also, I'm not sure I understand your goal. Aren't certain learned behaviors and criminal motivations going to be more common among certain people in certain environments?

I meant unchallenged, I just have an annoying habit of not being able to use the same term repeatedly in an ongoing conversation.

I want to get back into this discussion, but other dueling posters have taken over after your post. Damn, these are long posts, too.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Demographics certainly should be controlled for. However, I suspect that they might yield disparate results which may lessen or increase the appropriateness of their application to the campus context.

Not necessarily. College campuses (as a general entity) consist of people of different socioeconomic backgrounds, races, and other demographic factors. There are also thousands of college students with sealed juvenile court and facility records. So the correlations found in neighborhood research can be applied to college students if we conducted a study across college campuses. THis is also one reason why researchers use college students as their sample and generalize their findings to the noncollegiate population.

Which gets to another issue regarding whose gun access is okay and whose gun access will scare the sweetbejeebus out of people:
Are people advocating legalizing guns on college campuses but only for certain types of people from certain socioeconomic backgrounds on certain types of campuses? Background checks are meant to look for background checks, mental health profiles (maybe), and so forth. Sure, background checks are a type of profiling but it isn't profiling based on factors like race and socioeconomic status. Right? It depends on who you ask.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Aren't certain learned behaviors and criminal motivations going to be more common among certain people in certain environments?

That's a topic in and of itself.

For the purpose of this discussion, please refer to my previous response.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I want to get back into this discussion, but other dueling posters have taken over after your post. Damn, these are long posts, too.

Yeah so I bid you farewell and will go back to silent reading, I guess.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Not necessarily. College campuses (as a general entity) consist of people of different socioeconomic backgrounds, races, and other demographic factors. There are also thousands of college students with sealed juvenile court and facility records. So the correlations found in neighborhood research can be applied to college students if we conducted a study across college campuses. THis is also one reason why researchers use college students as their sample and generalize their findings to the noncollegiate population.

Which gets to another issue regarding whose gun access is okay and whose gun access will scare the sweetbejeebus out of people:
Are people advocating legalizing guns on college campuses but only for certain types of people from certain socioeconomic backgrounds on certain types of campuses? Background checks are meant to look for background checks, mental health profiles (maybe), and so forth. Sure, background checks are a type of profiling but it isn't profiling based on factors like race and socioeconomic status. Right? It depends on who you ask.




That's a topic in and of itself.

For the purpose of this discussion, please refer to my previous response.



Yeah so I bid you farewell and will go back to silent reading, I guess.

Sure, the studies will likely also be more or less applicable depending on the "type" of campus. Again though, I don't have any of this data you speak of, so who knows how relevant it would be to this issue.

I'm simply for taking the campus restriction away. Thus, while the issuance of concealed carry permits may be discriminatory in general (which is probably a good thing), there wouldn't be any heightened scrutiny for college kids who fulfill the traditional requirements. Unless race or socioeconomic factors matter in getting a permit as it is, they wouldn't matter with regard to carry on campus. I'm not really concerned about the race or economic status of the person carrying legally at my local Wal Mart or bank, so I'm not sure why many on my side of the argument would want any different standard when it comes to campus carry.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Sure, the studies will likely also be more or less applicable depending on the "type" of campus.

But the removal of gun restrictions wouldn't be and that's the point.

Many people who want to remove gun restrictions are fine and dandy until people who they are afraid of, in general, get these guns. People's fear of crime and fear of the potential of crime of certain types of people (sociodemographic factors) will definitely add an angle to this debate. Probably not for you but for thousands of others.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

But the removal of gun restrictions wouldn't be and that's the point.

Many people who want to remove gun restrictions are fine and dandy until people who they are afraid of, in general, get these guns. People's fear of crime and fear of the potential of crime of certain types of people (sociodemographic factors) will definitely add an angle to this debate. Probably not for you but for thousands of others.

Don't get me wrong, there are certain people who I wouldn't want to get a hold of guns. I don't know that I could really break it down to demographics, but if certain demographic groups in an area are more criminally minded or irresponsible, then sure, those folks.

However, my point is that lifting the ban on campus carry won't really impact this at all, as it will simply allow those who have licenses to take their gun one more place. I don't anticipate that entirely new groups of people will rush to get a firearms license because of a lifted restriction.