(03-06-2018 10:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The devil is sometimes in the details. I noticed you left something out.

• There was one aggravated assault in 2017. The crime statistics do not indicate whether a weapon was involved. In 2016 there was also a single aggravated assault.

• There were two robberies on campus in 2017, up from one in 2016. The statistics do not indicate whether weapons were involved, but the Journal-World reported on two campus robberies in 2017, and neither was reported to have involved a weapon.

• In 2017, five sex offenses were reported, comprising four rapes and one fondling. There were also five sex offenses in 2016, though that year they comprised three rapes and two fondlings.

Additionally:

Quote:Notably, with lawful concealed carry of handguns being allowed on campus for the first time beginning July 1, 2017, KU police tallied zero criminal weapons violations in 2017, according to crime statistics provided by police.

So, they had no violations the first 6 months of 2017 before the concealed carry began. Pointing further to the reduction of crime being due more to an increased police presence coupled with the use of security cameras. Not to mention, it appears that the statistics don't even include whether a weapon was involved!

Nice try though.

Edited somewhat to point out what I'm referring to.....

You present 8 examples out of 671 crimes... not even statistically significant.... not your fault, that's all there apparently were... but more important, you simultaneously argue that the stats don't show if a weapon was involved... but then you use the fact that zero criminal weapons violations in 2017 prior to concealed carry when there were only 14 the 9 years before is the result of increased police presence

First, the fact that there were no criminal weapons charges associated with those violent crimes certainly implies that weapons weren't involved. Legal carry used to commit a crime isn't legal carry. That would be a weapons charge. I suppose there is a sliver in the law where if someone was legally carrying but never used it, mentioned it, showed it or was accused of using or mentioning or showing it while raping or robbing someone would it have been a violent crime without a weapons charge. That's a little far fetched, don't you think? If you got into a bar fight while legally carrying, there would be a weapons charge. Perhaps not a conviction, but a charge.

Second, 7/1/17 would have been the start of the new school year, so I suspect the increased police presence was ALSO started at the same time. It doesn't say either way so it's possible that they started that in the spring, but the rule change in the summer/fall, but we'd both be guessing.

So nice try yourself...

That said, it seems clear that the presence of legal guns didn't increase the violence... as Kap said in the OP, ZERO weapons violations. I agree with your other point that it probably didn't directly lead to a DECREASE, but that wasn't really the point... even (i don't think) of MT1998's comment.

Statistics show very clearly that legal carry people are accused of gun crimes less often than any other subset, including police and 'non gun' people (if you include criminals whom are prohibited from carrying them as 'non-gun). By NO means does that mean that giving access to more people/making it less stringent is a good idea... but it flies directly in the face of the idea often floated that people are 'less safe' because of legal carry. See many of the comments on teachers and carry.