(03-06-2018 03:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: What college do you know that starts on July 1st?
Fiscal year amigo... almost all of them. University starts long before the first day of classes.
Quote:Most likely the school was in session from January 1 through sometime in May...and then the new school year began on August 21, 2017. So that even reduces the effect even further!
but you haven't demonstrated your claim that the increased police started in January.
Following your logic only, If the school year started August 21, why did the policy change July 1? If there were no classes from May to August, then there shouldn't have been any crimes at all during that time, no? So that also reduces the effect of the increase police presence as well... and of course you admit that it wasn't in place in jan or feb.
Quote:But my point was that there is no correlation shown here between more people on campus carrying weapons to crime...which incidentally didn't really drop all that much according to the article. Especially since we have no clue exactly how many people on campus were even carrying.
Which isn't what the OP claimed... just what you want it to have been, and is substantively identical to the people saying that carry didn't lead to MORE crime
Quote:And you totally missed my main point where the officials themselves conclude that the increased police presence, more security personnel, metal detectors, and video surveillance likely led to the better crime statistics. And the increased police presence hiring began in February and they were likely all in place by July 1. So again you cannot say for certain that people carrying on campus is what lead to the crime stats as the OP implies.
So which is it? Is it significant or not? You keep going back and forth based on the point you're trying to make. It's easy to demonstrate a point based on soft evidence like this when you can change the definition of 'significant' as you see fit.
I didn't see that the hiring started in Feb... but still, I'm sure the police presence and more cameras helped to the very minor extent that it did... note that there wasn't a reduction in violent crimes (your stats) despite the higher police presence, so arguably it did nothing at all.
Quote:The four metal detectors, accessories and a trailer to transport them cost approximately $14,000, Keary said. He said the equipment just arrived last week.
The three additional police officers will cost roughly $140,000. The three security officers will add roughly another $80,000. Uniforming and equipping the officers will add more than $30,000.
In addition to the three new police officer positions, an existing police administrator position was converted to a patrol officer position last summer, Keary said.
Keary said the hiring process has already begun. Depending on a number of factors, officers could be on the ground sometime in the next few months.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2017/feb/15...-prepare-/
[/quote]
Wow... talk about misleading. The hiring process began in Feb and they said they COULD be on the ground in the next few months.... is July 1 not 'a few months' after February? If it had been May or June instead, doesn't that say (since there weren't any in Jan or Feb or at least March) that the increased police presence and equipment did nothing at all?
Consider this
Jan Feb Mar Apr (at least) no increased police, no carry
Let's go ahead with your best case scenario and say MOST of May (graduation often early May now) increased Police.
No school June, July or most of August (your point, not mine)
Meaning in a best case scenario under your own argument, the police and cameras were in place one month longer than the carry policy.
As I said, I tend to agree that the presence of carry doesn't demonstrably reduce crime. There are probably (imo, I suspect you disagree) more anecdotes where it does than anecdotes where the opposite is true, but those aren't statistics.
Statistics show that 'carry' people commit vastly fewer crimes than 'the average person'.... even fewer than cops.
As to the statement that officials made, you imply that they said it was this OVER the presence of guns. I don't see that they said that. I certainly wouldn't expect a University official (for a variety of reasons) to give credit to people carrying guns, even if it were true. There is no more evidence suggesting one was more important than the other, but I think it fair to say that if you spend $250,000 more per year on security, that you're going to want to attribute success (even marginal success) to that expense.