Campus Carry Poll in College Station Newspaper

[RPB]

hmm

Sad, but maybe a few of the scared teachers are leaving?

http://www.theeagle.com/am/104-of-A-amp ... ng-buyouts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The 104 Texas A&M University faculty members who agreed to be part of a "voluntary separation program" will end their service on or before Sept. 1 of next year, the university has announced.

[RPB]

Mr. Rudder, (past president of Texas A&M) where's that poll so I can vote on if I would FEEL safe if A&M is racially integrated and coeducational?; I'm not too sure about women, and well ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Earl_Rudder" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... University" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
ooops, I must have stepped through a TIME WARP there for a moment; I'm back now .... sorry.

These "Would you feel safer" polls are funny, absolutely ignoring "rights" HUMAN rights and CIVIL rights but good to see opposing views in the discussions, I expect we'll hear all that at Legislating time, so good to get prepared beforehand

================

[RPB]

I'm glad we are all exercising great restraint ... just tempting to post things like:

Feel free to jump in and make more fun of some Farm boys who know about guns but who don't know what the Calculator button with the funny picture does; but if you round them all up like you said; you'll have to figure out for yourself which of the cow's horns to twist to turn on the milk faucet.


1) I could probably use my knife and gut and skin a deer quicker than the time it takes to shoot one.
partly because:
2) I've cut open more animals than I've shot (besides dissections in Biology class, I fish a lot, helped neighbors clean deer/rabbits/squirrels etc, but I never shot a deer)
3) guns make noise, attracting First Responders; Knives are quieter, allowing more time to "bleed out"
Yet, they allow me to carry my knife in class, even though it's probably deadlier and more dangerous.
Conclusion: They are worried about noise pollution and hearing loss.

But, I'll refrain from that; they are funny enough by themselves, no sense in antagonizing, so I'll just post those here.

[mgood]

I couldn't help myself. I had to register and post my thoughts.

[RPB]

I couldn't help myself. I had to register and post my thoughts.

And you did it well.

I liked the One side sees more guns meaning less safety, the other side sees more guns as more safety. Each side rolls their eyes at the other wondering how anyone could be so dense.

That was more tactful than "which of the cow's horns to twist to turn on the milk faucet" comment above I refrained from posting
(They would have calculated a 50/50 chance of getting it right since the cow only has two horns, but allow for a margin of error with a Standard deviation of +/-5.)
All this, of course, assumes it isn't a one-horned cow, which although possible, is improbable, given the statistical data at hand that the majority of TEXAS cows, as opposed to Colorado cows, have two horns, however the sample size is small so therefore we can't apply that data to reality, in other words .... do some cows have 3 horns? Not enough data to answer that currently.


Waitress ... where's my milk?

[RPB]

Personally, I'm really pleased that the 2 stats-persons from either side are having their own genteel debate - it's rather charming, actually

And if persons/teachers are tired of/bored with/confused by reading numerical Statistics, they can put that on ignore and read logic, history, government etc from other posts

Good teamwork

I"m staying in my area of specialty; logic and that course they don't teach, but should "Common Sense"

Like maybe you ain't got data/statistics and Clery Campus Crime reports to prove a car is more likely to contain a gun when it gets broke into on campus if a CHL leaves his gun in the car instead of keeping it in his pants, but duh Homer Simpson could figger it out (but put on a non-condescending way) (I still contend my unattended car is more likely to be broken into, than someone reaching into my pants to get a gun, and the statistical probability of anyone reaching into my pants is incalculably LOW) (Ashamed to admit that, but I do own a mirror)

Though I see what they are trying to quantify

Something like:

Danger of gun in wrong hands from car
versus
danger of a Licensee having it under a ceiling, instead of outdoors

with age variables.


Someone's stats "number and methodology" might have been off, but the statement and logic were good
brolin1911a1 said
"you use the low probability of a given event occurring to dismiss the reality that such events, improbable or not, do occur. Where such things occur, the probability has become 100%. (He/she should have said probability is 1 instead of 100% to a Stats teacher, but it is still true that the probability of anything occurring that is in fact occurring is high; but that's why I stay away from Stats arguments now, as they try to discredit the facts by an ad hominem attack or "nit-picking" that it is 1, rather than 100% to the presenter of the argument ) That such events seem to occur with increasing frequency is also indisputable."

I also liked:
brolin1911a1 said
According to Bob Stawser, he fears the hypothetical risk of an armed student defending herself.

Showing the teachers that EVERY CHL holder just may not have a ring on his back pocket from a snuff box and a rusty old pickup and be named "Bubba"

[RPB]

I'm going to bed too;
In that it was about 27 years ago when I took Stats, I do appreciate all the info from both views.

Even without the car data; I still contend it is MORE likely that someone will break into my unattended car than reach into my pants in a classroom; to get my gun.

I don't have data on how likely it is that anyone would reach into my pants in a classroom, but I do own a mirror.

Not being silly, just realistically serious.

If anyone can figure out how to calculate the probability of someone reaching into my pants in a classroom, seriously let me know. .... I'd like to know ... not joking, but interested because to compare the car-break-in data, I'd need that to compare too for the equation.

I appreciate all the work both sides are doing.

'night folks

[RPB]

That whole thread/debate ... if copied and pasted and the idiots edited out ...
could be very valuable to a lobbyist ... on either side.

Since gandalf is taking that much time to do stats. and says he is continuing research into the cars on campus stats etc .... I bet we'll see a LOT of this in Austin soon.

The Faculty ballot wording had to be biased
The faculty claims worries about young 21-year-olds' maturity YET
There was no option to vote on whether adult faculty and staff ONLY could carry.

"Someone" is going to a lot of trouble to "organize" against the 1,300 member A&M SCCC chapter. And against the house bill in general.

Title: A&M faculty: Don't loosen gun rules on campus

Text: unanimous voice vote decided that it "strongly opposes any change in Texas law that would permit concealed weapons on college campuses without approval by a campus-designated authority."

In other words, they want a California "May Issue, if the sheriff wants to" type local authority still, and no one gets approved.
===========================================

Me:
One final thought before I head out the door is:
Without regard to the legislation, but considering this article, and the Faculty Senate vote, was, ostensibly, about "the rules"

If the concern was seriously about age ... then why wasn't there an option for faculty to vote on allowing ONLY responsible adult faculty and staff with CHLs, like Harrold School District does for Kindergarten-12th grade? ( I mean government reports indicate that over 50% of the time, Faculty/Staff are first responders, and there may be retired law enforcement CHLs on faculty who would choose to, if allowed)

gandalf:
10:54 AM on December 19, 2010
In reference to last question, good question no answer
===========

(I think we know the answer/agenda) I bet we'll see a LOT of this in Austin again soon from A&M AND U.T.

[RPB]

I think ....Texas A&M faculty want to take the right to vote away from anyone under 25, because a percentage of that group have a high probability of voting wrong/making mistakes/being irresponsible based on Insurance company actuary tables that persons under 25 are less responsible so they charge higher rates.


(This seems to be their exact argument logic about CHLs on campus) "room full of 20-somethings" "higher probability of a 'bad outcome' when guns are introduced into a room" "young kid's life destroyed when I fail one and they lose their scholarship and displease their parents" (like the kid didn't know it was coming already if he didn't study/do homework/get a tutor and he's in shock so he goes berserk? and that's more likely to cause a person to lose it than an employer terminating an employee with family with medical problems who is behind on a mortgage?... because of age.)


It isn't really Reductio ad absurdum argument ... but it is absurd reasoning applied to other rights. But. they'll argue "relatve DANGER differences in voting versus guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
SO, I'm not going to post that statement/argument there ... save it for next time.(don't show your hole cards)
I have no statistics on the "relative danger differences"

U.T. signed an "amicus curiae" brief for the Lubbock Court case ... (prepared by Brady)
These guys are preparing for Austin... hope our side is too.

[MeMelYup]

A few years ago one of the east coast colleges failed a student. When the philosophy student petitioned the school about it. The Professor stated that the student was thinking wrong and needed to be reeducated to the right way of thinking. The college board stood behind the Professor. So what can you expect here?

[RPB]

True

I halfway expected UT STUDENTS to get hoodwinked by John Woods (it is Austin/Weird, legalize the green tobacco proponents, even though an older Austin crowd who remembers Charles Whitman, should know better)

I"m a bit surprised A&M faculty didn't wake up/snap to that the Faculty vote wasn't REALLY about FACULTY SAFETY, else they'd have had an option for armed faculty/staff only, since faculty is 1st responders according to the Govt., but about a much bigger agenda. They should be ashamed.

If faculty is that easy to hoodwink, and they teach students to think ...... (really sad emoticon)

I was blessed to have History/Government profs who were rather radical having us read about rights/ freedom of speech, court cases involving war protesters wearing black arm bands to school, to teach people to think about wording on ballots and what's the real agenda and who is behind it.
(Actually, that's the one who when I was racking up "A"s gave me a B and when asked why and how I got a B, when all my work was an A, explained "I gave you a B because you deserved an A, but I wanted to teach you it's the degree, not the individual grade"
and 10 years later when I hired his daughter as my secretary (coincidence found out after hiring her) he said "I remember, and If you had told me you were racking up "A's for transcript to go to law school, I'd have changed it to the A you deserved." I think I replied, you better not drink the eggnog I brought you a minute ago then, here I'll get you some more ... or something like that We became pretty good friends for a while until I moved, his daughter, formerly married to a DPS officer got divorced and called me with an interest in getting together before I moved, I haven't pursued that. She's pretty smart and attracted more to guys with I.Q. close to 150 than uniforms now. Darn cute and attractive and smart, but with an uppity attitude towards less intelligent, and I don't like being around uppitiness towards others, so I never called her back.

My uncle has been wanting me to move to Lubbock (he is 82, someone will need to take care of him some day, and his son works at UTEP, and he doesn't really want to live so close to ciudad juarez so I doubt he'll move there) l for years .... maybe I'll enroll there, but I'm not a big fan of wind and dust, and there are hardly any places to kayak fish.

[Bullwhip]

Stupid premise. "Would it make you feel safe if..."

"Make you feel safe" is why gun bans happen in the first place. "Make you feel safe" banned guns at Virginia Tech.

[RPB]

Stupid premise. "Would it make you feel safe if..."

"Make you feel safe" is why gun bans happen in the first place. "Make you feel safe" banned guns at Virginia Tech.

[RPB]

I just posted what may, or may not, be about my last post over there ...

perhaps the student can become the teacher sometimes grasshopper.
------------------

So, having been taught by an astute Government Professor, to think about the way ballots are worded, and motives behind the instigators of proposed legislation, instead of blindly trusting our beloved leaders, on any scale,

Since the University ALREADY has power to set policy,

I'm surprised at the faculty response without questioning...

If the person or group behind/influencing the initiation of this whole faculty vote's main concern REALLY was faculty safety, why did they not offer an option to ONLY allow responsible adult staff and Faculty who got photographed, fingerprinted, went through Local, State, and Federal background checks, took the time and paid the expense to go through training to be armed, and took, in Bob Strawser, speaker of the Faculty Senate's words, training in "how to react" ... since over 50% of the time Faculty/Staff are first responders.

Looks like the initiator has a different agenda than Faculty safety. Since in fact, there exist adult responsible retired law enforcement officers with CHLs on Faculty Staff who may some day choose to carry, [a license doesn't mean one MUST carry, any more than a license means one must own a car, but allows options] if that responsible adult Faculty member perceived a threat might occur to themselves or fellow faculty members, and maybe even students would benefit.

This policy is, and has been in the power of the University to change all along.

Obviously if Faculty is usually first responders, having some responsible staff armed might make the Faculty safer.

Yet that, FACULTY SAFETY, doesn't seem to be the real agenda.
So, I'd look further into who is behind this, and what bias that person has or what influenced the way it was "put together"

I must thank you Mr. Ramirez, for the B you gave me, when in your words I "deserved an A" 27 years ago ... it truly is about learning, and about learning how to think, more than grades, sometimes.

==============
Reference text:
http://www.theeagle.com/local/A-amp-amp ... -on-campus" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"I think the possibility of a tragedy of someone overreacting who isn't trained to react far outweighs the potential benefits of someone having a gun," said Bob Strawser, speaker of the Faculty Senate.

The body that represents the College Station campus' faculty in a unanimous voice vote decided that it "strongly opposes any change in Texas law that would permit concealed weapons on college campuses without approval by a campus-designated authority."

Currently, Texas law allows for licensed handgun owners to carry on campus, just not in buildings, and for institutions to decide whether to allow concealed handgun license holders to carry within buildings.