(I found RIT's annual report for comparison).
I think the Storrs campus is a big bigger than RIT, but it's comparable enough, I think.
http://production.wordpress.uconn.edu/clery/wp-content/uploads/sites/393/2013/12/Annual-Security-Fire-Report.pdf
Of course, what this means in reality is questionable...
Here's a link to an article about the most dangerous colleges in America.
<snip>
Usually, when people who are not familiar with law enforcement look at crime statistics, they assume that the institutions with the greater number of incidents reported are less safe than the institutions that have a lower number of crimes reported. They don’t understand that when crime stats are higher, it often means the campus in question is realistically dealing with its crime problem and is dedicated to transparency. In essence, more reports of crime very often mean members of the campus community are better informed about threats to their safety. When they have this knowledge, they are more likely to take the steps necessary to protect themselves. Also, if they are confident that their reports of incidents will be taken seriously by campus police and the institution as a whole, they will more likely come forward and make a report if they become a victim of a crime.
<snip>
The authors of the Business Insider article name the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) as the most dangerous school because it experienced “12 forcible rapes, 11 robberies, 17 aggravated assaults, 195 burglaries, 625 larcenies, 18 motor vehicle thefts, and three incidents of arson in 2011.” I doubt the authors realize that in 2009, UCLA was honored by SOC specifically because the school has worked tirelessly to encourage victims of crime, specifically sexual assault victims, to come forward and report incidents. UCLA's work is most likely the reason why its crime numbers are higher than other institutions that are less diligent in their law enforcement efforts or sweep their crime problems under the rug.
If anything, UCLA and other institutions with higher rates of reported incidents are probably safer than a lot of campuses that lull potential students into a false sense of security with low crime numbers that don’t represent reality. Unfortunately, the Business Insider article could discourage campuses like UCLA from continuing to do a good job of collecting crime data. Doing so would endanger the lives of students, faculty, staff and visitors.
<more>
http://www.campussafetymagazine.com/Blog/Campus-Command-Post/Story/2012/11/The-25-Most-Dangerous-Colleges-in-America-List-Is-Irresponsible.aspxSo, it's a bit of a crapshoot because we don't know what the institutions do to crime stats to protect their reputations or how well things are being reported.
But, to drift back to the topic, the stats you and I have posted seem to show campuses full of non-violent adults. Now, obviously, this is not representative of all colleges, but I fail to see how, if a small percentage of these students were to carry a pistol with them as they moved around campus (legally, after completing required background checks and the permitting process), this all of a sudden will result in routine shootouts over plagiarism accusations or bad grades or something.
And while YOU may not see any need, the issue is that you think YOUR opinion speaks for everybody in every situation on every campus. Your daughter may have perfectly safe in Harlem in in the 2010's... after all, the fascism and racism of the NYPD does lower crime rates, right? How would you have liked her attending Columbia in, say, 1976?
Realistically, we both know that even on a campus like RIT or UConn, there would be at most a couple of hundred students that carried routinely. Aged 21 or 22, clean criminal record, pistol permit, and a gun to carry? All before they graduate?
A couple of hundred at best. Probably fewer than the number of the campus police.
But people attend college in a variety of circumstances. I am back in the UConn system; classes start in 9 days and I'll be attending a couple of regional classes. I'll be commuting, walking back and forth between parking lights at night in winter, with few other people around. Other people around the country will be attending college by living off-campus and taking subways and buses and the sidewalk to school. And what you're telling them is that if their path takes them to a university campus at any point, they must spend the entire day without their gun for personal protection.
So if they live in a shitty area, or work in a shitty area, or have to park in a shitty area, well, then that's just too bad. But don't worry; once they get on campus they'll be safe.
Looks, I see this as the same as legalizing pot or gay marriage; people work themselves up into a lather over the idea prior to legalization, then it happens and it was all for nothing.
There are other things that I want to get done to make this country a better place, and it's getting damn hard to do it when Democrats keep getting punished in the polls for waging a cultural war.
= new reply since forum marked as read
