In their quest to find a college student to write a polemic against the bill allowing campus carry in Texas, the Huffington Post tapped the tragically unhip wesbite collegecandy.com. “Hey kids, I’m Sarabeth. I’m a Junior at the University of Texas. I probably have too many tattoos to get me a real job, but oh well, I don’t want a ‘real job’ anyway. I want to be a writer for TV. I’m unusually peppy and I LOVE cupcakes :D.” Of course, excessive pep and seemingly related blood sugar issues don’t disqualify Sarabeth from entering the CCW debate. This does . . .
I can see why some would support [campus carry]. Back in 1966 when Charles Whitman went to the UT Tower with a rifle and opened fire, he received return fire from not only the Austin police, but armed civilians as well. Some believe that with guns on campus, students would be protected if a shooter were to show up. But personally, I think this is way too preemptive [a] viewpoint . . .
Not that it matters, but one civilian—Allen Crum—helped dispatch Charles Whitman. Wait, it does matter. Because if there’s one thing about gun control advocates that really pisses me off it’s their abject inability to build a case for their position based on facts.
Now you could say that’s because the facts don’t support their position. But I reckon anti-gunners avoid reality because they are emotion-driven. When it comes to argument, they depend on the rhetorical equivalent of “fuzzy logic.” Everything—including the truth—is relative. Generalizations R Us.
For example, how can campus carry be “way too preemptive”? How do you measure relative levels of preemption, as they relate to concealed carry firearms and campus gun crimes? Maybe it’s just my over-thinking mind, but one could start by defining terms (What does preemption actually mean? What are you preempting?) and then quickly move on to quantifying the key variables (How much preemption is acceptable?).
That’s too much like hard work. Better to just CYA with words like “personally” and “common sense” and call it good.
Besides, measuring things is a dangerous business. It tends to lead to established facts. Facts are notorious for not doing what you want them to—especially if you have a specific agenda in mind.
So instead of arguing logically, gun control advocates begin and end with the fact that people get shot (and that’s a bad thing), throw logic out the window and stop making sense.
This is probably my over-thinking mind at work, but can you imagine a frat party where the guys are allowed to have their guns? Nothing about that says “good idea” to me. I’m an optimist; I like to believe that not everyone is out to kill me and my fellow students. Guns on campuses are completely unnecessary. I know I can’t speak for every other Texas school out there, but I feel perfectly safe with UTPD doing their jobs. If trouble goes down, I know they’ll take care of it and they’ll keep me safe.
The first statement in this puddle of consciousness conclusion contains the qualifier “where the guys are allowed to have their guns.” This sort of infantilization is gun control SOP. In this case, Sarabeth implies that “the guys” are children who need Mommy and Daddy’s permission to play with their toys. Rather than adults with a constitutional right to armed self-defense.
Sarabeth’s second statement is completely disingenious. No one is suggesting that “everyone” is out to kill Sarabeth and her fellow students. Someone may be out to kill some students. By generalizing the threat, Sarabeth is attempting to ridicule it. But just because you’re not paranoid doesn’t mean someone’s not out to kill you. Or your fellow students. The Virginia Tech massacre proved that point.
“Guns on campus are completely uncessary.” Not only is Sarabeth contradicting her earlier admission re: the utility of campus carry for dispatching the original clock tower boy, but she completely forgot to build a foundation upon which to place this outrageously self-righteous (to us) outburst. It’s only true because Sarabeth feels it’s true. True?
Sarabeth’s last statement returns to her “college as womb” world view. I’m glad the aspiring TV writer “feels” perfectly safe and trusts big brother to shoot the crazies on her behalf. In fact, she isn’t and the campus police might not get to the scene of an active shooter in time to save lives.
According to 2000 Department of Justice report, one in five women will experience rape or attempted rape in their four-year college term. Even if it’s one in ten, that’s still a pretty clear indication that some bad shit’s going down on campus. As far as spree killers are concerned, again, Virginia Tech.
Oops! I used facts instead of feelings. My bad. I feel an obligation to do so, just as some college students feel an obligation to protect themselves from rape, kidnapping and murder with firearms. And that’s a fact.