Lina De Castillo wrote an inflammatory hit piece on the recent enactment of Texas CHL legislation that would make public campuses open to concealed carriers.
This piece was published in Quartz and it’s obvious from the sheer number of logical fallacies and the disownment by her own staunch anti-gun conspirators that sexual predators won’t be having an open hunting season on Texas campuses any time soon. At best, she tried to mount a tenuous link between guns and sexual violence. It hurts that a person who has the most to gain from these recent changes in law is obviously missing the biggest piece of this puzzle:
- Criminals aren’t deterred by gun laws AND
- Females on Texas campuses now have the legal ability to do something about it.
There’s always that serious “WTF” moment when the anti-gun movement just disintegrates into a bunch of dogs foaming at the mouth. Not only do they tout themselves as “academic” but there’s an unspoken moral superiority from which they espouse these lofty claims that are backed by zero evidence.
Let’s look no further to a quote given by the University of Texas at Austin president Gregory Fenves in his argument against concealed carry on Texas campuses:
“The presence of handguns at an institution of higher learning is contrary to our mission of education and research, which is based on inquiry, free speech, and debate.”
Ask yourself: what the heck do law abiding gun owners have to do for or against education?
If you’re teaching a class and you have your concealed carry handgun in your inside the waistband concealed carry holster, that should have ZERO effect on the discussion you promote within your classroom or the materials that you cover. Part of being in an institute of higher education in the first place is a critical posture towards philosophy, science, and liberal arts. We are already coming from the angle that discussion is meant to enrich and further a student’s pursuits — not dictate them. Similarly, if either a student or faculty member feels threatened by a firearm that may or may not be out in the audience, perhaps you need to develop some conviction.
And then there’s De Castillo’s extremely weak sauce link between domestic violence and gun ownership. First off, if you’re going to accuse the infamous gun lobby illuminati of messing up independent research, perhaps you may not want to start off your volley of statistical analysis with a bunch of research funded and conducted through anti-gun foundations.
Studies on the link between domestic violence and gun ownership have literally nothing to do with students attending school on campus. More importantly, the Campus Carry Policy Working Group — which De Castillo was invited to participate in — even found her claims to be tenuous and poorly placed.
“..the evidence does not in any way support the claim of a causal link between campus carry and an increased rate of sexual assault.”
Instead of taking that opportunity to actually re-evaluate her prejudices, she doubles down on gun lobby illuminati conspiracies.
“It appears the continuing efforts of the pro-gun lobby to influence research and evidence have worked.”
Here’s an idea: maybe you failed to illustrate your argument. That’s what happens in an academic environment. You state your hypothesis, you conduct independent and verifiable research, and then you see if your findings fit the hypothesis. If they don’t, you try something else.
Here’s the big issue with fanatics in any political cause: they have a big ole’ bag of “facts” but no string to connect them together. And when the audience fails to see the issue precisely how De Castillo does, she needs to find a scapegoat to blame it on.
Sorry, De Castillo — your argument fails and even hardcore anti-gun academics in the university systems in Texas are loathe to admit it. Better luck next time. If it’s any consolation, those women you claim are helpless victims just waiting to be assaulted by sexual predators with guns? They can now legally fight back.