This morning over at The Guardian, we find the headline, "Texas campus carry law is a slap in the face of survivors of past shootings."

To clarify, leftists would have you believe victims of a school shooting are being re-victimized by being given the freedom to defend themselves (try wrapping your head around that one).

The article goes on to explain how the 1996 shooting at the University of Texas at Austin, which left 16 dead and 32 wounded, demonstrates why gun control is the only way to secure our campuses - and why campus carry laws will fail.

Proponents of campus carry, and gun access in general, like to claim that more guns means more opportunity for people to protect themselves in the event of a mass shooter. But there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case.

The absence of sequential logic in that statement has left me temporarily stupefied...give me a second here...

Okay, so the wizards at The Guardian are saying having a gun to shoot the bad guy before he shoots you doesn't make you any safer than not having a gun... First of all Guardian writers, you're all morons. Maybe your parents dropped you on your heads as babies. Then picked you up and threw you at a basketball hoop and missed. Secondly, there is a crap ton of evidence to suggest having a gun to protect yourself from bad guys with guns...works. Like a lot of evidence.

The Guardian continued to display their stupidity:

It’s because of easy gun access that Whitman was able to kill as many as he did in the first place. Whitman purchased two of the semi-automatic rifles he used from the observation deck on the morning of the attack, along with six additional ammunition magazines and 14 boxes of ammunition. Allowing guns on campus will not make anyone safer. What we need is less weapons and more mental health support for students and staff alike. That was one of the conclusions reached in September of 1966 by a committee appointed to investigate the Charles Whitman massacre.

"Easy gun access?" Have you ever tried to buy a firearm? Wait, silly question. As a rule, anti-gun nuts don't know the first thing about guns, much less their purchase. Hey writers at The Guardian, you know what does work? Enforcing laws on the books to punish gun felons. Educate yourselves. Go read about Project Exile.

"More mental health support for students and staff alike." This one's a half truth. Yes, we need more mental health support. Fact. Of course then we have to define "mental health" don't we? Someone who's ever been depressed? Is he mentally unhealthy? A woman with post-pardum depression? She can't have a gun? Who's going to decide what's "mentally unhealthy"? But allowing guns on campus won't make anyone safer? Here's 9 Potential Mass Shootings that Were Stopped by a Personally Owned Firearm that might help you rethink that one.

Despite the actual facts on guns keeping people safe, multiple groups at The University of Texas at Austin are lobbying to keep the campus a gun free zone. Sadly, what many fail to realize, is that gun free zones are actually the least safest places in our country. 92% of public shootings since 2009 have occurred inside gun free zones. It’s a pretty easy stat to find. Yet for some reason refuse to see the truth. Because they actually want guns gone for good from everywhere, especially out of the hands of responsible people.