Those are all potential arguments for being armed on campus, which I also disagree with, but that's an entirely different issue. That doesn't explain at all why concealed carry on campus (or anywhere for that matter) is a good idea.
Assume, for the next 5 minutes, the police can't protect you. Who is going to defend you? Honestly?
I live in a bad part of Buffalo. Homicides/assaults happen weekly, if not daily around me. The cops could care less. I arm myself to make sure I survive life, heh. Granted, the cops do arrest some people, have ongoing investigations, etc, but really, when something bad goes down, it's only going to be me and my attacker there. I'd rather I walked away instead of him. This is from personal experience.
You think the police mishandled the situation? I can't say because I wasn't there. But I can say that a bunch of armed civilian yahoos is hardly likely to make the situation better.
I disagree. The whole reason the job of "police" exists is because it is assumed that if everyday people didn't have to worry about defending themselves, training with a gun, and so on, life would be better. And it's true. Life *would* be alot easier if I didn't have to worry about that stuff. But guess what? The police, especially in my area, are lacking in that very qualification. They can't protect me. I have to rely on myself, because I'm going to be the only one there. If I, and perhaps some other concerned citizens, wish to undergo rigorous training and qualification to become a pseudo-police force, and are authorized by the state to protect ourselves and each other, so much the better.
You say you're "defenseless." From what? Armed nuts on campus? Do you have any idea how incredibly small the odds are that you are going to fall victim to that kind of violence? You have a better chance of being struck by lightning. You have a much better chance of dying in a car crash. As far as I am concerned any gun enthusiast who doesn't wear their seatbelt is a hypocrite. And, not for nothing, if gun possession was restricted to police and military, then those nuts wouldn't have been able to shoot anyone up in the first place.
Small odds? Ha! If you take averages across the nation, yeah. If you take averages in high violence areas, I doubt it.
Personally, I've been attacked twice, both times I was unarmed. I had taken self defense training and managed to get away in one piece. I was in a University bookstore when a guy came in firing with a shotgun. I was coming home one night and saw a bunch of people jump someone else and stab him several times, about 40 feet away. And as mentioned, I was in the front lines, if you will, during a full blown university lockdown. Police were coming in with body armor and assault rifles and searching entire buildings. Pretty terribly, I should add
If I could swap that with getting hit by lighting, that would be nice.
But anyway, the pros and cons of restrictive guns laws which are supposed to eliminate firearms have been hashed and rehashed before. So no need to go into them here. However, I'd rather be armed and facing an armed opponent then be unarmed facing an armed opponent. Because, let's be honest, outlawing guns isn't going to get rid of them, as empirical data supports.
Carrying guns on campus is a recipe for producing a lot more dead college students.
Perhaps. But why do mass shootings happen in gun free zones?
*EDIT* I feel I should mention that this isn't meant to be argumentive
It's just based on my own experiences, I would rather have extra protection throughout the day. However, depending on your geographical location and surroundings, you may not feel the same way, which is ok. I would just like to have the freakin' option of protecting myself!