I agree. Deadly force is bad. But you don't have to kill someone with a weapon. A taser normally doesn't kill.
Someone with a gun can shoot someone else (or himself or herself for that matter) in the leg or arm or foot. Even better, someone with a weapon could simply not need to use it (I like this one best) but the idea that everyone should have to wait until someone who has a gun gets there in the event of an emergency doesn't make a lot of sense. Even if just a small number of people even bothered to arm themselves (and it would be a small number of people) the probability of not having to wait for cops to save you would be much better. Of course, if this small number of people was armed, the odds are better that someone wouldn't even try any sort of attack.
Personally, I'm not big on firearms, but I'm also not big on putting my life exclusively in the hands of the police.

well, i see SOMEONE found out how to use the thesaurus function on Microsoft Word recently. nice use of 10-dollar words.
anyway, i like how you assume that destroying "the culture of violence" will somehow stop the crazies from walking onto campus with an AK47 and start offing people. The point is that there will always be crazies with access to weapons. Not arming yourselves is simply ludicrous.
I was taught by my father since i was very young to respect firearms and how to safely use them only for protection. Assuming that people who have a concealed carry permit would be out waving their gun around for everyone to see is an irresponsible viewpoint. I wonder if the VT massacre would've ended the same way had a responsible gun-owner been allowed to protect him or herself.

The only argument that I see gun supporters making is that they feel secure when they have a a fireman to defend themsevles, but they're not addressing how they're helping other people. Do you actually feel safer knowing your fellow students are carrying weapons also?

Unfortunately with this trend, I feel that if our government and media is scaring us into unneccessary legislation, then even anti-gun supporters will be forced to arm themselves if everybody else starts to carry weapons.

marc.... if your afraid of concealed handguns, don't ever leave your home. Everywhere you go in daily life your passing people carrying concealed handguns.

"I would prefer a campus be primed to raise an alarm at the sight of weapons than grow accustomed to them."

Also Marc you would never see these weapons, they are concealed.

Also I like how you say we are armed with "callowness". When you resort to name calling, we have already won the argument. Your arguements are emotionally based and have no facts. I'd suggest reading the following study.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Another article from another individual who would not hang a banner above their home saying, "no guns in this home." So if i am somehow being callow by protecting myself and you at the same time, because you and all your anti-gun friends won't fly your banners. Ima Robyu goes around believing everyones packing heat like me, and other responsible citizens...until the day you gun haters get your banners.

"Of course, if this small number of people was armed, the odds are better that someone wouldn't even try any sort of attack."

Pantheon I'm glad you're applying rational thought to a situation in which the person doing all the shooting was obviously far from rational.

Devieh, why exactly do I have to fly a banner from my apartment? Do I need one that says "No HDTV in this home" or "No medieval weaponry in this home." Your point is ridiculous.

you don't have to fly any banners, but until your confident enough to publicly declare your home gun free then fall back in line with everyone else who is protected under the assumption that anyone can have a gun. The point is not ridiculous, saying that rational thought doesn't apply is ridiculous. It's clear as day, gun-free zone is synonymous with free-kill zone. Wake up.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
People die every day by the hands and more appropriately firearms of people who are within the law to defend themselves or others. That is rational.

Contact the police??
HE'S GOT A GUN!!!.....holster. Gimme a break. Its ok for everyone else to protest whatever's on their mind at the time, but you feel threatened by an empty holster, carried by a law abiding citizen who in all likelihood has a permit to legally carry a concealed handgun anywhere else in this state? The argument is valid, and the protest is completely legal. The world won't fall apart if they extend the right to carry to the campus. If that were the case, the rest of this state would already be in chaos. Maybe we should just outlaw guns entirely, then there wouldn't be any more shootings, right?

I wasn't saying that rational thought doesn't apply. I was saying that suggesting that people won't engage in attacks, people who are insane and end up taking their own lives, because people are armed is just fallacy.

And how am I "protected under the assumption that anyone can have a gun." That doesn't make me feel safe, nor would owning a gun. I feel safe because to feel otherwise would make my days dreary and fearful. I feel safe because I live in a fairly safe community. If I run into trouble I damn well won't wish that I had a gun. Not saying I wouldn't defend myself, but the gun doesn't make everything go away.

empirelucas. people will still engage in attacks no matter what, but when people are armed the odds are evened. Take the Colorado church for example. Gunman carrying a rifle and two handguns shoots two people in the parking lot, then enters the church of 7000 people. he steps in the door and is shot by a women with a concealed carry license. Hundreds of lives were saved that day.

Ah yes, the single case study. You have swayed me with one example that also involves a bit of luck.

And where did the shooter get his guns?

I guess a case in which hundreds of lives were saved isn't that important. sorry about that. how stupid of me.

However, Theres thousands if not millions of cases in which armed citizens stopped acts of violence. What kind of stats do you want?

I don't know where he got his guns but I don't know how relevant that is. A criminal motivated to get a gun will get a gun. Just like how illegal drugs are illegal yet they are readily available.

All I'm saying is the bad guys will have guns not matter what, so I should be able too.

Empirelucas, so why do you think that licensed individuals who carry a gun everywhere they go in daily life shouldn't be able to carry when they walk onto a college campus?

I don't believe in concealed carry laws in general, not just on campus. I don't believe that guns stop gun violence. We are at an impasse, but the comment that "bad guys will have guns not matter what, so I should be able too." sounds like a cold war. Who's going to push the button first?

Who's going to push the button first?? who do you think? My weapon will never used unless my life is in danger.

People who are criminals don't get concealed carry licenses. Criminals don't ask their government for a license to carry a concealed handgun.

Guns are used in defensive situations...
According to researchers Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, citizens use their firearms to thwart criminal attacks anywhere from 670,000 to 1.5 million times per year. About 99% of these defensive gun uses, the weapon is never fired. Just showing the weapon is enough to send the criminal the other way.

Here's some recent news stories to show guns being used in defense. Now remember, these are just the 1% of defensive gun uses, the other 99% in which the weapon was never fired will never make the news.

http://www.orovillemr.com/ci_9016451?source=most_viewed
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/20/BATS109016.DTL
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=6339641&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5725484.html
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_125671.asp
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_562035.html
http://www.click2houston.com/news/15867233/detail.html
http://www.koco.com/news/15857154/detail.html

Also, refer to this study
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

This is an impasse, the conversation has reached a stalemate. I have no interest in reading those stories nor are you going to change my mind about guns. I don't believe that I will make a point that will change yours. Actually your example suggests that guns without ammo would do just as well in 99% of situations. Of course how many of those situations necessitated a gun, in how many would a knife (which also can not be carried on campus) done the same job. I'm done at this point. You want a gun on your hip in an academic setting, I think that's ludicrous. Stalemate.

empirelucas,
I feel that you really have not presented a strong enough argument to produce a stalemate. In your opinion I can see where the stalemate may occur but you fail to convince me.
Throughout the constant bickering from side to side I am constantly reminded of stories I have heard regarding VaTech. One individual said that students were reduced to throwing text books at the shooter. Now it seems to me that if those students are brave enough to throw books in the face of guns...then maybe they might have been brave enough to shoot the gunman. On top of that, it has been said in one classroom the gunman lined students against the wall and killed them execution style, one at a time. Just imagine if one of those students could have stepped out of line and shot back. If (now i realize we cant always dwell on "IF's) concealed and carry had been allowed on that campus lives might have been saved. Even if his shooting spree was stopped at 31...that is still 1 life saved.
As well, I think you fail to understand that individuals with conceal and carry licenses are not criminals. They have neither intent nor desire to randomly shoot individuals that piss them off. This can be readily demonstrated in the fact that people conceal and carry everday....and I have yet to hear of a license holder losing their cool and start a killing spree. I feel that somewhere along the line you believe that because its against the rules and because there are "No Carry" signs..that means a criminal will listen to them and not shoot up that "gun-free" zone.
Now the following argument may seem dumb but I like it! It's more of a rhetorical question than an argument. Why do you think shooting sprees always happen in "gun-free" zones (ie campus, malls, schools, etc) yet never occur at a shooting range?
Now you're right in saying that having guns does not mean insane criminals wont come on campus...but it might deter them. In the very least it would give us an opportunity to protect ourselves rather than be slaughtered without a chance.
The bottom line is, we (meaning conceal and carry license holders) carry everywhere it is allowed on a daily basis. Why are we forced not to carry on campus?
Before I finish I would like to thank you for being quite a bit more polite than the author of this article. I feel that there is no need for name calling in an intellectual debate, no matter how sensitive the topic.

actually KU allows knives on campus that are under 4 inches. refer to the following and do more research before you make assumptions

http://www.hreo.ku.edu/policies_procedures/emergency_procedures/weapons_policy
any knife, commonly referred to as a switch-blade, which has a blade that opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in the handle of the knife, or any knife having a blade that opens or falls or is ejected into position by the force of gravity or by an outward, downward or centrifugal thrust or movement; any straight-blade knife of four inches or more such as a dagger, dirk, dangerous knife or stiletto; except that an ordinary pocket knife with a blade no more than four inches in length shall not be construed to be a weapon for the purposes of this policy.

KU = 10,000 text messages over 30 minutes
Police = 5 - 10 minutes
Concealed Carry = 2 seconds

do the math

also you have to remember that when the police show up they will probably sit outside and wait for swat. so theres another 2 hours

I hope everybody here has the imagination to visualize themselves as a school shooter before they start making recommendations. Certainly, firearms may not be the answer, but failing to understand how such an assailant would operate tactically impairs one's ability to counter that person.

I have friends who are truly concerned when it comes to the issue of school shootings, concealed carry and gun ownership in general but refuse to even think critically about how to respond to immediate gun violence before opening their mouth to protest the societal developments that brought it about. Yes, it's great to analyze and prevent root causes for violence but that's not going to help you survive a shooting even if the probability of one was decreased by forward thinking preventative measures.

For those that wish to conceal carry but are prevented from doing so by the law, I suggest studying some practical knife concepts and carrying a quality blade. Even in defensive situations, guns aren't the answer to every threat. I used to comfortably every day carry a KABAR TDI belt knife but I have since transitioned to a tactical folder so that I could better practice the Filipino knife arts.

gun free zone = free kill zone.
there is no stalemate about it. no impasse.

Btw i don't live my life in fear or ever take my guns outside of my home unless for target practice.

So you need your guns on campus for target practice?

Just because you use a slogan doesn't mean that your slogan is true.