Drolfille - My response to yours in bold.
Not going to respond to the whole thing as a) it's tl;dr, b) you're a one-poster and c) I have better things to do this morning. But, in response to the bolded:
Gee, thanks for the warm greeting.
The gunman in Colorado springs was shot by a
security guard. Yes it was her personal weapon, but it was also her JOB. Despite the fact that conceal-carry appears to be legal there, there's no evidence that arming your average citizen deterred anything.
Actually, no it wasn't her JOB. She's a volunteer. "The Rev. Boyd, who introduced Assam, stressed that all church guards were volunteers who worshiped at the church and were legally allowed to carry guns."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...la-home-center
And secondly: Because returning fire means I make a better target.
Actually, not quite. You don't make a "better target", your already a target in this case. Your chances of being more visible increase depending on when you shoot and if you miss. Then you might be a more visible target. Though if I were a crazed gun man and I met someone that was armed and shooting back at me I would think that is a more risky target to me. The easy ones are already in front of me running for their lives or cowering in fear.
This isn't the movies and it isn't my job to kill the bad guy.
I agree, it's not my job either, nor is it my job to protect you or anyone else in the crowd and I'm not advocating that. I'm advocating the ability to chose to shoot at someone in the event they decide to open up on a crowd like this and I feel like I might be next - in this environment that chance is extremely high wouldn't you say? If having a weapon in class increases my likelihood of survival by even 5%, that's 5% I'd take.
It's my job to stay alive and to help others stay alive if possible.
How exactly does one do that? Jump up and down and attract attention to yourself, essentially making yourself a martyr? Signaling to students around you the way to the door? Shouting something? All these things would bring more focus on you in this situation.
Also, even if I were 100% skilled enough to do so, I do NOT believe that this random chance outweighs the dislike I have for everyone else around me to be carrying a weapon.
Ok, so even if you had the ability and skill to shoot back, you still would not approve others around you having the same ability, because you don't like your fellow citizens to be armed. That's what your saying right?
As it is, college students have less than fully developed decision making areas of their brains. I do not trust a large percentage of the population with a firearm carried on their person.
Wow. That's pretty disrespectful to stereotype people like that. Considering that not all college students are under the age of 21. A good deal of students these days are over 21 and have taken classes and shoot regularily. Not to mention a good deal of students are also former members of the military who have had additional firearms training. I on the other hand trust a small percentage of the population with firearms, and surprisingly Police Officers fall into this category. You see the Police only have a limited amount of tax payers funds, and a very small portion of that actually goes to firearms training/qualification. The ammo that is paid for is to perform basic weapons qualification certifications and for advanced tactics - which involves a very small number of people. Most Police Officers don't goto the range on their own time and pay for their own ammo. Why do you think there are so many reports of Police involved in multiple shot incidents where they fire a high number of rounds that don't hit their actual target? Many if not all of your comments are unfair and unfounded.