Obviously campus police have duties other than just waiting for a mass shooter; CHLs don't only carry because they are sitting around waiting for the rare mass shooter. But usually if you extend any "anti" argument out to a conclusion, their argument fails.
----------------
It's like their "the only use for a" arguments which announce only one of many uses of an item and deny other valid uses.
The only use for a gun is to kill and maim" Police need them because they encounter armed criminals
The only reason for a hi cap magazine is to shoot lots real fast, police need them because they sometimes encounter MANY criminals
The only reason for a pen is to write citations, students don't need to write citations.
---------
All their arguments initially are based upon at least one false premise. None hold up under scrutiny/close examination.
Like the AT&T commercial .... "Makes sense if you DON'T think about it"
They try to say we carry to stop "Virginia Tech" situations, but ignore all other aggravated assaults, robberies, etc. OBVIOUSLY without campus police, we'd either need city/State/County police to come write tickets for parking stickers or deputize CHLs to do it, because campus police have duties other than waiting for mass shooters. (just kidding)
I think Ameer was just pointing out what the 2002 Government report showed, that although police have good "response time" that they rarely stop a "school shooter" (study wasn't on armed rapists, robbers, but only "shootings" at "school"; not display of a weapon to rob/rape etc where no shot is fired) and that students faculty and staff are "always" the "first responders" from a finance/school funding point of view (in the news/legislature now) in that limited rare situation ... like the anti group limit an argument to one usage .. AS IF campus police are only used to stop school shootings but ... (using the "Anti" technique, which is always flawed, to make that point, that it is flawed.)
Leastways, that's what I got out of it.