"The fact, politically incorrect or not, is that on average men are not somewhat stronger than women, but vastly stronger. I donít know whether women quite realize this. For example, if you are wrestling playfully with your husband or boyfriend, his chief concern wonít be winning but avoiding hurting you. Men donít shake hands with women as they do with men. They could hurt a womanís hand. Guys who have been in playground fights know that being eighty pounds lighter ends the fight in about the first three seconds.
"Further, a rapist is likely to be perfectly willing to injure his victim. This gives him a near-absolute advantage."
Simply put, a gun offers the typical campus rapist virtually zero extra advantage over his date that he didn't have with just his bare hands.
To be fair, a gun offers the typical campus co-ed virtually zero benefit when confronted by a date rapist. When the victim is already drunk or stoned, or has a drink tainted with a date rape drug, or is even snuggling up or making out and the guy decides to go farther than she wanted to, odds of her having her gun within reach seem slim in most cases.
But, a gun offers great advantage to the woman against a stranger rapists as she is walking alone across campus after dark. It offers her huge benefit when confronted with the ex-boyfriend or stranger stalker.
And of course, most importantly, it is her (and his) constitutionally enumerated, natural/God-given/human right to have an effective means of self-defense if she so desires it. If she is old enough to join the military (or he to be drafted) then by what right does some taxpayer funded ivory tower educational elitists presume to deny her those rights? We might just as well have an argument about why college is no place for the free exercise of religion, for an expectation of privacy, or for voting.