Is the latest random-attack incident an argument in favor of "concealed carry" laws?

As has been widely reported, universities in Texas are struggling with the Lone Star State's new "concealed carry" law.  While public universities must permit concealed carrying of licensed pistols, except in residence halls, private colleges are permitted to opt out of the requirement.  Most major private universities in the state, such as Rice and SMU, have announced that they are exercising that option.  But is that the right decision?

Yesterday in Taunton, Massachusetts, a madman crashed his car into a house and stabbed the two women occupants, killing one.  He then proceeded to the local mall, where he stabbed four more people at random, killing one of them.  And then he was shot dead by an off-duty cop who was carrying a concealed weapon.

How many more would he have killed or maimed, had the police officer not been armed and trained to use his weapon?

I am not suggesting that licenses to carry concealed weapons be granted willy-nilly.  That has never been the case in Israel, where concealed-carry is a well-established public policy.  And it ought not to be the case in the United States.  But why not grant licenses to responsible adult citizens, who pass regular psychological evaluations and engage in regular firearms training?

I called the Massachusetts perp a madman.  But who is really mad here?  One definition of insanity is to keep trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.  That was the madness of the generals in WWI, who kept throwing millions of victims up against the other side's barbed wire and machine guns.  And I suggest that it may be equally mad to leave ourselves exposed and unprotected in the face of these recurring random attacks.

Is it perhaps time to try something different?  Texas legislators apparently thought so.  I am eager to see how their bold experiment works out in the next few years.