I'm truly shocked and saddened by today's events. My prayers go out to the families of these slain kids. However, I stand with trepidation, awaiting the misguided, knee-jerk legislation that will come from all this. Remember how fast and easily the Patriot Act was rammed down our throats, after 9/11? Not one congressman actually read it, before voting on it...they were just told to support it...because they had to do something...ANYTHING...and RIGHT NOW! We're going to see the same forces at work here, I'm afraid... I am already beginning to hear the 'hue and cry' from the media 'experts' now...and we're only 5 hours into this. I truly wish there would've been at least one VA Tech student with the guts to carry concealed, on-campus. Perhaps he/she could have averted this bloodbath...or at least mitigated the incredible number of dead we're seeing. THAT's the argument that needs to be raised here...why wasn't my child allowed to defend him or herself? By the time the hundreds and hundreds of heavily armed Police and Swat teams, FBI, and BATFE members were in place...everything was already over with! There was nothing left to do, but carry out the dead. Carry a gun...ALWAYS CARRY A GUN! Don't be like the sheep who had to cower under their desks for fear of being murdered by this maniac. One well placed shot could have ended this whole nightmare... I know some of you don't agree with me. And that's your right. But it's MY RIGHT to carry a gun. You don't like it? TOUGH! Carrying a gun is the ONLY THING that would have stopped this massacre. Not your whining about needing more gun laws. Rant on... Zulu

Excellent, excellent post, Zulu_Cowboy. I'm thinking much the same. Soon we'll hear the great roaring battlecry of, "Reduce our rights, because if he wasn't able to get a gun..." Shockingly, criminals are not overly bothered by new laws. This is because, being criminals, they are fine with breaking them. Guns are not allowed on school campus. I demand to know why our universities are engendering an atmosphere that protects only the criminal's right to walk on campus and kill our children and educators, secure in the knowledge that the criminal's targets and bystanders will be unarmed and defenseless. This is outrageous! Our college students and education professionals are dying for a political ideal, one which holds no logic. How many more must be victimised before our universities restore the basic right to decide whether or not to exercise active means of forceful self-defense? And whither the logic behind the expected hue and cry that we must now be yet even more defenseless before the criminal element?

I have idea, quit spouting NRA dogma and prove your theory that what you propose would happen. Neither you nor I have any idea what would happened. Suppose law enforcement saw a "responsible" student shooting the actual gunman. That student would have been gun down. As the video taken by a student clearly showed law enforcemetn having shootout so the gun fire was clearly not over. Would be nice if people look at facts rather than make thier arguement based on facts not your personal belief. This type of argument is stupid. What has to happen is that a rational non-bias investigation needs to occur. The problem is that gun control just like other issues have been turned into irrational passions not discussions based on facts. Once the investigation is complete whatever side was not happy with the investigation would deny the facts and even spin the facts to meet the goals and objective of each side rather than agree on a course of action that actually is best for all. Yes people are upset but ranting gun control and NRA dogma is not what we should be discussing. What we should be discussing is how we as individuals can assist those friends, students, family members and faculty members who were killed and injured. Expressing gun-control rhetoric or telling these people that if other students had guns their family members might not have died is not what they want to hear. I grieve with each person who lost someone today.

I agree with the original poster. Banning guns in DC failed to reduce crime for 30 years. Banning guns in England and Australia increased violent crime. Gun-Free Zones do nothing but ensure unarmed victims. They are a bad idea and they do not work. Assuming that anyone would tried to take out the shooter would have been killed is foolish. This is an assumption I hear a lot from anti-gun people. There is a supposition that criminals are better armed or are better shots. That is generally not the case.

It is all about points of reference. What is the "normal" gun related murder rate in this country compared to every where else? Violent crime will increase one way or another. To say banning guns would cause increased violent crime is rather an unrealistic inference.

Oh, right off the top of my head... I have an idea, quit spouting Brady Campaign dogma and prove your theory that what you propose would happen. Neither you nor I have any idea what would have happened, but at least I am aware that Virginia requires proof of training when issuing a resident carry permit and that police are not usually present at the very moment your life is in danger. (And for someone who claims to not know what would have happened, you seem awful sure of your position that the police will definitely always shoot an innocent defender.) Or, hey, let's just really simplify the burden of proof and why don't you prove your theory that I am somehow affiliated with or in any manner associated with the NRA. And yes, the above is satire aimed at your ad hominem. This is beyond horrible, traumatic and grievous in the extreme. I will not excuse the school administrators which engendered such a rich atmosphere for lethal mayhem, nor will I idly watch others prosetylise that we must now make our college students and educators even MORE helpless against further depredations from criminals.

I totally agree the potential nightmarish scenario when the law enforcement arrive. How could a policeman differentiate the true gun man from "responsible" students "defending" themselves? We are supposed to be living in the 21st century, not the wild west.

have idea, quit spouting NRA dogma and prove your theory that what you propose would happen. Neither you nor I have any idea what would happened. Suppose law enforcement saw a "responsible" student shooting the actual gunman. That student would have been gun down. As the video taken by a student clearly showed law enforcemetn having shootout so the gun fire was clearly not over. Would be nice if people look at facts rather than make thier arguement based on facts not your personal belief. This type of argument is stupid. What has to happen is that a rational non-bias investigation needs to occur. ----- Its already happened. Appalacian law school students run to their cars, get their guns and hold shooter at bay. IIRC, in Kentucky, A teacher gets his gun out of his car to gets a 15 year old shooter to disarm. Its funny the media never talks about these cases. Can I say bias?

Interesting point... but from the videos on the news, the cops did not go in for quite a while. I mean many people were dead right? So if the first and/or second person could have defended themselves, it would have likely spared the lives of all the others that were wounded to killed. What I find interesting is that the people who obeyed the laws were killed by someone who did not. Question 1: Aren't the bad guys supposed to die before the good (law abiding) guys? Question 2: Would making more laws prevent someone else with the same mind-set from doing the same thing?

Granted if someone could of shot the shooter with the first shot.....but usually things end up in a firefight. So now you with your gun respond to the scene and see TWO shooters. Who do you shoot at? Some more guys come up with their guns firing at every threat they see....... Then finally the police arrive to an all out battle....what the BLEEP do they do? Remember the freedoms the Iraqis have right now is an NRA wet dream.

My fellow soul, just as shaken and horrified as I, The police were carrying guns. I believe they must have already been on campus after the first shooting at the dorm. The way we know it, the mass-killing happened afterwards, in a class. In the 2 hour window, cops were there, looking for the shooter. More guns in untrained hands of kids would have: 1. led to more casualties among innocent bystenders caught in the fire; 2. confused Police as to who is the SHOOTER; *** 4. wounded the shooter and angered him into killing even more; 5. killed the shooter. As you can see, there's no way to predict the outcome, with so many variables.

Why do you assume that concealed weapons license holders are untrained? In my personal experience, that is simply not the case. I know many people with licenses and they all practice regularly. I typically spend 3 to 4 hours a month practicing at the range. Are you going to assume that I am incompetent because I don't wear a badge?

Why do you assume that only untrained shooters miss?

How about the police would say freeze the law biding would the creep would not. If the police shot before that he should not be a cop.Chances are with the time frame from start to when the police arrived the shooting would have been done.

Quote: "More guns in untrained hands of kids would have: 1. led to more casualties among innocent bystenders caught in the fire; 2. confused Police as to who is the SHOOTER; *** 4. wounded the shooter and angered him into killing even more; 5. killed the shooter." No one should be suggesting giving out guns to untrained children. Any gun owner should have completed some form of gun training, that's just common sense. 1. Innocent bystanders already were casualties. There's no reason to believe that more people would have been injured if someone would have fired back when the shooting started. If the gunman had been busy trying to not get shot himself, maybe the victims wouldn't all have 3 or more gunshots each, and maybe he wouldn't have had the time to massacre a classroom of students with no way out. 2. It's better for police to easily identify the shooter after all the victims are already dead, right? I'm guessing the shooter would have been easily identified had he been alive when police alive after he started shooting at the cops. Sure, no one wants a Wild West scenerio, but unless you can provide armed guards on every floor of every building on campus how else can anyone protect themselves against people who are intent on murder? 4. You can't really believe that angering the guy would have made things worse, right? Doctors described his shooting spree as "barbaric" for good reason. He was knew exactly what he was doing when he shot those students one after another. He had no fear of anyone stopping him, because he was the only one with guns. Making this guy angry wouldn't have raised the death toll from this shooter. 5. It would have given more of the students a chance. Isn't that what the right to bear arms is really supposed to be about; the ability to defend oneself? I mean, is it really okay to send 18 year old American kids over to Iraq to fight and we can't even let 18 year old American's defend themselves at home? Remember that these are the same untrained hands as you call it that may be defending this country. They deserve the right to be able to defend themselves here too.

What if some dipstick with a concealed weapon only added to the body count by creating a deadly, pointless crossfire? How come you gun nuts never think of that possibility in your crackpot scenarios? Get a clue.

you mean the type of crossfire the police had with him anyway? why don't you ever think of that? The police are hiding behind bushes saving their rear. A ccw licensed holder is in the situation and can respond with deadly accuracy. bystanders know to get down in a crossfire. It has been engrained into their skill by hollywood since birth. The shooter would not have been able to kill so many students. You are acting as if the Jews would have caused more deaths if they didn't give up their firearms to the Nazis and marched on trains to the camps. What nonsense...

Self Defense whats wrong with that? Criminals always pick on the weak! I do agree if some students packed they could of eliminated that idiot! My son is a collage student and has exellent shooting skills.He has learned to respect weapons.He cannot carry but I would trust him to defend himself if the Govt allowed him to/

And they could have also shot more innocent people in crossfire. Do you really think having a bunch of college kids walking around with guns would solve anything?? This isn't the wild west. How many times do you hear about college fights at bars, clubs, parties, etc... thur-sat nights? Constantly. So now instead of worry about a potential fist fight over a girl, we have two guys with guns who lose their control for 1 second.... and now people end up dead rather than just having a bloody nose. Yeah... let's have all students carry guns in case the very rare situation arises where someone goes balistic on campus. It's really worth it isn't it? Come on people.. wake up. I would never allow my son to go to a college where I knew the students were packing heat. That is just an "accident" or "tragedy" waiting to happen.

How come in the hands of an untrained criminal, a gun is a deadly tool which will allow him to execute masses of people with amazing accuracy, but in the hands of a trained licensed concealed carrier, it's utterly useless?