I don't think more guns helps matters much, in fact it's quite silly considering how often a tragic event of this magnitude really happens.
Do you really want non-police put in a situation where they have to determine not just if their own life is in danger, but if they need to use lethal force because of danger to another?
What happens when it's a violent person with a knife or other dangerous item? What are the legal ramifications to those attempting to do good, only to have made a poor decision to use lethal force and potentially not have the law on their side?
It's not reasonable to make policy based on the isolated incident.
As an aside...why anyone would carry on campus just
because they could is beyond me...assuming you're not attending the U of Kabul
I'm certainly not anti-gun, but I do think this whole self defence mantra is part political rhetoric or perhaps somtimes just fantasy. Yes, it certainly does happen but not enough to justify broader policy.
In the VT incident the problems appear to be the ease at which Cho was able to buy weapons after the system knew he was a wacko, and the inability of the system to find him and stop the violence once it started.
I'm not sure there's any easy fix to all of this. But sometimes these things just happen.
-spence