I didnt read the whole thing. I didnt need to read but a few paragraphs (if that much) to see where it was going. Historically, each time a state has gone to "shall issue" for carry permits the hand wringers have cried that the streets will run red with blood, and people are too emotional to be trusted not to shoot each other over minor altercations, etc, ad nauseam, yet this proves not to be the case. The same thing was predicted when the 1994 "assault weapon" ban sunsetted in 2004.
Virginia Tech, like most all other campuses, was a gun free zone but I guess Seung-Hui Cho just didnt see the signs of something.
So what we need to ask ourselves about the VT incident is this:
Question: Would Seung-Hui Cho still have carried out his massacre had the campus not been a gun free zone?
Answer: Maybe or maybe not, but as since his intended target was a soft target it stacked the odds in his favor.
Question: If he had, might he been stopped before his body count reached 32 (plus 17 wounded)?
Answer: Maybe or maybe not, but with some of the students and faculty having the capability to neutralize him on the spot the chances are not in his favor.
Take those two questions and their and copy & paste to a similar scenario on any other campus in the US.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson