There's been a lot of hand wringing on both sides of the gun control debate about whether there should be more or less gun control in light of what that sick animal did at Virginia Tech.  The argument seems to boil down to one person with a gun could have stopped this vs. the crossfire would have killed even more people.  Both arguments are moot. 

There is a simple reason why these cowardly animals choose schools, the subway and observation deck in New York City, and the like.  Think about it for just a second, as a murderer.  If you wanted to kill a lot of people with a gun, where would you go?

OK, you aren't a murder and you are stumped.  How about this?  If you want to kill 30+/- people and yourself in the Middle East, how do you do it?  With a bomb.  A bomb is harder to get than a gun in that part of the world; it's also harder to sneak around, and unlike guns, bombs go off accidentally.  So why the bomb when a guy with a gun can take out 32 people on a college campus and perhaps even survive to do it again?

Because in the Middle East, our terrorist wouldn't kill three people before he got shot.  Everyone there has a gun.  You only get one chance to pull the trigger, so it had better be a weapon that can take out multiple targets.

Schools are have made themselves a target because the lunatics are 100% certain that the only person with a gun will be them; not the students, not the instructors, not the other faculty, not even the campus police in many cases. 

If you believe the press, guns cause shooting rampages.  When is the last time you heard of a shooting rampage at a gun club?  There should be one every day if that theory held any water.

But getting back to my original thesis, neither the argument that one armed person would have been able to end the shooting rampage nor the argument that there would have been a deadly hail of crossfire are correct.  If a small number of folks on campus were armed (concealed), the SLAUGHTER WOULD HAVE NEVER STARTED.  The impotent, cowardly, insane ghoul would have never tried it.  With no way of knowing who had a gun and who didn't he may have murdered the first two then done himself in, but the rampage would have never started.

If you want to talk about laws that might have prevented this, how about the one that says you can't buy a gun if you are a confirmed psychopath?  This spineless parasite was involuntarily committed to an asylum and judged a danger to himself and society.  And the FBI isn't notified.  So he passes a federal instant background check.  How about institutionalization of crazy people?  The Dems got rid of that in the 1980's.  This guy was out in one day.

The VT newspaper headline read 32 had "fallen."  Like they just fell down, or some unknown spirit in the ether had stricken them.  These folks didn't fall.  They were massacred.  To say they fell takes the blame away from the murderer.  Where's the accountability?  Are we so PC that we can't call a murderer a murderer?

Let's also keep this senseless loss of life in perspective.  32 people were murdered in one day, and that's awful, but about 4 times that many die every day in car accidents, it's true.  We could require all kinds of extra safety measures, including cutting the speed limits in half, and wearing helmets in the car. 

And nearly 18 times that number are killed by their own mothers in the womb every single day.  You want laws to save lives, I've got an idea that will save 4000 a week.