Would Gun Law have changed the outcome of VT Shootings?

VT does not allow students to carry guns on campus. If this was not the law would this have changed the outcome. I feel it might not because it is based on theory. Theoretically it could have, but theoretically it could have been not different. Even if it was allowed how many would bring them to the classroom. If they did what guarantee would it be that they would be in the same building as the shooter?
Answer:
I totally agrees with you. In theory everything work but reality is far from theory. Underage drinking is illegal but look at the statistic of underage drinking %26 cause of car accident %26 deaths. Marijuana is illegal but people still get their hands on those too.......

---

I would rather have the chance to defend myself than not. The police stood outside while he was still shooting, so what were the options.

---

It would have changed the outcome because there would have been anarchy and more killing. Being a professor myself, the idea that my students having guns concealed on their body is frightening. We need more gun control and we need to make it more difficult, not easier, for people to get guns.

---

If he had of been convicted of stalking in 2005 when he was harrassing those women, he would have not have passed the background check, and walked out of the gun store empty handed. Of coarse he still could have got guns on the black market.

---

if the other kids had been aloud to have guns then i think there wouldnt have been so many that need to be buried now. it only takes one shot to stop the mad man and a lot of kids would still be with their families now

---

The easiest answer is to look at what was previously the worst campus shooting - UT and Charles Whitman.


In that case armed citizens retrieved their firearms and returned fire on the tower, preventing Whitman from being able to kill more, and allowing others to retrieve injured people and get them to safety.

When the police arrived, they organized WITH the civilians, and the first person to actually go up onto the platform where Whitman was shooting from was actually a civilian - not a police officer.

People usually do not get a permit if they do not intend to use it. If there had only been one or two in the building that had carried their firearms, that would probably have been sufficient, as the shooters are usually not expecting to encounter anyone armed. Even if, as in the Whitman case, they could have scared him and made him take cover to keep from getting shot, MANY of those lives would have been saved.

With the degree of faculty directed violence, a few of the professors in that building may have been armed. And many students might of as well - does VT have a criminology department? Any of those students, particularly older ones, work as security guards elsewhere? there are many possibilities.


The point isn't what if it was legal and no one happened to have one. The point is that if law abiding citizens could have carried there, there is a good chance that some one might have been able to stop this person, as is, there was **NO** chance. I'll take some chance over no chance anyday - especially when my life is on teh line.

---

I know there was a vice principle in Florida (don't know what school) who had a permit to carry a gun. A student came into the school and started shooting. The VP ran to his car and retrieved his gun and found the shooter and shot him. Think of all the countless lives he saved!

---

Of course the outocome would have been different.
There's stories all the time of a person's ability to defend themself IF they had their own firearm. There's NO guarantees of anything but they would have had a better chance.

---

The boy in question had a history of stalking, odd behavior and scaring the faculty/students.

Gun laws would not have changed the outcome. Paying attention (and taking action when someone is exhibiting signs of dangerous antisocial behavior) would have.