|
It's impossible to tell if an armed student body would have been able to shoot back or disable the shoter. But I think the real benefit is in the POSSIBILITY of that happening. It coluld make the difference in making the shooter or potential shooter think twice before committing the crime. In other words, the rigth or ability, potential to carry arms could very serve in a preventive capacity. If the possibility exists that I (a potential shooter) could be confronted by an armed populace instead of a helpless one like the VT students, then I mjust may think twice of committing the crime. Sure it's not fool proof, but I would think the odds are better than having one armed guy having his way with everyone.
Would it it be worth it if only 1 student died instead of 33? Or how about 32? What's an acceptable loss? Cause it seems like for anti-gun people, it's ok that 33 people died as long as no one is allowed to carry guns (in theory) though criminals will always find a way to procure illegal guns. What if another student or a bunch of students were able to fight off the shooter, with only a few students being shot? Would it be ok that only 3 people died instead of 33 because students were able to carry guns? Or would you still blame the right to carry guns for 3 deaths when they prevented 30 more?
|