● In order for someone to have possessed a firearm legally, he or she would need to have acquired a concealed carry permit (never mind, for the moment, that there was a university ban on weapons possession in place as well).
● An investigation reveals that none of the 51 people who were shot that day had a permit to carry a concealed handgun.
● Therefore the right to have a gun on campus would have made no difference.
From "Activists debate campus gun laws," in this morning's Roanoke Times:
Virginia Tech has a complete ban on guns. A state permit would have been useless. But because nobody had a permit, the absense of the ban would have made no difference. Hello?
The argument, often made since April 16, is simple: Fight gunfire with gunfire.
Had Virginia Tech allowed its students and staff to have guns on campus, the argument goes, maybe an armed hero would have stopped Seung-Hui Cho's shooting rampage before more than 50 people were killed or injured three weeks ago.
But under most theories, the hero would have needed a permit to carry a concealed handgun.
None of the 51 people identified to date as being killed or injured in the shooting rampage had such a permit in Virginia, according to a search by The Roanoke Times of online court records.
"Even had the Virginia Tech policy been different, no one would have been there to save the day," said Brian Siebel, a senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Genius: They couldn't so they didn't. The fact that they couldn't and therefore didn't doesn't argue that they shouldn't. Or now wouldn't.
It simply speaks to the fact that 51 people obeyed the law and were completely defenseless. One deranged sociopath disobeyed the law, in fact a myriad of laws, and shot those same 51 people. Any inferences made that stray beyond those facts are worthless.