I suppose as a confessed firearms owner, and a witness to a similar incident to VT about 20 years ago, I should make some comment on the tragedy at Virginia Tech.

I'll be up front with you: I personally believe handguns and military-style firearms should be banned and their ownership made illegal. The easy availablity of firearms in the US is the primary reason for our gun violence. Full stop. Any dispute of this fact is irresponsible and bordering on malicious, in my opinion. There is no conceivable need for the general population to own these things unless they wear the uniform and are under the discipline and control of a "well-regulated militia". I do support the public ownership of sporting arms, or primarily defensive and hard-to-conceal weapons such as shotguns and rifles, although I believe these should be regulated and restricted to home use, for self-defense or sport. I do not believe private citizens should be licensed to carry concealed weapons unless they can demonstrate a need, such as the transport of valuable items, but I also believe every citizen has the right to employ deadly force to defend his own home.

I own legal but unregistered firearms, and do not have a permit to carry them, concealed or otherwise. However, I am allowed in my state to keep them at home or in my vehicles. I also reserve for myself the right to carry them into the wilderness, whether they are legal there or not. However, I do not carry my weapons into public places, and I do not support the rights of those who wish to do so. Those who feel the need to carry weapons as a matter of routine (unless their work or business makes armed self-defense a potential need) are obviously mentally unqualified to do so. Shooting a prowler or rapist in your home or someone trying to carjack you, is one thing. People who wander around expecting, perhaps even wanting, to be able to rescue someone with their gun are just an accident waiting to happen.

Statistics show that you are much more likely to have your gun stolen by a criminal than using it to stop a criminal act. But that doesn't stop me from owning firearms. Still, I trust myself, I don't trust you or expect you to trust me. I have been extensively trained in the use of firearms, and I keep my skills up with frequent practice, but I have never drawn a weapon in anger. I have no idea how I would react psychologically in such a situation, and I would rather not be tempted to use deadly force, say in a public place, against a stranger, with innocents around. I instinctively distrust the motives and character of those who actually look forward to such a moment. I reserve the right to do so to protect my home, or myself in a wilderness location, but I don't want people like that anywhere near me. I know enough about guns and the people who use them to have suspicions about their self-control. I am not making any accusations, every legitimate gun owner I've ever met is a law-abiding person, but I believe by some faced with such an unexpected and terrifying event will be tempted to either shoot prematurely, or fail to shoot at all, and escalate the situation. I count myself in that category.

Having said that, I feel most efforts to ban firearms are doomed to fail. We couldn't successfully prohibit the use of alcohol or drugs, simply banning guns will just create a new and lucrative market for contraband. The world will mobilize itself to providing weapons for the insatiable US market, and as one friend of mine put it "they can always smuggle them into the country in bales of marijuana". And it will not only be "outlaws who will have guns", even law abiding people like myself will prefer the risk of running into trouble with the law than being defenseless in a nation awash with guns and crime. The banning of handguns and military-type weapons is long overdue, and those who oppose it are in my opinion criminals, but refusing to let individuals to keep a weapon to defend their home, or a rifle for legitimate sport, is simply unworkeable and unnaceptable.