More on VT Aftermath

A couple of good columns in today's Herald that caught my attention:

- Cal Thomas wonders "what if" one student had been armed at Virginia Tech.

Sounds crazy, you say? Am I advocating that everyone be armed and our college campuses be turned into potential shooting galleries? No. In this instance, one armed student, or professor, or campus police officer stationed in the building might have been enough. Self-defense is an ancient tradition, but these students never had a chance to defend themselves. They were easy targets for a deranged man who then turned his gun on himself. Wouldn't it have been preferable if someone had stopped him before he could murder anyone?

This is the flip side of the gun-control argument. Deterrence and self-defense can work better than fruitless attempts at preempting evil intent. Let's say that stronger gun laws had made it more difficult for the shooter to purchase a gun. Instead, he might have easily acquired a bomb and blown himself and the others up, as is frequently done in the Middle East. Would there then have been calls for more bomb control?

- Susan Estrich says no.

Everyone will find someone to blame. Most people will find more than one person or thing. The person who is obviously most to blame is dead, leaving us to search for other scapegoats. The lawyers will find a way to sue. The screamers will have much to say.