Prove that a responsible person with a firearm could have ended Seung-Hui Cho's deadly rampage thus saving countless lives?

Easy, 6-step process:

1. Unholster your weapon, disengage safety.
2. Aim muzzle at violent perpetrator's center mass.
3. Insure that there are no potential collateral targets within range.
4. Gently squeeze trigger, propelling high-velocity projectile into perpetrator.
5. Repeat until perpetrator stops twitching.
6. Call 911, report your location, render any possible aid to victims.

Oh, step 7, forgot -- prepare yourself for the fury of the gun grabbers who won't care that you saved a dozen people from certain death.

Oh, step 8, forgot -- get a lawyer. Welcome to America.

I guess I misread your post.

They get proper training. Do all individuals who purchase firearms subject to training and safety procedures?

__________________
In my spare time I build furniture, then have a discussion about where to place it in a room.

No problem. Though I am a fervent supporter of free speech and artistic expression, I think gangsta rap is not the cause, but a symptom of social decay, particularly in our urban centers. The glorification of violence and the often disgusting objectification of women is disturbing to say the least.

You'll please note that I said "in the hands of a properly-trained individual." Though the laws vary by state, all persons who legally purchase firearms (ie, the very ones you want to disarm) are required to pass rigorous criminal background checks and firearms safety exams. Those who go a step further to obtain a conceal-carry permit are generally required to undergo a certified training course and rigorous exam, not unlike the one administered to law enforcement. Criminals, OTOH (the very ones who will remain armed if you take the legal guns away), don't bother with any of those "formalities" because they are, ahem. CRIMINALS. And they will ALWAYS have guns if they want them.

{brackets mine -- added for clarity}

Can we always rely on a 'properly trained' police officer to protect us when needed?

Not unless we are Rosie O'Donnell...

If only. And what I don't understand, is that gun control should be a right-wing issue. Leftists claim to want equality (I consider myself a leftist) and yet gun control creates inequality in self-defense. Like Nancy Pelosi with her half-a-dozen armed guards that she pays for, the wealthy and powerful will simply shell out the moolah for Grade-A protection, while us middle and lower class have to use whatever we can get our hands on to defend ourselves from crazies and criminals.

Much to the wealthy gun control proponents' surprise, not everyone has millions to spend on armed guards, armored cars, and manned gates at our mansions.

__________________
"I believe that my next 100 days will be so successful, I will be able to complete them in 72 days. And on the 73rd day I will rest." -President Obama


"There is nothing I dread so much as a division of the Republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader and converting measures in opposition to each other." - John Adams

Do you want equality AND small government? Join the Democratic Freedom Caucus!

http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/

Nancy Pelosi, Rosie O'Donnell, most high-profile people have a legitimate need for private, armed security. It's just too bad they won't recognize the same for the rest of us...

I would agree, however this is not limited to gangster rap, but falls within various media outlets.


I don't want to disarm anyone. I think you missed my point. I was wondering the need for students (college) to be carry weapons to school. To own guns and have them in your home for protection is one thing, to be allowed to carry them around in public regardless of training (unless you are a cop) is another.


Maybe not, but I have been safe so far.

__________________
In my spare time I build furniture, then have a discussion about where to place it in a room.

Sure, but there is no other modern art form with such a disproportionately violent and misogynistic aesthetic as gangsta rap. I used to run a studio in Los Angeles. I did a lot of rap... some of these guys brought guns into my studio. I was told that the guns were to protect me in case someone came into the studio looking for trouble. That didn't necessarily make me feel any better.

But if the context is the Virginia Tech killing spree, having a gun at home wouldn't do you much good, would it? College students are not special, they are just another segment of society. However, they are particularly vulnerable to a nut job who wants to shoot the place up because the nut job can make a pretty safe assumption that there will be very few weapons on that campus that can be used to defend against him. Now, if we were to shift the odds a bit... maybe someone would at least have the chance to shut the guy down before he makes too big a mess.

Thankfully, most people will never be victims of violent crime. But it does happen. You wear a seatbelt when you drive to minimize the possibility that you'll be injured or killed in a wreck. In other words, you take reasonable measures to increase your safety. A firearm in the hands of a qualified individual is no different. IMHO.

I would vote for you.

__________________

You might be a liberal if................You think that consenting adults can engage freely in every activity except capitalism.
You think the answer to ANY crime, infraction, or injustice is counseling.
You use the words "right wing extremist" at least four times in any given day.
You live in constant fear that someone, somewhere, is making a profit.