The title is a pretty good description of the issue. There was a more or less similar thread on the Cyberboard about a year ago, and I did a fair amount of research. The US has always been, shall we say, more rambunctious than Britain. Comparing the stats of London and New York going back two centuries, New York murders have always been multiples of London. This continued even when firearms in both cities were common in the late 19th century.

Most Europeans have a difficult time understanding the American gun culture, and how it is possible that more guns in citizens' hands can possibly equal less crime, yet it is so. I refer to the concealed carry laws. It varies from place to place, but when concealed carry laws are put into effect, it either does not affect the crime rate, or there is a decrease. Why? Because, while the regulations aren't the same in every state, it is generally quite tough to get a concealed carry permit. The background check is the first step, to make sure you are a law-abiding citizen -- criminals don't apply for concealed carry permits. After that, you have to take classes on gun law and gun handling and safety, demonstrating your ability on the range. Then, in most cases (maybe in all cases), the owner must pass a test. It isn't free, either. You have to be motivated, in other words, and the crime rate for concealed carry guns is extremely low -- virtually nonexistent.

Criminals hate concealed carry laws because that little 100 lbs. woman might just be packing a .45. Miss America 1944, Venus Ramey, an 82 year-old woman, recently shot out the tires of a truck trying to make off with some of her goods on her farm with her .38, then flagged down a car and had them call 911. It's positively dangerous to try to break into a house over here. It's why break-ins and muggings are so low in the US, and, even with the high murder rate (compared to the UK, although not to all European countries, by any means) why overall violent crime is less than the UK, France, Belgium, and most of the world.

So, could a couple of people with concealed carry weapons in those engineering classes have stopped Cho? I'd say the odds were pretty good. It certainly wouldn't be the first time armed citizens have stopped crimes in progress. Cho went methodically around each room, up and down the rows, shooting each person, then repeating when he saw survivors. Those who didn't have the chance to jump out the windows mainly just ducked behind their desks or tried to cover up. I don't accuse the students of cowardice. Cho had two guns, and it is possible, depending on the weapon, to reload a semi-automatic pistol singlehandedly within a couple of seconds. The recorded sounds over the cell phone showed that he continued a steady, fairly rapid cadence from both the Walther P22 and the Glock 9mm (they make different noises: the .22 is like a "crack!" and the 9mm is more like a "boom!"). As far as I know, he only took a break when he went between rooms. Rushing the man would have been suicide; it would have taken the equivalent of a few Medal of Honor winners all leaping at him at the same time to take him out.

Under those conditions, however, I could easily see an armed and well-trained man or woman (as CC people generally are) removing him while he was concentrating on doing his grisly work in some other row, or especially, if he tried to break into the classroom. It wouldn't have stopped all the murders, but the body count would have likely would have been much less, and, lest we forget, Cho knew that no one was carrying a firearm. Would he have tried it at all if he thought people would be shooting back? Hmm. He was insane, so who knows, but he didn't "snap." Like the Columbine killers, he planned carefully, and mass murderers have historically loved gun-free zones like post offices, office buildings, and schools.

Anyway, Cho, as horrible as he was, is rather the exception to the rule. Thirty-two murders, while unprecedented as a mass shooting in US history, is still a drop in the murder bucket, comparatively speaking, in a country of 300 million. Murder and crime rates are cultural phenomenon to a far greater degree than any single incident, as shown by the aforementioned historical murder rate differences between the US and the UK at a time when weapons were common in both countries, and varies widely, even by internal cultures, not only within the US, but also the UK, and all around the world.

The US isn't about to change the 2nd Amendment. Neither the Repubs, nor the Dems (although the Dems would like to) are willing to bring the matter up because it would cost them votes. The right to bear arms, despite the wishful thinking of some on the left, was clearly shown in the Federalist Papers, writings by Madison, Jefferson, the Militia Act of 1792 (?), and lately reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, to be an individual right. Not commonly understood in Europe, it was not only intended for personal self-protection, but as a restriction on the government itself, a fail-safe in case the government betrayed the people and needed to be overthrown. Abolishing the 2nd Amendment would be disastrous; if only criminals had guns, they could, and would, go crazy. 20% of all homicides in the US occur in 6% of the population -- New York, Detroit, Chicago, and Washington DC, and all of those cities have a virtual prohibition on handguns.

I personally feel that crime has to do with personal responsibility, integrity, honor, a fair legal system, a decent standard set of ethics, a sense of shame -- and having the same firepower the criminals do sure helps prevent it!

Just my opinion, but political correctness, moral equivalence, and multiculturalism have ruined honest debate and the formerly strong cultural values in the Western world, making intractable divisions where, before, compromise was possible, cheapening life, encouraging corruption, and weakening the definitions of right and wrong.

The solution? The world needs an enema. :(

Aardvark

"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."

Mahatma Gandhi