This sort of thing is going to happen again, and it seems to me that we need to accept that it is inevitable that everytime that it does, that there will be discussions about what kind of gun laws might reduce this kind of violence. Rather than denegrating those who do not understand gun ownership and taking extreme positions like advocating that teachers and students carry weapons, we should engage in the debate in a rational manner. Do you really think it is a good idea for guns to be carried to a fraternity party, or a college basketball game? It is just plain stupid to state that most people who advocate stricter gun laws are using this just for political gain. It is just possible that most of these people are just as sincere in their beliefs as we are in ours. In my opinion, we do ourselves more harm by being afraid of these discussions, and by assuming that any sort of restriction on gun buying or the types of weapons which are restricted will automatically lead to eventual gun confiscation. I think that we all realize that gun resrictions will not prevent many murders, but it is reasonable to explore the possibility that some laws could reduce some types of violence. For instance, how many people really need 12 rounds in a clip? Could a law limiting the capacity of guns reduce the fatalities and give people a chance to get away or fight back? Would national laws be better than a patchwork of state laws? Would a waiting period for handguns in Virginia have made a difference? I don't know the answer, but we are fools if we automatically suspect the motives of everybody who asks these questions.