He makes the point that such mass killings were indeed rare in the 60's and before., and that it was only AFTER gun conrtol started becoming more prevelant that they became LESS rare.

I'd like to propose that the rise in mass killings is in fact related to the increase in unleaded gasoline. I'm sure historical timelines whould prove me right. Also, global warming is caused by the decline of piracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pchart.jpg).

Just because two things change at the same time, doesn't mean one caused the other.

Sounds like wishful thinking. Out of US shootings, Charles Whitman had the second highest body count of all time. There have been quite a few cases since then of people trying to walk around a campus shooting. The Virginia Tech shooting is the first example of this behavior resulting in a higher body count than Whitman's. Even the Columbine killers did not exceed Whitman's body count, and there were two of them.

Epilogue:

I don't think we can assume that someone would buy a gun for protection and then not learn how to use it.

I don't think we can assume that someone would buy a gun for protection and then learn how to use it. I don't think we can assume exactly what every individual is going to do with a gun after they buy it, even if for protection.

I don't know anyone, reasonably well trained (not professional) with a gun, who I would not trust in an open, concealed carry, society.

Then I suppose as long as the only people carrying concealed weapons are people you know, then I'm okay with that. Not really, though, since I have no idea how good of a judge of character you are.

Placing guns in the hands of college students would mean more suicides

I would point out that for your statement to be true, you would have to demonstrate that such hypothetical suicidal tendencies would not be satisfied by other means, absent a gun. Believe me, that they will usually find a way to off themselves if the desire is there. A gun is far from required.

And one would hope that someone who took the trouble to buy a gun legally and then get a CCP would also take the trouble to learn how to use the gun properly. I don't think we can assume that someone would buy a gun for protection and then not learn how to use it.

The extreme rarity of mass shootings means that even if the incidence in accidental or intentional shootings as a result of more people carrying guns on campus is very small, it is still likely that more shootings would be caused than would be averted.

Because nobody has ever found a reliable predictor of violence other than a past history of violence. Sure, after an event of this sort, it is usually possible to find some indication of mental instability. But such psychological indicators are actually rather common, especially in this age group, so statistically they aren't useful for prediction, even though they may provide a convenient "just so story" rationalization after the fact. Even diagnosed mental illness turns out to be a very poor predictor of violence.

How about, in addition to the laws we already have, we have a database of people who are considered "at risk" for being about to go nuts, and make it easy to add people like this dude into the database?

Then when they go and try and buy guns, they can not only be refused, this can then cause the cops to know who to pay attention to.

What's lost in this conversation is that all these students could be armed off campus, and yet VT students weren't getting into shootouts in town, where no doubt many of the drunken rage fueled madness that college 'kids' are prone to had to have occured.

Too challenging. If only there were some sort of videogame-like simulation that gave me the perspective of someone shooting large numbers of people ...

Looking at the shooter provides a chance for eye contact. Eye contact makes you the next target. Good luck.