I work with some very technically-oriented, smart people. Degreed professionals, all 30-60 yrs old. Also, it's no secret that I'm a competitive shooter, I have pictures of myself at Camp Perry and some targets mounted on my wall. Today as I was working, a younger co-worker came up to my office and told me about the VT shooting.
"Something's happening at Virginia Tech," he said, then he hummed and hawed as I opened a new site and began reading.
Then started into the whole Gun Control is the answer/Too many handguns/It's the availability of guns that causes this to happen! spiel.
In my most patient tone (really, I have one

) , I asked him what might have happened if just one of the intended victims, or even a single passerby, was armed. Would -- no could -- that have changed things? Declaring a school or campus a "Gun-Free zone" only guarantees that the homicidal maniac on a rampage doesn't have to worry about return fire.
That actually seemed to stop him for a second, then he recovered with "Well, I guess that's what the NRA wants you to say, isn't it."
"It's a terrible tragedy, Dave, no doubt. Maybe that would have made the difference."
At least he listened, I think.

What would you have said?