I agree with everyone that training is important but as for requiring training let me pose this question:
If you were in the VT classroom on that tragic day, and we can freeze time when the shooter entered that classroom and you could decide at that moment to keep everyone unarmed or to have one of the students who has never fired a gun to suddenly have a gun in their hand, which would you choose?.
Hind sight is 20/20 and its hard to say. But the point is plenty of people who are not trained with a firearm stop violent crimes from happening every year and day for that matter.
To answer your question, if you could freeze time and go back I would say "Put the gun in his Untrained hand"
33 dead people vs ___<-insert # here.
Maybe the individual would have got a lucky shot and killed Cho
Maybe the individual would have shot himself in the hand
Maybe Cho would have shot him first and the same thing would have happened.
Maybe just by producing it Cho would have gone " O Crap somebody is actually Fighting back I need to NOT go into this classroom, because I plan on murdering as many as I can and this guy in the class is somewhat disrupting my plan"
Maybe Cho would have shot him and maybe that Corp of Keydets freshman who maybe knew how to shoot would have picked up the gun and shot CHO.
Maybe the indivual would have shot another student do to his lack of training.
Maybe the individual would have shot ___ <--insert number of classmates here due to his lack of training.
Maybe Maybe the Maybe's some of them are positive outcomes for the good guys and some are negatives for the good guys.
fact: CHO SLAUGHTER that class BECAUSE they were unable to defend themselves.
fact: the students in that class had no MEANS to determine the end or for that matter their own destiny.
I think its the lesser of two evils, but at least you have a CHOICE to Die STANDING UP.
Remember, we have VERY strict laws against shooting that are already on the books. With very limited exceptions, you are not allowed to shoot someone. If you do, you have committed homicide. Then you have to show that it was justified.
I like what the guy in in Black Hawk Down said. "Its just WAR
Politics, and Laws go right out the window, as soon as that first shot snaps over your head"-or something like that.
When dealing with this situation.
If I was in that class unarmed. I would hope (cause Nobody can predict what your going to due in that situation) that I would be screaming as loud as I could throwing pencils, erasers, books, tampons, chapsticks, purses, apples, wallets, keys, desks, paper up in the air( try to hit a siloute when somebody throws a stack of paper in the air and your running around screaming) , running around screaming like a wild chicken that just had its head chopped off." I'm not a racist but I would try and scream every deragatory thing at the guy. JUST DOING SOMETHING. At this point I dont' care If i'm going to ethics class for my actions or going to jail for yelling public obscenities in a college classroom, or Flinging poo at the guy. I just care about the current situations.
I don't understand why some situations have code words to rally the troops. If there is a FIRE. "HELP FIRE."
Somebody's hurt and the situation just needs EMS. "Somebody DIAL 911"
Flight 93-"LETS ROLE" Rallied a whole plane of strangers who knew they were headed for the deaths.
WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!!!!
So what we are talking about is whether to require training simply to CARRY a gun.
If I am walking down the street and a couple of punks jump me and one pulls a gun and I disarm him, shouldn't I be allowed to use his gun to shoot him in my defense whether I'm trained or not? If so, what's the difference between grabbing his gun and having my own available?
Anytime you let the government set the rules for an activity, you have just implied that they have the RIGHT to set rules, including the right to effectly ban that activity. You can't have it both ways.