Almost every person of sound mind and moral conviction abhors the events that unfolded at Virginia Tech more than two weeks ago. Some also took advantage of these tragedies and used them as fuel for a fire, which burns for social change.

Some of these changes are desperately needed, such as more basic human compassion and kindness – things the shooter failed to receive. Other called-for changes are the usual suspects in such situations, specifically regarding video games and guns. Nial Maloney tackled the former in his column on Monday, but the latter, and perhaps more prominent, issue of guns is most unnerving.

The coverage surrounding the shooting on April 16 was awash with questions of what changes, if any, needed to be made to gun control laws. The fact that Cho Seung-Hui was allowed to purchase handguns after being ordered into mental treatment was disturbing to many, even more so because that fact failed to come up on his background check. The NRA is working with Congress on a bill that would encourage much more stringent background checks and penalties to states if they fail to keep check those standards.

Many feel this is not enough, that gun use needs to be restricted even further beyond background checks.

Currently, 40 states, including Virginia, allow concealed handguns to be carried. In 2006, however, Virginia Tech solidified a ban on firearms on campus, except for police.

That ban did not stop Cho Seung-Hui from his rampage.

The fact of the matter is, no similar ban could stop any person bent on performing a similar act. The same situations could occur even in states such as Illinois that do not allow concealed handguns at all.

In concern for public safety – and not to mention the Constitution – we should consider some different gun control changes. Imagine how different the outcome at Virginia Tech would have been if just one student or professor had their own handgun present. Imagine how deterred thieves and other criminals might be from their activities if they knew that their potential victims might be carrying handguns. The opposite of these situations is what occurred at the school that Monday, when citizens who would responsibly carry a handgun were following the law by not doing so in the face of someone who disregarded the law and caused the deaths of 33 people.

If a citizen is willing to go through the time and effort of a background check and strenuous permit process, chances are, they are citizens who obey the law. Utah is the only state with specific laws that allow handguns to be carried by students on campus, and there has not been a shooting or accident to date.

What this situation comes down to is the fact that there will always be people in the world similar to Cho Seung-Hui who will perform violent acts, whether with guns, knives or any other destructive object.

While the government and gun retailers need to do their best to weed out these people as gun buyers and owners, it should also provide law-abiding citizens with the means to adequately protect themselves from others who find their way around the law.