One of the immediate after-effects of the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech has been the call for stricter gun control laws. At first blush, this would seem the appropriate and rational response to an incident in which a madman went on a shooting spree, killing dozens of his classmates. After all, if this lunatic did not have access to a weapon, perhaps the scope of the tragedy would have been less severe.

Perhaps.

As it happens, Virginia Tech was a ‘gun-free zone’ long before the monster of Virginia Tech decided to shoot down hordes of his peers.

The recent New York City pizza shop shooting, where an employee was shot 15 times in the back and two auxiliary officers responding to the scene were also shot dead, was in a ‘gun-free zone.’

The takeover of the Amish West Nickel Mines School in Pennsylvania that ended in the death of five children was in a ‘gun-free school zone.’

The attack on Columbine High School by two deranged students, which resulted in the death of 12 people and another 24 wounded, was in a ‘gun-free school zone.’

And finally, in a sickening twist of fate, Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, in order to comply with the local gun laws, removed her handgun from her purse and left it in the glove compartment before she entered Luby’s Cafeteria to have lunch with her parents. George Hennard had no such reservations. He entered the restaurant and methodically opened fire on the patrons, killing 23 people and wounding more than 20 others before shooting himself. Dr. Hupp had to watch as both her parents were killed, fully aware that, sitting in her glove compartment, was the means to stop the bloodshed.

The next time it occurs to you that more gun control laws will deter criminals bent on obtaining and using weapons, take a look at your fellow drivers. In New York state, operating an automobile while talking on a cell phone is also illegal, unless you pull over to the side of the road or have a hands-free cell phone device. Experience has shown that most drivers completely ignore this law, despite the fact that studies show that operating an automobile while talking on a cell phone is functionally equivalent to driving drunk.

If we can’t get otherwise law-abiding citizens to follow a relatively simple set of instructions governing the use of cell phones, how is it that we expect homicidal maniacs, who are clearly beyond rational thought, to abide by the various firearms regulations? Why would we expect someone intent on committing multiple murders to fret over the fact that, in order to slaughter others, they will necessarily have to violate some politically correct but otherwise impotent gun law?

Perhaps the answer in preventing further mayhem is not to regulate the tool, but instead to regulate the behavior. When a doctor advises an obese patient about their condition, she doesn’t attempt to regulate the patient’s ability to obtain a fork and knife. Instead, the doctor addresses the patient’s desire to consume too many calories. In this same fashion, perhaps we should be addressing the psychotic desire to kill others rather than the means by which that act is carried out.

As a backstop, perhaps we should also enable even the slightest among us to defend themselves against an aggressor. And what tool would most enable equality between a 220-pound enraged male with a deep psychosis and a 120-pound meek college junior looking to live through the semester? A mandatory firearms safety course and a concealed carry permit for a Glock 18 would be a good start. As Robert Heinlein once quipped, ‘An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.’

‘ Megan Donahue is a junior nursing major. She prays for eternal peace for the victims of the VT gunman.