Via Glenn Reynolds (who sees a tipoff in the “candlelight vigils”), Rand Simberg skewers one of the most idiotic arguments I have yet heard against armed self defense.
Anti-gun activists have found a convenient poster boy for their cause — one John Woods, described as “a student at Virginia Tech when his girlfriend and several other people he knew there were gunned down.” Woods says he thought about getting a gun, then rejected the idea, for reasons I find incomprehensible:

There were times when Woods thought that maybe he should get a gun.
“Then I learned pretty fast that wouldn’t solve anything,” said Woods, who is now a graduate student at UT. “The idea that somebody could stop a school shooting with a gun is impossible. It’s reactive, not preventative.”
Today, Woods is among the leaders in a fight against bills in the Texas Legislature that would allow licensed concealed gun carriers to take their weapons to school.

If the “idea” that somebody could stop a school shooting with a gun is impossible, then what could possibly explain the fact that shootings stop when the gunman is finally shot?
reactive, not preventative?
Whatever can he mean? That it is wrong to react? Are the two mutually exclusive? Isn’t it self-apparent that a reaction (say, shooting the shooter) can also be preventative? And is not what he would call “prevention” (in the form of gun control) also reactive in nature?
Why isn’t it “reactive” to fight against bills that would allow concealed carry?
I’m having trouble understanding how this false dichotomy assists anyone’s understanding in any way.
Perhaps I’m being reactive, though.
Were I more preventative, I’d go attend a candlelight vigil.