I grew up in the rural south and am accustomed to being around people who are armed at all times. It sure doesn't bother me. I'm not against people arming themselves in the least. Me, I don't think I'd want a handgun for myself, but I don't have any issues whatsoever with people who are comfy with the notion of carrying a weapon on their persons, or keeping weapons in their homes or cars, doing so.
What I meant to say, and I phrased it badly because I'm dead on my feet tired, is that I believe that in the sniper cases, you could have every person within 400 yards of the shootings carrying weapons and that it probably wouldn't do any good. Decent snipers - and this guy goes well beyond decent - shoot once, shoot to kill and are very hard to find. I think there are sufficient people carrying concealed weapons in the areas of the Virginia shootings that if an armed citizen were going to do any good against the sniper, s/he already would have. Even the state trooper wasn't able to get the sniper, and he surely had a gun.
I think that concealed carry permits and the willingness of the people to use that right may successfully deter certain types of crime, robberies and the like, but I really don't think there's much an armed private citizen can do to the sniper. At least not until he gets greedier and sloppier. As long as he's firing a single shot and either leaving the scene or lying low, I don't think anyone's going to have a chance to get a shot at him.
I honestly wasn't trying to pick a fight with you or anyone here who is more actively pro-gun than I am. I just don't feel that an armed citizenry is particularly helpful under these circumstances. I do, however, reserve the right to be wrong. ; )