Would gun control in America have prevented the carnage at Virginia Tech university? Probably, yes. Does that mean that tighter controls will reduce gun crime? Almost certainly, not. That, simply put, is the dilemma that confronts us each time we listen to the grim, but all too familiar, details of a school or college massacre, the planned, methodical preparations for an apparently deranged act of revenge, the shock experienced by a small and peaceful community and the soul-searching that comes in its aftermath.

An abiding memory of Dunblane in 1996 was the experience of standing among the mothers outside the school gates as they tried to find out what was happening to their children, still inside. The killer, Thomas Hamilton, had already shot himself by then, though we did not know that at the time. There were only rumours to go on, and later his name began to spread through the crowd, followed by a rising tide of anger and fear. In the course of that first day, the seeds were sown for the handgun ban that followed. It was legislation by emotion, but it was also sustained by logic: Hamilton was a member of a shooting club with access to handguns. Ban handguns and you prevent a madman like him killing children.

That much was arguable. If the Firearms (Amendment) Act, passed the following year — against the recommendations of the Cullen inquiry into the massacre — had been in force, Hamilton would not have had ready access to the guns he used that day. He might have been able to find an alternative weapon elsewhere, but in doing so he might well have drawn attention to himself; the outcome would then have been less lethal.

The same conclusion is likely to emerge from the horrific events in Virginia, where twice as many died, in which the killer walked through classrooms clutching a .22 handgun and a 9mm semi-automatic pistol, each capable of firing multiple rounds, reloaded in seconds from ammunition belts strapped around his chest. Acquiring weapons like this in the US is absurdly easy — and Virginia has some of the laxest restrictions of any state. Anyone over 18 can buy a pistol, an Uzi machinegun, or even an AK-47 assault rifle, online if they wish, with unlimited supplies of ammunition and minimal background checks.

The internet advertisements, with their homespun testimonials, are nauseating. “Sure is pretty — follow-up shots are so quick”, “The gun I reach for when things go bump in the night”, “A nice wifey little gun”, “It’s what I call an always gun because you can always wear it”, and so on.

No ordinary person should need to own weapons like that. However “inalienable” the right of American citizens to bear arms, a law that allows, and even encourages, an 18-year old to acquire an automatic pistol and then stock up with enough ammunition to kill 32 people is an insane law. Proper gun controls, with effective licensing and background checks, might have meant that the dead of Virginia Tech would be alive today. Not definitely, not beyond doubt, but quite probably.

It is delusion, however, to imagine that controls on their own will stop the rise of gun crime, and the killing that results. In the aftermath of Dunblane, the passionate arguments for an all-out ban won the day, and would be hard to reverse now. It is a complete and effective restriction that has meant that our Olympic shooters can train only outside the country. Those, like Mick North, father of one of the dead girls, who continue to campaign against handguns, have set their face against any relaxation of the law and would like to see the sport of shooting banned from the Olympics. “What do people in Britain want — medals or murder?” he asks.

It is an understandable, if obsessional, reaction, but it has little to do with the real issue. The ban has had no discernible effect on gun crime, which has continued a steady rise dating back more than 25 years and which accounted for some 4,000 injuries in the UK last year. Immediately after the ban, the number of shootings actually went up and has stayed up, though the homicide rate, which is relatively low, has been almost unaffected. In Scotland, for instance, the rate of about eight killings a year by guns has remained the same despite the Dunblane ban.

Nor does the widespread possession of arms necessarily indicate a violent society. In Switzerland, for instance, where owning a gun is mandatory and where the laws and traditions of the country require every able-bodied adult to keep a semi-automatic weapon at home, crime levels have been historically low — that is, until the horrific events of September 2001, when a deranged gunman broke into the local parliament at Zug, near Zurich, and shot dead 14 people, injuring 14 more, before shooting himself. Although the nation was, understandably, shocked, no one seriously argued that access to weapons was responsible for one inexplicable and insensate act.

Banning the use or possession of weapons may be a useful palliative, but it is not the solution. Any government that wants to be seen to be taking action after a violent event can reach for legislation, but it is likely to discover that the social malaise that led to the violence is more deep-seated and intractable. There are strong arguments to suggest that American states such as Virginia should begin copying the reforms adopted by, for instance, California, which has tightened up its gun laws; and they must move against the glorification of the gun, which encourages not only the ownership but the use of arms.

In the end, however, that will not be enough. What is needed is a wholesale shift in the national culture — and that will take rather longer than an arms ban.

Times Recommends

• A dose of defeat is just the medicine
• Protecting ourselves from Eurocreep
• After the summer of LUV, it'll still hurt