"This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified Army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places," said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand this statement. If this violence had been caused by everyone being armed then it would make sense. There was not "more people with more guns in more places". Every soldier killed was disarmed by regulation. Someone please explain the reasoning here.
via Joe Hoffman