Reasonable people can disagree on contentious issues, but this statement from the Brady Campaign wantonly disregards reality:
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.
The “heavily fortified army base” was, ironically, a gun-free zone. It’s pretty unambiguous how those soldiers would have reacted if armed — and their immediate response would have ended Hasan’s shooting spree long before he killed 13 and wounded 30.
Jacob Sullum notes the folly of universal disarmament:
The first people with guns to confront Hasan, two local police officers, were the ones who put a stop to his rampage. And while Sgt. Kim Munley and Sgt. Mark Todd acted heroically, they did not arrive on the scene until a crucial 10 minutes or so had elapsed and Hasan had fired more than 100 rounds.If someone else at the processing center had a gun when Hasan started shooting, it seems likely that fewer people would have been killed or injured. Furthermore, the knowledge that some of his victims would be armed might have led him to choose a different, softer target in order to maximize the impact of his attack.
There would have been plenty of targets to choose from: any of the locations in Texas, including public schools, universities, and shopping malls, that advertise their prohibition of gun possession. The problem is that crazed killers tend not to follow such rules.