Gun control gets it wrong

Thus, despite being "heavily fortified," Fort Hood had an unarmed population living under a deadly combination of a false sense of security and no means of self-defense. While soldiers should never have to worry about attacks from one of their own, forcing them to be unarmed makes them more vulnerable to traitors and saboteurs than the embattled enemy. Maj. Hasan knew this, and to maximize his evil plot he did not attack the armed MPs – he attacked dozens of soldiers and officers at the Soldier Readiness Center who he knew would be unarmed. And they were unarmed precisely because of the "gun-control" measures at Fort Hood. Our college campuses suffer from the same deadly "gun-control" policies. On April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech student Seung-Hui Cho, armed with a pair of handguns, massacred 32 fellow students and faculty and injured 25. Even then, the anti-gun fanatics rose up and condemned the guns. But Virginia Tech's campus, like most colleges, was a so-called "gun-free zone" where students and faculty were not permitted to carry weapons. This made people on Virginia Tech's campus, like those on Fort Hood, an easy target for a lone, suicidal, gun-wielding murderer. WND

Forgive me while I bash my head against a wall. This guy knew exactly where to go in order to kill the most people possible. He went straight for the spot where the fewest people would have the tools to stop him. He went to a crowded room where many unarmed people would be standing in line.

There is an analogy in this article that says blaming guns for this past attack is like blaming planes for September eleventh. I like that analogy.