http://mobile.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/navy-yard-shows-fallacy-of-nra-s-more-guns-solution-20130917

About the Washington Naval Yard:

The Navy Yard shooting exposes a fallacy in that argument. A military facility, the Navy Yard had plenty of good guys with weapons who were nonetheless were unable to stop Aaron Alexis, the alleged shooter, from killing a dozen innocent persons. In the coming weeks, we'll learn more about Navy Yard security and how Alexis was able to thwart it. (We'll also learn more about how he obtained his arms, but let's leave that aside for now.)

True, the Navy Yard is not a heavily armed facility. It's not like, say, walking into a military base in the U.S. let alone onto a war zone. But neither was it the kind of gun-free school zone that the NRA has described as an inviting target for crazed shooters. It was at least as heavily armed as we can expect any elementary school could ever be under the National School Shield program. And yet, carnage.

You note it's "not heavily armed."

So, let us consider: Should we disarm the few guards they have, or have more guards? Which is likely to stop a shooter? Please explain your answer.

"You weapon experts need to help us! We've tried nothing, and it hasn't worked, and we're all out of ideas!"

"Get more weapons, better dispersed."

"What? Are you some kind of NRA nutjob? How is more violence the answer?"

 ~~~

Before an answer can work, the person asking the question must be willing to abandon their prejudices.