"These four dead people are the victims of senseless gun violence. If that Deputy had not had a gun, none of this would have happened" Obviously it is the violent gun's fault, not the fault of a very violent and, possibly, deranged man. He was being tried for rape, itself an indicator of his antisocial violence. Maybe if the deputy hadn't been allowed to be armed this man would have been properly restrained. However, I see nothing in the anti-gun argument that prevents the senseless beating of the deputy resulting in turning this man loose to wreak havoc.
No sacasm can be so broad that somebody at FR will not take you seriously...