Jews’ anger at Ben Carson’s comments needs explaining

Dennis Prager writes:

Why all the Jewish anger over Dr. Ben Carson’s comments on guns, Jews and the Holocaust?
Apparently, some, perhaps many, American Jews believe it would have been worthless, or, as Tom Tugend argued in the Jewish Journal, would have made things worse, for European Jews to have owned guns during the Holocaust.
I do not share this view. But I respect the fact that good people might differ on this issue.
What I do not understand is the anger many American Jews have directed at Carson for saying that it would have been a good thing if Jews had guns during the Holocaust. Here is the Republican presidential hopeful’s statement: “The likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed.”
Carson was referring to the Jews of Europe, and while there are good arguments on both sides, it seems to me that common sense alone suggests widespread gun ownership among European Jews would have been a good thing.
Solely for the sake of argument, let’s imagine that one in four Polish Jews had a weapon. Given that 90 percent of Poland’s Jews were murdered, it seems odd at the very least to argue that widespread gun ownership among Poland’s Jews would have made things worse.
What is worse than being shipped in horrific cattle cars, then tortured at a concentration or death camp and finally gassed? Likewise, what is a worse fate than digging a mass grave for yourself, your family and your community, being stripped naked and watching your loved ones shot to death or buried alive by one of the Nazi mobile killing units, the Einsatzgruppen?
Obviously, nothing is worse. So how could gun ownership among Poland’s Jews have made things worse?