WRT terrorism, a gun ban is more dangerous to the victims.

[AlanM]

It's obvious to us on the pro-self defense side of the fence that NO guns prohibition laws will or would have prevented things like the Pulse massacre.
For us, the statement in the title of this thread is a no brainer.

Even if Zero could get his wish and wave a magic wand and dis-arm every civilian in the US a jihadist like the Pulse killer can score as high or higher a body count with a few dollars worth of commonly available materials.

Anyone who knows anything about national fire laws concerning exterior doors of public buildings and has a source of thin walled glass bottles (breakable) can come up with a way to have made the Pulse score close to 300 dead without ever using a firearm AND survive the event themselves.

In one sense I'm glad that due to my mobility problems I no longer visit venues with large numbers of people and I even schedule my restaurant visits to be at off peak times so I'm much less likely to be in a targeted location.

I worry about my family and friends, however.

BTW - WRT = With Respect To

[WY_Not]

It will also (hopefully) be much more dangerous to those who seek to implement and enforce said ban.

[AlanM]

It will also (hopefully) be much more dangerous to those who seek to implement and enforce said ban.

HOPEFULLY, no one would try to implement and enforce said ban but rather lynch the politicians that passed that law.
I am seriously tired of "law makers" that never act as "law removers".

[WY_Not]

Just once I'd love to see them have the courage of their convictions. If anyone is soooo gung-ho to disarm law abiding citizens then let them volunteer to be the tip of the spear that goes door to door doing so. But, they won't. They are cowards who seek to use government and other people to enforce their will on others.