What is interesting about the logic of banning all in order to prevent harm from a few is that it is an inversion of the logic used to justify availability of weapons, in spite of the constant mass shootings by mostly white males of christian origin. It's always puzzling to see an embrace of two arguments which are diametrically opposed, and which require accepting or rejecting the same basic logic. That just reeks of having a hidden motive which one is just veiling to make more palatable. What's interesting is, if one were to remove the weapons from the situation, you''d have removed the ability of both the muslim *and* the christian terrorists to go on mass shooting sprees. That's what keeps the inverse argument from being a dichotomy.