I had a new thought on it, though, and decided to share. I never want to be a victim of a mass casualty atrocity, but if I had to choose one, I'd choose a shooting. Why? Because you can not shoot back to stop a bomb like the ones used in the 1927 Bath School Disaster in Michigan.
Some people have wondered why the recent Clackamas Oregon mall shooting wasn't worse. The guy was armed for boar, so he should have killed more people. It appears as though the very presence of potential opposition, without any shots ever being fired by a CCW holder, may have ended the atrocity.
We don't want crazy people to start making bombs. If I were forced to make a choice, I'd rather face a gun and I'd rather face it armed so I can help save my life and the lives of innocents around me.
More bans won't stop people who already choose to obtain firearms (most often illegally) and then use them in a manner that is positively illegal. Anyone who derives any sense of security from the idea of government taking away from lawful people the right and tools to defend themselves and others has some serious thinking to do on the topic.