Banning all Muslims vs. Banning all guns: an examination
I use the phrase "banning all guns" for balance in this examination, obviously real gun control would not ban all guns.
So let's proceed.
Some say the key to stopping mass killings is to ban all Muslims entry to the country.
Others say the key to stopping mass killings is to ban guns.
Let's quickly look at the roles each of these two variables play in mass killings.
All mass killings require both a combination of a perpetrator and a weapon to be carried out.
Perpetrator = In some mass killings in the United States, the perpetrator(s) has been Muslim, but not all mass killings. Some mass killings have had non-Muslim perpetrators.
Weapon = In virtually all mass killings in the United States the weapon used has been a firearm. Some contend other weapons can be used, and to a limited extent, things like hatchets and knives make up a small percentage of mass killing weapons. But they tend not to be as efficient as firearms and therefore are usually serve as a second choice. An example of an attempt at a mass killing using a knife outside of the United States involves a knife-wielding perpetrator in China who stabbed 20 school children of which all survived.
Note: (9/11 while it created mass casualties and didn't involve forearms, is not as common an occurrence as mass killing by firearm and therefore does not constitute an ongoing problem. )
So based on the above, if we look for the most common denominator to decide which one we want to ban to control mass killings, the most obvious answer is guns. It's guns and not Muslims because guns are the most common denominator involved in mass killings, not Muslims. It's not Muslims because we know that in some cases the perpetrator is non-Muslim. But the weapon is seldom non-gun.
The most common denominator in mass killings is guns because we know in most cases of mass killings a gun is used as a weapon but a Muslim is not always the perpetrator.
So wouldn't you want to ban the most common denominator in mass killings?
Now some will object to banning guns by saying criminals intent on killing lots of people won't care about guns laws and get guns anyway.
However, if guns were made illegal for civilians (specifically assault weapons) potential mass killers would first have to commit a crime to obtain a gun to use in a mass killing. It follows that if guns were illegal a potential perpetrator of a mass killing could be caught in the act of trying to obtain an illegal firearm before a mass killing and thus be thwarted in performing that future mass killing.
But with guns legal, a potential mass killer criminal can obtain a gun legally without committing a crime to obtain that firearm and proceed to perpetrate a mass killing.
At least with guns illegal criminals would have perform that extra criminal act of obtaining an illegal firearm before they commit a mass killing. Criminals would have to risk getting caught first in obtaining an illegal firearm before a mass killing could occur. And that one crime, if detected, could be enough to deter a mass killing
= new reply since forum marked as read
The traditional counter-argument that criminals will just obtain the weapons they want illegally has a weakness.
If criminals will just obtain the more effective killing weapons illegally, why not get a tank? Why not get a fully automatic machine gun?
It seems to me, if I'm a criminal mass killer that can't be stopped by laws, those are the weapons I would be using.
Those are are the more effective weapons and yet we see so few criminal mass killers using them.
I wonder why.
Oh that's right, they're illegal. 
... of obtaining heroin deters addicts from the illegal act of using heroin.
...my AR15's. Glad you are ok with that 
