&gt; <i>I see you were saying that if we have armed citizens, the offenders will only use methods that don&#x27;t get them shot, so bombings and other &quot;assailant not present&quot; offensives.</i><p>I was saying that if we have armed citizens, the offenders will only use methods that don&#x27;t get them shot <i>before they strike</i>. So suicide bombings are on the table. Compare with this attack, where the assailants must have known they&#x27;re not walking out of that one alive.<p>&gt; <i>I just want people to have the option to defend themselves if they choose.</i><p>The core question here is - defend <i>from what</i>? Guns won&#x27;t help you defend from a terrorist attack anymore than they can help you defend from an asteroid strike. Since we don&#x27;t use extinction of dinosaurs as a pro-gun argument, we shouldn&#x27;t use terrorist attacks either. Note that I&#x27;m not supporting pro- or anti-gun stance here, I only refuse to accept invalid arguments - from either side.