[scrubcedar]

Frank Ettin stated that you had to prove: 2) he would have fixed things if he had his gun. If the situation involves a well armed gunman in body armor, in a large, dark, crowded room, with obscuring smoke and in the midst a bunch of panicking people, it would be a real tough sell to convince a judge that a marginally trained (if that) guy with his trusty J-Frame would be able to do any good.
To me this is the crux of the matter. In another situation maybe you could say they were morally responsible for banning guns and someone got killed. Not in this case. We've debated this in other threads to death. There simply wasn't a way that didn't involve divine intervention to stop this.