How so? Why ban books unless you perceive them as dangerous. I've read, and even taught, banned books for most of my life. I had a rifle at 13, however, I was trained in safety and had safety stressed. What books should be banned for any young adult with whom you would trust with a gun? As far as gun ownership, the NRA has lost all credibility after it dropped gun safety and demanded a wild west approach of guns for all. Missouri is pondering a law that most law enforcement is against as it makes murder easy. If I shoot someone, my claim of self defense must be accepted as most likely, with out witnesses or video. I could murder with impunity.
Just how dangerous is a book. Some would argue pretty damn dangerous, especially one that expresses ideas with which some people don't agree.
As far as Twain being banned because of racism, that is a mistake, especially Huck Finn. Due to Twain's use of common vernacular language it is no longer appropriate for most high school students. It still needs to be studied at a higher level. Remember, it was banned, in the South originally because it shows a black man acting as a loving father figure to a white child. As the black journalist and essay writer Leonard Pitts said, "When Huck says the "n" word, he means it in the vernacular and means no disrespect. When Tom says the "n" word, he means the "n" word. Twain also hits on the hypocrisy of religion as the white church uses the Bible to say helping slaves is a sin. Thus, in a magnificent stand, Huck says he will go to hell rather than turn in his friend.
I went a bit long. Still, can you explain the false dichotomy? I suppose you might argue, guns aren't dangerous, the user is, so how is that a different argument from books? Books aren't dangerous unless the user misuses them.

@Beowulfsfriend I like your analysis. I find the claim of a false dichotomy to be fallacious, this because the proposition is not itself a dichotomy. The question is asked of the proposition because the proposition is founded on direct observation of behaviour in the USA, particularly behaviour in Republican strongholds.

@anglophone the "observation" is looking at it from a skewed lens at best, its also a generalization based in ignorance.

@Tejas And your justification for those claims is what exactly?

@anglophone to put aside many reasons just to name the most evident and personal pet peeve. You are not an American, any point of view you may have is not one from experience. So you are make opinions and assumptions based on zero personal experience and all of it through filtered information. I also would argue to say any complex scenario with only two options is a false dichotomy, and if you disagree you simply don't understand the words or are stupid. (That's an example) see how I limited your options down to two, and neither are probably correct?

@Tejas Wow, what end to end unjustified assumptions and fallacious reasoning! Thanks for the laughter. /@Beowulfsfriend

@anglophone it's not my fault logic is beyond your comprehension.

@Tejas Your inability to challenge your own assumptions and your Dunning-Kruger effect are both writ large. Enjoy your day!

I mean banning books is widely accepted if it is deemed inappropriate for children or considered racist, a few of mark twains books come to mind. How about banning of the anarchist cookbook, that one is banning information.

@Tejas I don't know where you get your information that banning books is widely accepted. I see some restrictions for the reasons you named, but hardly widely accepted banning. I don't know of ANY book banning that is widely accepted. Just because people ask to have a book banned, doesn't mean it has been.

as for the anarchist cookbook
"The Anarchist Cookbook, first published in 1971, is a book containing instructions for the manufacture of explosives, rudimentary telecommunications phreaking devices, and related weapons, as well as instructions for the home manufacture of illicit drugs, including LSD. It was written by William Powell at the apex of the counterculture era to protest against United States's involvement in the Vietnam War. Powell converted to Anglicanism in 1976 and later attempted to have the book removed from circulation. However, the copyright belonged to the publisher, who continued circulation until the company was acquired in 1991. Its legality has been questioned in several jurisdictions. "

It is for sale on line by at least 6 vendors + amazon and for download on at least 3 vendors.