This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Air Force sexual assault prevention chief arrested for groping woman,...

#31Jayjs20Posted 5/7/2013 1:35:00 PM(edited)
It's not something that applies to other scenarios - it's dissimilar to your driving analogy, because cars aren't primarily designed to be used to kill people, and if someone tries to kill you with a car, it's really not feasible to try to defend yourself by killing them with a car.

I'm saying that the law only stops people who don't intend to commit a criminal act with their firearms from carrying them, because someone who plans to shoot up their workplace really isn't going to consider, "gee, carrying a loaded firearm in public is against the law!"

Saying "nobody can carry a gun" is just making the 99% of people who wouldn't use a gun for a criminal purpose unable to defend themselves against the minority that would - and will flagrantly violate laws against the possession of firearms anyways.


You're being disingenuous because you go from having regulations to saying 'no one can have a gun' as if they're the same thing.

Originally, we're talking about the military having, what the gun nuts would call, unreasonably high accountability for their ammo. You enter by sarcastically referencing Nidal Malik Hasan. I counter by questioning why you would bring that up, and that's where we have seemed to stall.

Now, without falling back into your persecution complex as you've done in your response to me(try really hard, please), could you answer this question for me. Do you believe the military should not have accountability of its ammo? You seem to imply that these regulations shouldn't be implemented because it doesn't stop all instances of mis-use by citing one specific instance.
---
http://www.satirealley.com/images/Anime/anigif3.gif