And now you're functionally claiming that actual evidence in support of your position cannot exist.
We're talking about the hypothetical impact of a law that doesn't exist and the exact terms of which also don't exist, that's supposed to address a relatively minor factor of an extremely rare event. Exactly what sort of data do you expect me to have or be able to find that's relevant here?
Also, I'd really like a responses to my point about the ban on armor piercing handgun ammunition, because that policy appears to be both well reason and strongly opposed to your preferred principles.
So say I am 18, I run into the school to stop the shooter because my brother is there and get shot.
Now, I have body armor because I bought it because I have seen incompetence from the police, and or because I have family who own it amd stuff.
My life is now saved because if the armor.
You are basically saying 18-21 shouldn't be allowed to have them because they can't decide to be heros and try and save someone.
I think the chance of an 18 to 20 year old owning body armor and being in a position to hear about an active shooter, don that armor and respond to the shooting before the police do and having that armor be the difference between survival and death is extremely remote, much more remote than shooter having armor that benefit him since that's actually happened.
Well, since the conversation has broadened beyond "body armor", I'll ask a question I've had for a while. That is, if the 2nd Amendment guarantees private citizens the right to keep and bear arms as a failsafe against a tyrannical government, then... why should the government have the power to regulate weapons, at all?
This is a question for the gun control thread, but the super super short answer is yes, because the 1st amendment does make libel legal.
If anything, the AP handgun round ban is a pretty clear, legally rubberstamped assumption that criminals who the average citizen may have a need to fire a handgun at usually don't wear body armor.
An assumption that is correct.
Nevermimd that @Battlegrinder has yet to show that body armor is a regular occurrence in mass shootings, instead of a rarity.
I actually did cite that, 5 shooters in the past ten years have used, out of.....what, like 15 in total?
But that's because this isn't about anything reasonable, it's about the auth-right looking for another excuse to try to push the same poison as the auth-left and seem 'reasonable' while doing it.
Just like he wanted the Right to accept the stolen election, Battlegrinder wants the Right to accept more and more restrictions on legal activities in the name of 'safety' and 'preventative measures'.
Ah yes, the authoritarian right, well know for their firm belief that Biden was legitimately elected, its practical a calling card of the entire philosophy.
I'm not using the Constitution as the basis of my argument, I'm grounding the Constitution in my argument, which is the inherent right to self-defense.
Ok, but you responded to an argument that was about an alleged legal, consistutional right to own body armor.
This is exactly what the people pushing to disarm the population and leave them as helpless as possible have been manipulating you to think. It is also the exact same rationale that they've been using to ban guns for decades, which is part of why I'm so shocked that you've actually fallen for it.
Those people are probably correct, a ban on guns would very likely make mass shootings much, much less common, because edgy white teenagers would probably have a very hard time buying guns on the black market. Their proposed gun ban policy is wrong for other reasons, not because it wouldn't work.
