1) No granny doesn't deserve to get hurt. The mugger should pay restitution.
Glad you finally saw reason. He can't do that if he's atomized, and you can't receive it if you are. Nukes are a horrible self-defense weapon.
2) Where's the threat? Please explain why a bomb is a threat but a gun isn't.
A bomb is not a threat. An armed bomb is. Just like a gun is not a threat until it is pointed at someone and ready to fire. An armed bomb is equivalent to a gun pointed at everyone within range of the blast.
3) And I'm using mine as I see fit. No problem then, right? I'm not threatening people. I put them at risk, at their property. Something that's perfectly OK according to you. And you still haven't answered my question about how I should act. Shoot him or wait for restitution.
No, you
are threatening people. You have an armed bomb, so anyone within range of the blast is threatened by that weapon. Again, you are more than welcome to have such a device, so long as you keep it far away from anyone or anything that might be harmed by it, or else keep it disarmed while around them. As to what you should do, use your judgment. I am not responsible for your actions, only you are. Understand, though, that you may be held liable for causing him harm, if you act to prevent him from firing.
4) Still not buying it. Being prepared isn't the same as threatening. Having a gun out, even pointing it at people isn't threatening them unless I ask something from them, or have an intent to shoot. I imagine elderly people doing this to compensate for them being slower to react. No law against being prepared, right? How to figure out intent is another matter. I imagine that the "National coalition of elders" puts out a pamphlet or something explaining why elders walk around with a finger on the trigger.
I'm the one believing that democracy is a good thing remember. That means a collective decision about how to use parks, and it includes restrictions even on private property.
But people are not psychic, so if you point a loaded firearm at people, you have to expect them to assume you intend to shoot. Rule one of
firearm safety is: Always point the muzzle in a safe direction;
never point a firearm at anyone or anything you don't want to shoot. So if you are following firearms safety, you intend to shoot the person you point a gun at. That makes it a threat.
5) Just answer the question.
But I'll answer yours just the same. I'd prefer that nobody had them, yes. But there's accountability when most governments have them, something that can't be said for individuals. Nukes in the hands of Pakistan is a nightmare, far worse then Iran imho.
I do think groups can acquire them now actually. That's why I want stricter control and people who take these dangerous toys away from people who shouldn't have them.
You're right, governments should not have nuclear bombs. they're far too dangerous to trust to such insane organizations. I'm glad we could come to that agreement. I trust the private sellers of nuclear bombs to vet their customers properly before selling them, and not sell to anyone with ties to governments, or other terrorist organizations.