1) Yet studies have shown that many executives and similar people of power have streaks of sociopathy. Not doing well you said?
Sociopathy does not preclude rationality.
2) If there isn't a threat there, why would you pull your gun? Why does it look like I'm about to threaten someone? That's you experiencing a subjective threat. Not an objective one.
As I explained, It appears you are about to commit an act of aggression. Thus I am preparing to defend myself.
3) Whenever you move around with it you keep it in your hand. When you eat you keep it next to you. In the barracks it's usually under lock and key, for convenience. So, is me carrying that kind of gun a threat?
No, but carrying it like that may elicit some of the above preparation. You are, after all, not a soldier in an occupied country. Well, unless you are. But then, both your carrying it like that and the preparation are perfectly warranted.
4) Hell no. That way it won't kill the robber if he shoots first. He should not be able to win by being faster than me.
Boo-fucking-hoo. You should not be able to kill random strangers without at least some conscious input.
5) Sure we can. They don't have it because it's illegal to sell to them and that's something we police very hard. Al-quaeda does want WMDs, but we work very hard to keep it from them. And being indifferent to the lives of others isn't terrorism. It's similar to shooting a gun through a park where children are playing. It's just indifference to the result.
So, arming Al-quaeda with WMDs, what do you expect the outcome to be?
You have already admitted we cannot stop them from getting them now. If they want them, they can get them. Or do you know where every ex-USSR warhead is? I'm pretty sure not even the Russians do. The only thing making something illegal does is put it into the black market, where it cannot be monitored, controlled, or even easily observed.
And as I said, the biggest terrorist organizations already have nukes. I don't expect much to change by a smaller one getting one.
1) So now it's rational to carry a nuke into a city to get back at a robber, not caring about others that could be hurt?
2) Why does it appear that I'm prepared to commit an act of agression? Please explain that. There's no objective threat there. You might "feel" threatened, but that doesn't matter one whit. Right? If there isn't an objective threat there's no need to pull your gun. Or is there a subjective threat here somewhere? One that you're responding to?
3) So there is a threat? Why else would you prepare yourself? You do not prepare yourself for non-threats do you? It would be fun if you did though. "Ahh, a kitten in a blanket, I must draw my weapon and prepare to defend myself from this non-threat!"
4) That's not for you to decide how I use my property.
5) It's not perfect, but we do manage to stop them. Not all of them all the time, but most of them, most of the time. Why do you think there hasn't been an nuclear incident yet? I'm sure the black markets are well investigated, and most trades are allowed, only the high profile ones are intercepted. Every sane person is scared to death by these weapons, as they should be. Governments are at least semi-rational, and won't generally nuke random people. That can't be said for groups willing to bomb trains, subways, busses etc.
And you still haven't answered what you believe the outcome will be of handing a nuke over to Al-quaeda or similar organization. Is that question really so hard to answer?