I'm just saying this is a bit of a victory
A bit pyrrhic.
If he was armed that means the antigun law(which infringes on actual citizens) didn't work in the first place.
That seems like an absurd way to look at it.
Do you think the same about border laws? It was possible for him to get into the country illegally so why bother with border law? Murder still happens so murder laws are obviously pointless?
Border law is a form of trespassing so there is a victim and a perpetrator.
Murder has a victim and a perpetrator.
Who is the victim when the crime is firearm possession? Why do you want firearm possession(and sub categories such as rifles with flash suppressors, over 10rds mags, and similar) to be a crime?
