President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Unless your understanding of socialism = anarchy, no. Nothing I said had anything to do with socialism. I have no idea where you are coming from.

We have laws against stealing. It benefits me to steal from you. But it is illegal, because when I steal from you, I harm you.

What I am suggesting is similar. Gun violence has done, and continues to do, so much damage to others. ... which is why I see a very compelling reason to outlaw guns in the name of protecting people from others with guns.

This is all about individual rights. You should be free from regulation. ... UNTIL there is a compelling reason to regulate your behavior to keep you from infringing on others.

 

Very good. I was about to elaborate.

The logical response to what I am saying about outlawing guns is that the guns don't harm others in a vacuum. It is someone pulling the trigger that does that harm.

And I get that. So I can understand you saying, "Why outlaw the guns when you can outlaw the act, not the instrument."

And I used to feel that way. In fact, that is my default on things like this. Unfortunately, practically, regulating the act, and not the instrument has proved feckless. It is illegal to murder someone. Unfortunately, though, we have way more gun-related murders in this country than anywhere else. ... because we are so gun happy. It's clear the availability of the instrument (guns) is a problem. Which is why, in this case, to protect individuals, as a practical matter I believe we need to regulate the instrument itself. It's not enough to focus on the act someone might commit with the instrument. That hasn't worked.

I look at it a bit this way (using an exaggerated example). Let's say your neighbor decided to get a tiger as a pet and let the tiger roam around his front yard without being tethered.

At this point, I see people owning guns in this country as similar. If the tiger doesn't wander into my yard and attack me, the act of my neighbor owning a pet tiger doesn't directly hurt me. ... I still sure as hell want it to be illegal, though, because of the potential. In the case of people owning guns, the potential for gun violence hurting others has become too great of a probability. Time has borne that out. So I see it somewhat similarly.

Or using another exaggerated example, I don't want individuals to own nuclear bombs. The act of owning one doesn't directly hurt anyone either. I still want it to be illegal, for obvious reasons.

 

If other countries are a guide, yes. I think that Australia in the wake of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre is fairly instructive. Their ban seemed to have worked. They had 13 mass shootings between 1979 and 1996, including the Port Arthur massacre in which 35 people were murdered. There hasn't been a mass shooting since (knock on wood). On top of it, gun homicides AND suicides are way down.

Now that is purely anecdotal. Regardless, one thing seems kind of logical to me. MORE guns in this country has led to MORE gun violence. Yet, the NRA (and the people it represents) spent years arguing that citizens carrying concealed weapons would reduce violence. Reality seems to be the exact opposite.