Guns Vs. Smoking Vs. Alcohol

[Wahoo08]

I'd actually say that this is a more valid comparison than people give it credit for. More people die from second hand smoking than guns alone. Those 50,000 people are people who lost their lives unwillingly, by something they were not doing to themselves. Other people smoking and causing harm to the people around them. Why aren't people making a big fuss about this? How about all the people who are killed by drunk drivers? They were doing nothing wrong.

Huh? Why don't people make a 'big fuss'????

Stricter laws on smoking in and around public spaces are becoming the norm in states all around the country. In my home state of Virginia (a traditionally southern state), it's illegal to smoke in many bars now. Tobacco companies have seen tighter restrictions on their advertising (remember Joe Camel?) and are forced to print warning labels are their products. Additionally, tobacco products are taxed heavier than most traditional consumer goods.

Same with drinking and driving. Laws have gotten increasingly more severe for those caught driving drunk, especially for repeat offenders. Public awareness campaigns are a staple for almost every major holiday. How can you say people don't make a 'big fuss' about smoking or alcohol?

The difference is, we can (typically) have a sensible discussion on alcohol and tobacco laws, even with those that aren't in agreement. But when it comes to gun laws, the emotions are blown so high that there is a large block of people that won't even come to the table to talk.

The fact is that innocent people die everyday. Banning guns will not put a dent in the statistics. Most of those gun deaths are young urban youths who obtained the weapons illegally anyways. You're stupid if you think that banning assault rifles or similar weapons is going to change anything.

I've said this before, but this is pretty much the strongest argument that can be made. The reality is, the number of people killed every year by 'assault' weapons, extended magazines, or by the mentally ill, pales in comparison to the number killed by 'typical' shootings (i.e. robberies, gang violence, personal disputes, etc.)

The only people who are going to obey the laws are average everyday law abiding citizens, not the crazy homicidal maniacs who are going to kill people anyways. A gun is just a tool. Take that away from someone and they will just find another way.

Ugh......I really hate this argument for several reason. First of all, the guns used in Conn., Colorado, Arizona, etc. were all purchased by 'law abiding' citizens. They were all sold to the 'good guys' that Wayne LaPierre referred to. Hell, you could expand that to EVERY gun sold in the U.S. is sold to a 'law abiding' citizen- until that gun is lost, stolen, sold, or that 'good' guy losses his cool and becomes the 'bad' guy (and of course the answer is more 'good' guys with guns!). The argument that 'bad' guys will always have access to guns is a nutty argument. They have access because the market is flooded with guns.

Likewise, the argument is 'they will just find another way' is just as ridiculous. Sure, if you really, really, REALLY, want some one dead, you'll probably find a way. Even if the 'assault' weapons ban (including bans on extended magazines) was in place, it would still be impossible to prevent all mass shootings. But what if we can come to a compromise that might help limit the damages done by an deranged individual? Yes, a gun is a tool- just like a bike is a tool, a car is a tool, and a plane is a tool. Technically, I could ride my bike from the east coast to the west coast, but I can guarantee you that if my access to planes were limited, my trips across country would be vastly reduced. The access that we provides to tools does change behaviors.

[DirtySteve]

Intent plays a role in this comparision...I suspect that deaths resulting from the use of tabacco and alcohol would not be classified as intentional. On the other hand many / most deaths resulting from the use of guns could be classified as intentional.

And I don't accept the premise that "The fact is that a death is a death."

So a gun death is more of a death than another type of death caused by someone else?

[BulldogWrestler]

It's a dumb comparison because guns directly kill people. Smoking or alcohol does not.

That said, I'd be ok with an alcohol ban if it meant that fvckers couldn't smoke anymore. Grossest thing ever.

[DirtySteve]

It's a dumb comparison because guns directly kill people. Smoking or alcohol does not.

That said, I'd be ok with an alcohol ban if it meant that fvckers couldn't smoke anymore. Grossest thing ever.

Zero logic in what you said

So because someone dies from smoking it means less than if they were killed by a gun? You think if a child died from 2nd hand smoke the parents would feel better about it because they weren't killed "directly"? That makes no sense! A life lost is a life lost. It doesn't matter if someone got gunned down in a theater or if mom and dad smoked in the house which caused the child to die a slow horrible painful death from cancer. Die slowly or die "directly", you are still dead.

[just Brian]

So a gun death is more of a death than another type of death caused by someone else?

My position is simple - not all deaths are created equal. I think that goes without saying. In one of your own previous posts you used the terms "tragic" and "important" to qualify a death. And I'm on board with that. Some deaths are more tragic and more important.

[Tallica1981]

In a wider more general sense, I understand your comparison. In the grand scheme of things, if I could make one thing disappear from the US, it would be cigarettes for many reasons.

However, in MOST cases, cigarettes aren't killing children and young adults. It is a personal choice and generally results in loss of life much later in life.

Also, if this is an attempt to justify the NRA/Gun advocate position, your premise falls apart for reasons mentioned by Wahoo. If anything this just further justifies more gun control. There are constantly tougher laws and penalties being put in place in an attempt to mitigate the tragic deaths and illness caused by alcohol and tobacco.

[DirtySteve]

My position is simple - not all deaths are created equal. I think that goes without saying. In one of your own previous posts you used the terms "tragic" and "important" to qualify a death. And I'm on board with that. Some deaths are more tragic and more important.

Interesting outlook, I don't agree. When someone you love dies no other death is more important. I would be interested to hear how you qualify a life.

[don king]

The government makes massive massive dollars off of taxing cigarettes and alcohol.

Other than that, prohibition has clearly been proven not to work, and only to increase crime.

Also, no one is calling for banning guns. I don't understand why the gun nuts keep saying this and why they feel the need to have assault rifles available to the general public.

[DirtySteve]

In a wider more general sense, I understand your comparison. In the grand scheme of things, if I could make one thing disappear from the US, it would be cigarettes for many reasons.

However, in MOST cases, cigarettes aren't killing children and young adults. It is a personal choice and generally results in loss of life much later in life.
Also, if this is an attempt to justify the NRA/Gun advocate position, your premise falls apart for reasons mentioned by Wahoo. If anything this just further justifies more gun control. There are constantly tougher laws and penalties being put in place in an attempt to mitigate the tragic deaths.

Stats show that 50,000 people are killed from 2nd hand smoke. There is no way to tell when or how that happens.

I understand Wahoo's point. To that I could say the same amount of law and regulations exist for guns. You cant shoot in city limits. You cant carry a loaded weapon in city limits unless you have a permit. You have to pass a background check and in some states a waiting period before you can buy a gun legally. You cant brandish a weapon. There are just as many laws for gun owners as smokers.
Its great that this country is getting more serious about smoking and drunk driving but when are they going to start banning certain tobacco? I don't hear anyone saying that laws need to be passed to ban smoking anything other than the "healthier' E-Cigarette.

For some reason only guns are singled out. The number of deaths are far greater from smoking and drinking yet its ok because urban America is comfortable with it, everyone in the city has seen someone smoking and drinking but as soon as they see a gun......oh no its going to kill someone and that someone will be more important than my neighbor that was hit and killed by drunk driver leaving the club......

[Greezy]

guns and cigarettes don't destroy marriages and break up families..