Guns Vs. Smoking Vs. Alcohol

[DirtySteve]

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.

I never said or thought (may not have been apparent in my posts) that all guns are going to be banned. The specifics of what gets banned has no bearing on my original post. I was trying to understand why we have these socially accepted things (smokes not so much these days) killing innocent people every day at double the rate of guns but not being addressed with as much vigor as guns?

And yes I understand that cigarettes are not massacring 20 children at a school. The gun control debate has raged on for years, it has its highs and lows. There hasn't been the same debate with smokes and alcohol two things that kill twice as many people.

[Tallica1981]

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......

I have heard so much conflicting info about 2nd hand smoke, that I don't know what to believe. I believe it enough to know I won't allow smoking in my home, and refuse to allow anyone to smoke near my children. However, as far as killing other people in numbers that large, if the studies are legit, then I say ban away.

Can you smoke cigarettes laced with cocaine or PCP? Can you smoke anything you want? How about crack? These things all fall in the same pool as cigarettes when it comes right down to it. However there are certain substances that are deemed unsafe for public use because it is too dangerous for the user and those around him. That's all people want with guns. Lets decide what to deem as unsafe or unnecessary for public access.

[don king]

I never said or thought (may not have been apparent in my posts) that all guns are going to be banned. The specifics of what gets banned has no bearing on my original post. I was trying to understand why we have these socially accepted things (smokes not so much these days) killing innocent people every day at double the rate of guns but not being addressed with as much vigor as guns?

And yes I understand that cigarettes are not massacring 20 children at a school. The gun control debate has raged on for years, it has its highs and lows. There hasn't been the same debate with smokes and alcohol two things that kill twice as many people.

Just to be clear, I wasn't calling you a gun nut.

Like I said, prohibition has been tried with alcohol and it doesn't work. It won't work with tobacco either. For the record, it also doesn't work with pot. All it does is put money in the hands or organized crime instead of government, and ironically, increase gun violence.

[DirtySteve]

Just to be clear, I wasn't calling you a gun nut.

Like I said, prohibition has been tried with alcohol and it doesn't work. It won't work with tobacco either. For the record, it also doesn't work with pot. All it does is put money in the hands or organized crime instead of government, and ironically, increase gun violence.

I agree with you.
I also believe that it won't work with firearms. My biggest problem is where would the banning stop? Once the government bans assault rifles and high capacity mags and gun violence still happens, someone shoots up a church with a shotgun and a couple pistols. They will move on to the next type of gun.

[split decision]

I agree with you.
I also believe that it won't work with firearms. My biggest problem is where would the banning stop? Once the government bans assault rifles and high capacity mags and gun violence still happens, someone shoots up a church with a shotgun and a couple pistols. They will move on to the next type of gun.

Now this is the argument I don't buy. It's the conspiracy theory. The big, bad government is going to take away all our rights as gun owners.

Nope. Ain't gonna happen.

This is a question of redrawing lines. The president is proposing to make assault rifles illegal for the general public. Polls show an appetite for this. Obama has the support of the majority to act on that point.

It does not mean the government, or the public, will then ban shotguns or pistols. There would be too much outrage over this, so it won't happen (and, no, the storm troopers aren't going come to your house in the middle of the night and seize your weapons).

This is a matter of redefining what's reasonable for American citizens to be carting around. Most people don't want assault rifles in their neighborhood. There's that oft-cited counter-argument, why shouldn't you be allowed to carry around a rocket launcher? Fine, fine, you're not planning to kill anyone with it, you just like going out on weekends and demolishing brick walls of abandoned buildings. So why not allow rocket launchers on the streets?

As for cigarettes, same logic applies. The government says no more smoking in restaurants. Many smokers reacted to that with, "The next thing you know we won't be allowed to smoke in our own homes." Still waiting for that to happen, other than in one small municipality in California a few years ago...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-4761130.html

[spasgur]

EDIT: whatever

[michaeld]

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.

Sure banning assault weapons in the long run would end up cutting down on mass shootings. But if you look at the number of people killed in mass shootings each year, vs. the number of people killed by firearms overall, the percentage is going to be ridiculously low. I'm not going to pretend like I know the exact figure but it would be <1%. People are just bothered more by the stories that the media focuses all their attention on because they have more of a personal connection to them. I'm not trying to make light of the deaths of any of these individuals, it was terrible and if I personally knew someone whose life was taken I'm sure I would be devastated.

Instead of looking at mass shootings, since they are such a rare occurrence in the grand scheme of things, we should be looking at violent crime as a whole. How will stricter gun laws affect violent crime? Well, if you look at the UK for example, they have pretty much zero gun crime thanks to their very strict gun laws. On the other hand though, violent crimes involving knives is ridiculously high. Criminals will find a way to adapt. Switzerland has the closest gun laws to us as far as European nations goes, and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest of any country, so guns can't be the only factor we look at. The main problem is the people.

Like I had said in my other post I believe, a vast majority of violent crime is urban in nature, among poorer communities, and they are committing a majority of the crimes against one another. People don't care about these though because they are so detached from their everyday lives. Sandy Hook hit close to home. I didn't see nearly as many people making a fuss about things the weeks leading up to that.

As far as a solution goes, I'm not going to say everyone needs a gun, the more guns the better, and all that nonsense. People's choice to own a firearm is their own decision and if they don't feel comfortable with one or just plain don't feel like it, they shouldn't. I purchased all of my firearms, legally, had a background check, have my carry license, etc. One area that I wouldn't mind them tightening up regulations on would be private sale. Right now I could go and sell any of my guns to anybody I wanted to without doing any sort of background check. While this would be somewhat irresponsible and not something I would do unless I knew the person very well, I could do it nonetheless. Maybe we would have some sort of regulations in place where even in private sales, every time a firearm changed hands, a background check was performed on the receiver. Likewise, if a firearm you owned was lost of stolen, there were stricter laws in place for mandatory reporting of such incidents. Make people have a little more accountability for their firearms. I know this wouldn't please the people on the extreme sides of the argument, but it would be a reasonable compromise and a move in the right direction for both sides.

[clamcakes]

Another ####ing gun thread?

[ATroms]

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

The last gal i dated was crazy about me, and we were hitting it off great. She axed my ass because im a smoker ..

[Spectre]

Why do we not have a smoking and alcohol ban in the works? tell me why people that are killed by guns are more important than people killed by smoking and drinking?

Hello there. We do not have a smoking or alcohol ban "in the works", just like we do not have a gun ban "in the works". What we do have is serious restriction and regulation on smoking and alcohol.

At the point at which you've admitted that A is analogous to B and C, and that as such it should be treated analogously, you have then admitted that there should be serious restriction and regulation on firearms, therefore gun control.

Thanks for playing sparky!