Wouldn't banning smoking save more lifes than banning guns?

[Logical]

This place would freak out if you wanted to ban smoking.

Even thought more people die every year from 2nd hand smoke (49,000) than die from all gun deaths including suicide. And 400,000 die from direct smoking. Only 30,000 die from guns and most of those are from killing themselves which is basically what smokers do.

Only 11,500 murders by guns a year but 49,000 people dead from second hand smoke. 49,000 innocent people killed by smoking each year.

Wouldn't we be better focusing on banning smoking than guns? So ban smoking first and then lets work on guns.



Suicide: 18,735 deaths
Homicide: 11,493 deaths
Unintentional: 554 deaths
Legal interventions: 333 deaths
Undetermined: 232 deaths
Total: 31,347 deaths

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf


Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death.
Worldwide, tobacco use causes more than 5 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.3
In the United States, smoking is responsible for about one in five deaths annually (i.e., about 443,000 deaths per year, and an estimated 49,000 of these smoking-related deaths are the result of secondhand smoke exposure).1
On average, smokers die 13 to 14 years earlier than nonsmokers.4

In adults who have never smoked, secondhand smoke can cause heart disease and/or lung cancer.3

Heart Disease
For nonsmokers, breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the cardiovascular system that can increase the risk for heart attack. People who already have heart disease are at especially high risk.3,5
Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 25–30%.3
Secondhand smoke exposure causes an estimated 46,000 heart disease deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States.6

Lung Cancer
Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their lung cancer risk by 20–30%.3
Secondhand smoke exposure causes an estimated 3,400 lung cancer deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States.6

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/

[Whovian]

1. Wouldn't using proper English enhance your argument?

[RetroLounge]

50. +1000

RL

[samsingh]

134. +1

[leftstreet]

2. It's 'lives,' not life's n/t

[Whovian]

32. The OP edited and still hasn't figured it out.

[Lex]

34. Good lord. LOL.

[pinboy3niner]

44. No surprise. Also misspelled Illogical.

[darkangel218]

53. Avoid the subject of the OP and focus on grammar.

Lmao!!

[flamin lib]

60. This probably the only thing we will ever agree about.

Nit picking at grammar is as bad as dismissing off hand someone who uses 'clip' instead of magazine as being too ignorant to take part in the conversation.

[Skip Intro]

66. Yeah, what is that?

Make fun of or attack the poster in some manner rather than address the issues raised.

You know, if that's all somebody's got, why even reply at all?

Kinda like they're proclaiming, "I'm ill equipped to argue the point, so I'm just gonna insult you instead."

It's all very high-school bully-ish.

Empty and transparent.

Yet not exactly rare, even here.

[rhett o rick]

71. Well said. nm

[Go Vols]

129. +1

[Whovian]

135. To quote Mr. Gump's Mom, "Stupid is as stupid does." If someone can't spell

their argument is vacuous at best.

[Skip Intro]

137. That is a mind-blowingly ignorant thing to say.

Wow.

[leftstreet]

88. The subject is stupid. Not worthy of DU's time n/t

[demwing]

106. Thank you, "Voice of DU"

now that you've locked that down, the rest of us can take it easy

For fuck's sake, the hubris...

[Honeycombe8]

3. There are laws protecting people from secondhand smoke.

Unless you're at home, in which you are responsible for your own exposure to it.

There's the difference.

Shooting someone takes away his life without his consent, and abruptly, cruelly, and violently, sometimes involving suffering. Loved ones don't have a chance to say goodbye, make peace, whatever.

Exposing yourself to smoke, firsthand or secondhand, is a choice you make that affects your own body.

[Logical]

4. Not in homes with kids. Not when I walk outside a bar. Etc.

[Honeycombe8]

49. As I said, YOU choose when and where you are exposed to secondhand smoke.

No one forces you to go to a bar, where you of course know people will be smoking outside.

Those studies don't apply to passing through a waft of smoke in an outdoor location, BTW. It's talking about extended indoor exposure.

Kids - that is a choice made by a parent, in the home. I believe there are laws in some states that prohibit smoking in a car with children, though.

[Honeycombe8]

58. It's against the law in my city to smoke in a bar. It's not in your city?

If you're talking about in the past, those were the old days.

And no...people don't HAVE to work in bars, unless they're bartenders.

Never been to a casino, so I don't know about those. I think the closest ones to me are in Louisiana, and smoking isn't allowed indoors. I think pretty much smoking is banned indoors in all public places.

Ciggies aren't banned for the same reason sugar isn't banned. Or booze isn't banned (anymore). People enjoy it, like it, want to use it, and if they do, only they suffer the consequences physically. It's a choice. We are free to become addicted to some things.

Who wants to live in a world where everything that is bad for your body is banned? I take the position that it's none of my business if someone wants to drink or smoke or eat sugar, or all of those things.

Note: I am not a smoker.

BTW: Many people smoke and do not suffer serious consequences from it. It shortens their lives a bit, but no more than being fat. As far as I know, sugar is equally harmful. But I like sugar, although I try to control my consumption of it. But addictive substances are that way...a little bit makes you want more.

[darkangel218]

62. No, its not. Stil getting smoked in bars, clubs, casinos.

Facts are facts, second hand smocking KILLS. So why ban guns, but don't ban smocking?

[Honeycombe8]

63. We're not banning guns. I don't want to ban other people's habits.

It's none of my business if they want to smoke.

Why do you want to control other people's behavior so much? Don't you have enough trouble controlling things in your own life? I do. I'm not even gonna get involved in trying to control others.

If you want to eat sugar, that's your business. It'll kill you, though. It's poison.

[darkangel218]

64. I dont want to ban anything.

Majority on here is very vehement about banning guns, so I was making a point.

[flamin lib]

61. As an ex smoker I'd applaud banning all tobacco products. Same with semi auto guns

of all types.

That consistent enough?

[Honeycombe8]

65. I am not in favor of banning people's addictive choices. None of my business.

Besides, you can't ban substances successfully. That just creates a corrupt blackmarket. Haven't we learned anything from prohibition of booze?

If you want to create a list of harmful, possibly addictive substances, we would have quite a list:
butter
sugar (more harmful to the masses than ciggies, IMO)
cigarettes
chewing tobacco
BOOZE (the worst of all, judging by the sheer numbers of people harmed, from DWI accidents to liver disease to domestic violence to GUN violence to general health deterioration)

Guns are not addictive. They do serve a purpose that is not evil. There's no reason to ban them. And they won't be banned.

Which makes me wonder....do some people want guns banned just because they don't like them, and therefore, don't want others to have them? Or do they want to stop mass murders? If it's the latter, a gun ban won't stop mass murders. It's only semis and assault weapons and high count mags that cause mass murders.

I'm surprised at Democrats, who are so against the right trying to control others' behavior, themselves trying to control others' behavior.

[HooptieWagon]

73. If you think banning booze was an epic disaster...

Just wait until guns are banned and the black market explodes. The banners are living in a fantasy world of rainbows and unicorns.

[Honeycombe8]

76. Guns won't be banned. nt

[HooptieWagon]

78. I know they won't.

There will be some meaningless crap passed, like banning guns painted black, that will cost Democrats political capital and have no effect on gun deaths. The banners will orgasm over their "success", and won't have a clue why Dems take a bloodbath in next Congressional elections.

[flamin lib]

75. I don't realistically think a ban on either would be effective, particularly

with the brazilian guns/hi-cap magazines around and the lack of will (and financial resources) to buy them.

No, I'd prefer a major media campaign to make semi auto guns as much a pariah as smoking. Belittle those who are so paranoid that they can't leave home without the ability to kill a dozen or so people. Make fun of anyone who has to have a semi to hunt (ya' ain't gonna get a second shot anyway).

In a decade or so people would be embarrassed to admit they needed a semi automatic.

[Honeycombe8]

77. I actually think that's one of the best ideas I've heard.

PR campaigns are very effective. Advertisers know that.

Why do we call tissues "Kleenex"? Because a PR campaign made us think that way.

[blueamy66]

83. Did you HAVE to take your kids to the bar

to inhale the second hand smoke? Your argument is WEAK, at best.

[darkangel218]

84. Im pretty DAMN sure ( some of the ) smokers subject their family to second hand smoking

Ive heard of people even smoking pot around their kids. Weak point my a**.

[blueamy66]

105. Just type ass.

Why type DAMN in caps but not type the word ass?

If you are DAMN sure, you shouldn't have to put 'some of the' in parentheses.

YoUr argument just became even more weak.

[krawhitham]

87. True and we are not talking about banning all guns either

2nd hand smoke laws make it safer for people just like gun control laws will

[Coyote_Tan]

95. You might not be ...

I don't think you can speak for everyone though...

[spanone]

5. let me know when someone smokes 26 people to death

i'll be waiting

[rustydog]

29. Hence the phrase getting smoked?

My brother battled lung cancer last year. Smoking harmed him. I smoked from 18 years old to 35 years old. 23 years clean..if I get cancer, it would have killed me. not a dozen kids in a school, or troops at fort hood, or the columbine victims.

another case of: "Hey looky over here!"

[JaneyVee]

6. No one will ban guns. Ever.

[CreekDog]

7. We've tightened the regulations on smoking and have reduced it substantially

but still kept it legal, though not as cheap, for those who want to partake. and at the same time, have spent a lot of effort trying to keep cigarettes out of the wrong hands --which has had lots of success, though nothing is perfect.

i think it's a great analogy to guns.

we can keep them legal, substantially increase regulation of them, increase their cost and institute tough regulations to keep them out of the wrong hands.

and guns will decrease, just as smoking has, but will still be legal for those who want to partake.

and likely, just as reducing smoking has reduced deaths, reducing guns in the same way, will also reduce deaths.

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING UP SMOKING --IT IS THE MOST APT ANALOGY FOR THE GUN ISSUE!

THE WAY WE TREAT SMOKING IS EXACTLY LIKE WE SHOULD TREAT GUNS (except we should have background checks for guns --we don't for smoking...but the restrictions and regulations, while maintaining as legal are things to be copied).

[Logical]

9. Still thousands more die from 2nd hand smoke. Isn't that a bigger worry?

[Richard D]

18. Not for the people who get shot.

False equivalency argument, I believe.

[Logical]

19. Not at all. Lets focus on what causes more deaths! n-t

[Bjorn Against]

33. We have focused on it and that is why smoking is banned from many public areas now

Less people will die from second hand smoke now because they are not nearly as exposed to it as they once were because of the regulations we put in place.

Regulating guns will also cause a decrease in deaths, if it is harder for people to get a gun they will be less likely to shoot someone.

[Logical]

36. We already regulate guns as much as cigs. Age limit, etc.

[Bjorn Against]

37. You can carry guns in public buildings but you can't smoke in public buildings

Time to get guns out of our public buildings and parks as well.

[Logical]

41. You can carry cigs into buildings. And not use guns in buildings.

[Bjorn Against]

46. No one is going to murder somebody with a cigarette

There is absolutely no reason that the typical person needs to carry a gun with them to the mall. The large majority of us have never carried a gun in public and we have managed to survive our trips to the grocery store just fine.

[Robyn66]

111. Ridiculous!!!!-Wait a minute YOUR ON!

Then, what causes the most death, disease or guns? Most likely disease, so what are we doing? Sitting back and saying "well disease has a right to kill us, it exists" NO we do our best to find ways to stop the disease to keep people from getting killed.

If you want to equate the gun problems in this country with a disease that needs to be eradicated then FINE your view is more aggressive than most people here. Most people I have heard are speaking of large capacity clips and assault weapons. I think its a great idea to equate gun violence to a killer disease, then we can all put our energy in to eradicating it.

[CreekDog]

54. you're only making the argument because you don't want ANY additional regulation of guns

let's not pretend it's a genuine argument, because that's not your intention.

and for what it's worth, i do think people should be as discouraged from smoking near there children as they should be from having guns around on indoors with children.

both place the children at risk compared to without the presence of either.

[JVS]

8. Single payer healthcare would

[XRubicon]

10. You're right... we can only do one thing- right?

Man... I can't decide which is worse... too bad we couldn't do both. Wait a minute!

[orwell]

11. Who's talking about banning guns...

...with a handle like Logical why do your proffer such an illogical argument.

Look up straw man and get back to us...

[HappyMe]

12. WTF?

Go rob a convenience or liquor store with a cigarette. How about a drive-by smoking?

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. Wow. This is just painfully stupid.

"Hey, let's take an extreme position that's not actually being suggested by anyone with the power to influence whatever form of gun control we may end up with and compare it to something completely different!"

No-one in a position to significantly influence the debate is suggesting banning guns; what's being suggested is regulation in the name of safety. Same as has happened with tobacco, incidentally. When's the last time you could smoke on a plane? In a mall? In a bar? In a restaurant? And how much has the smoking rate and rate of smoking-related disease declined as a result?

[Lex]

14. Let's ban both and really save lives! Sounds like the best plan according to your criteria

which is to save as many lives as possible.

[Iggo]

21. Ding!

[RetroLounge]

51. +1000

RL

[L0oniX]

123. Let's add Booger King and McFondles. Eating salt, fat and sugar kills! ...and

while were at it how about we ban the Pentagon.

[Laurian]

15. What the hell? One has nothing to do with the other. n/t

[jberryhill]

16. Nobody is trying to ban either one

We do not allow cigarette advertisements on television. We do not allow their sale to minors. We do not allow them to be used in some places, and we have other places specifically designated for their use.

You want to talk about "cosmetic measures"? We required a cigarette company required to stop using a cartoon character as a mascot.

There are a lot of restrictions and rules which have, over time, led to a reduced population of smokers.

The percentage of adults who smoke has fallen dramatically, and no "cigarette grabbers" were deployed by the government to confiscate anyone's cigarettes.

[pkdu]

17. @@@@@shiney-thing@@@@@. Nt

[elleng]

20. Why either/or???

[gollygee]

22. Maybe we should start having laws to protect us from guns

just like we've been having more and more laws to protect us from second hand smoke. You're right! What a great idea!

[Speck Tater]

23. Banning Alcohol would save even more. nt

[tama]

24. Or banning cars nt

[Ed Suspicious]

25. My state has banned smoking in all public places including private businesses. I'm living

a happier healthier life thanks to it. Ban smoking completely. I'll be the first to sign the petition. This is gun discussion is seriously getting tiresome. No progress is made. Just more vociferous argument from both sides.

[Tx4obama]

42. Ban my cigarettes and I'll go after something YOU like - alcohol, soda, french fries, pizza...

how about that for fair play?

What on earth gives anyone the idea that they have the right to tell me what I can and can not do in my own home - leave my cigarettes alone!

[rustydog]

26. Fuck banning guns, BAN SMOKING!!!!! ok, that will stop the murder of innocents

by gun violence. Right? Right?

Look over here at car deaths! Look at miscarriages! ban them!!!! Not our guns!

[Logical]

27. Cars are needed to function. Smoking is not. Correct? n=t

[rustydog]

35. And if we had banned smoking 20 years ago, we'd still have thousands of

people dead from gun violence...Cars killed many more people until the evil gubmint stepped in and made laws regarding seat belts, air bags...
Shit, they even legislate how much a car can polllute the air....

Smoking is bad, real bad. I know, personally. Banning smoking is a separate arguement and I'd agree with you 100%.

[WillyT]

38. Cars Are Not 'Needed' Per Se... And Yet... Cars Are Far More Regulated Than Guns...

If we had a sufficiently high-tech modern public transit system, most people might not need a car. And exemptions could be made for rural counties, police, fire, first responders, et. al...

But first... we'd have to HAVE... a sufficiently high-tech modern public transit system.

BUT...

ALL of those systems would have to be analyzed, tested, people trained, people hired for oversight, etc...

So why not do the same for guns ?

Ever heard of the DMV ?

For me to drive... I have to study for a test, pass the test, get my car registered, pay for insurance, ALL which goes into the states database. AND...

There are all sorts of governmental oversight and clean-up...

The DMV, CHP, local police, local fire department, county sheriffs, first responders, hospital rooms, coroners offices, jail cells, etc...

ALL regulating the "freedom" to own a perfectly legal tool; a car.

Why don't you responsible gun owners promote the very same thing for your "indispensable" tool ???

[MichiganVote]

28. Beats me. Let's ask the 1st graders who were shot. Oh wait, we can't,they're all dead.

Oh well, maybe you should just ask their parents. I'm sure they'll appreciate it.

[morningfog]

81. At one time? With intention? The depths you sink to are disgusting.

It reveals the depravity of your position.

[Frank Cannon]

99. I don't know many 6-year-olds...

who were shredded into hamburger by their parents' second-hand smoke.

[Bjorn Against]

30. Smoking is very heavily regulated

I only wish guns were banned in all the buildings that smoking is banned in.

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. Cigarettes have recently become regulated by the Food and Drug Administration...

Time for the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms do their jobs and start regulating those Military style weapons!

[jmg257]

39. Wow - the paranoia of the gun foolks is showing...they are REALLY reaching now.

What happened, did Wayne run out of official talking points about the mentally ill to distribute?

1st it was cars.
Then drunk driving.
Then hammers and fists.
Then abortion.
And now smoking.

One can almost smell the fear & selfishness through the PC.

Tell ya what - next time some crazed smoker goes onto a campus and blows away 32 people with his second-hand smoke, we'll be sure to pass even more restrictions on cigarettes. (but not cigars!)

[Logical]

43. More innocent people die from smoking than guns. Thousands. You don't care I guess.

[jmg257]

45. Sure I do - I am all for heavy restrictions and taxes on smoking. Same with you and guns, right?

Hey - they could ban just about all smoking - I'd be fine with that. You're the same with guns, right?

[Takket]

40. let's ban them both and see what happens! nt

[baldguy]

47. Try lighting up inside a public place in NYC.

20 yrs ago trying to ban smoking in public would have been unthinkable. But they went ahead with the ban anyway. Now, what's unthinkable is smoking in public.

[NashvilleLefty]

48. In TN, it's illegal to smoke in a family restaurant, but

it's perfectly legal to take a gun in one.

How does that make any f*ckin sense?

[RetroLounge]

52. Sounds good, let's ban them both.

Okay, now what?

Was there a point to your drivel?

RL

[Glassunion]

55. No it would not.

"Banning" an object, has never worked. Why would it work now?

We banned alcohol, it had no effect.
We banned drugs, it had no effect.

Why would banning tobacco have an effect?

[darkangel218]

57. I think the OP was just trying to make a point. nt

[Occulus]

85. Oh, the OP made one.

Something about rocks and the box they came in.

[GeorgeGist]

117. trying is the operative word.

fail is the result.

[libdem4life]

59. In California the restaurant and bar owners moaned and groaned over the fact they would be forced

out of business with the crackdown on public smoking. No one would tarry over that 2nd or 3rd or 4th drink. Desserts would go uneaten due to the haste of having to go outside to light up. Productivity at work would suffer for smoke breaks outside. Balderdash, so it turned out.

You cannot ban people's inherent need to harm themselves and, often by default, their loved ones. But you can make it damned difficult on both counts and it does affect the quotient of social approval.

Sure does sound like today's gun owners being required to take responsibility for their weapons and the social cost of their "freedom" ... Henny Penny ... the sky is falling.

[JI7]

67. do we have to decide between banning Texting and driving and Drinking and Driving

can't we do both ?

[DrewFlorida]

68. So you are suggesting banning both guns and smoking? Great idea!

[Adsos Letter]

69. Only 30,000 die from guns

Well then, never mind...

[HooptieWagon]

70. Yes, but the banners aren't interested in saving lives.

They are interested in banning guns. Its irrelevent to them if it actually saves lives. That is why they're targeting legal responsible gun owners, 99.999% of whom never shoot anyone, rather than the people actually doing the shooting and crime committing. Banning guns will no more eliminate guns than banning abortions will eliminate abortions. These are simple minded zealots.

[Chorophyll]

82. Actually, we are interested in saving lives.

But you can call me a simple-minded zealot if it makes you feel good.

And I'll just also use this space to point out that most developed nations have strong restrictions on gun ownership while not interfering with a woman's access to abortion. Just in case you're interested in how civilized people live.

[pnwmom]

94. Of course the legal, RESPONSIBLE gun owners never wrongly shoot anyone -- BY DEFINITION.

The concern is for the IRRESPONSIBLE or careless or drunk or impulsive gun owners who shoot (legal or illegal) guns or allow others to gain access to their guns.

The Sandy Hook mother who was murdered by her son was a legal, responsible gun owner -- until she wasn't.

[jmg257]

112. You are right, bans will have little effect, but banning AND confiscating will.

Severely reduce the number of guns, substantially reduce the number of gun related deaths.

Easy math anyone can understand!

[hack89]

125. Stepping into fantasy land does not help you here

all it shows is how out of touch with social and political reality you are if you think that any guns will be confiscated.

Here's a clue - no proposed legislation mentions confiscation. Hell, they aren't even retroactive.

[ellisonz]

72. What would DU do without threads like these...

[Glitterati]

74. Sure! Let's regulate the hell out of guns, just like we do cigarettes

I'm ALL for it.

We can pick and choose where you use them.

We can pick and choose who can buy them.

We can pick and choose who goes to jail for selling them to the wrong person.

We can have doctors tell you how dangerous they are, and pay them with public funds to do so.

We can pay doctors to help you quit buying and using them.

We can make insurance cost more if you own one.

We can mandate insurance pay medical costs for parties injured by them.

Wow! Yeah, I think this is the absolute PERFECT solution.

[morningfog]

80. Just when I thought I had heard the dumbest fucking gun extremist argument, you deliver this.

Incredible, disgusting and shameful. But, totally unsurprising from your kind.

[Cha]

86. Apples and f****** Oranges. nm

[flvegan]

89. So you're going vegan when?

We're talking about individuals saving lives, right?

I won't bother embarrassing you with MY stats on this in comparison.

[cecilfirefox]

90. Yep!

[Politicalboi]

91. So if gun owners could carry their guns

Around like a cigarette and pull it out every 30 minutes and hold it for 10, it IS possible that guns would kill as many people as cigarettes. Keep trying to hold on to your precious guns and compare them with knives and now cigarettes as the big bad killer instead of the real killer, guns.

My mother NEVER smoked but my father and brothers did. We ALL survived cigarette smoke in our home, car, restaurants, grocery stores, planes, doctors offices and hospitals. I still smoke indoors, and my mother of 86 is just fine living among secondhand smoke. I think the secondhand smoke number is too high anyways.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

92. Cigarettes only do one thing... poison/kill their users and those around them. n/t

[rl6214]

93. Stop trying to use common sense

[name not needed]

96. I can't kill 30 people with a pack of Parliaments.

[randome]

98. Very good point.

[quaker bill]

97. Since you draw the analogy

I agree that they are similar enough for us to begin to fund infrastructure by making 80% of the cost of guns and ammo a tax. Since a dollar's worth of cigarettes costs $5 with taxes, a $500 gun would run $2500, with $2000 of that being taxes, a $20 box of ammo would run $100 with $80 of that being taxes. Some of the funds would be spent on the wounded or burying the dead and indigent. The rest could fund better schools and roads, just like tobacco.

[stultusporcos]

100. What gives ANYONE the Right to tell others what they can and cannot do with their body?

If you want to make it about health then start banning fast food and processed food too.

[rucky]

101. If we ban guns, only smokers will have the power to kill. n/t

[AverageJoe90]

102. I dunno about outlawing smoking altogether......

But we could certainly do away with the horrible shit they put in cigarettes these days; more regulations, and better reinforcement of them, would serve us best. Same thing would work with guns, IMHO.

[Ilsa]

103. A report says we've already cut the number

of new smokers down by more than half through education and raising the price of cigarettes through taxation. I'm looking forward to the percentages getting even smaller.

[WiffenPoof]

104. This OP Is Yet Another...

...reason why I ask myself why I continue to frequent this board.

[Locrian]

107. limit

Maybe we just need to limit the number of cigarettes per magazine, uhhh, I mean pack.
I mean who needs TWENTY in a pack? That's outrageous!! :p

[liberal N proud]

108. I have the same problem with smoking that I do with guns

If you want to go out and blow your own brains out, just do it somewhere that I don't have to watch and I will not get splattered with brain matter or get caught in the crossfire.

If you want to smoke, do it in a closed box where the air cannot get out, you will get maximum effect from the smoke that way and I will not be annoyed by the smoke you just exhaled. cough, choke aggg.

The problem with both guns and cigarettes is the effect they have on those who are not holding them!

[99Forever]

109. I love the smell...

... of Delicate Flower desperation in the morning.


Bwahhahahahahahhahah!

[tavernier]

110. Even if they just made it as hard for a nut to buy a gun

as they make it for a kid to buy cigarettes, even that much would help. Even just a grain of common sense!

[GeorgeGist]

113. Only 30000

[Lex]

118. Yes.

A sick way to look at it.

[Sancho]

114. Let's ban both!!

No guns or cigarettes - sounds nice to me.

[jmg257]

115. Only 30,000..........e o m

[Skinner]

116. Let's regulate guns.

Regulating tobacco has been a great success at saving lives. We should do the same for guns.

[Sheepshank]

119. Well first, I don't think a total ban of Guns is in the works

and second, there have been significant changes made to laws that reduce exposure to second hand smoke. Most restaurants are no longer permitted smoking sections, no more smoking on airlines. Airport smoking only permitted in areas/rooms where the ventilation is separated from the general passengers. No smoking in all public buildings. Warning labels, fully exposed and believable documentation regarding the high addictive factor and the damages of smoking. Hollywood has greatly reduced the amount of actors that smoke, in their films and on tv. Tobacco lobby to have picked up the bill on many smoking cessation ads and warnings and forced to provide part of the cost of the public information. Rules to reduce ad targeted at young persons.

It's called passing 'make sense' laws that have a longer term positive effect. The Tobacco industry has been held accountable. There have been a lot of people that were exposed to 2nd hand smoke and that are no longer exposed. Those lives may have been saved, as are the live of many that will never become smokers because of the andti smoking campaigns. But as you must realize, the long term effects of tobacco exposure are still being realized. People are still dying from tobacco exposure from years past. The change has to start somewhere.

What equivalent should be placed on the ownership of guns? That is the discussion at hand.

Your equivalency premise in the OP is out of whack.

[Yavin4]

132. Don't Forget Sky High Sales Taxes

A pack of smokes in NYC goes for $13.90.

[Bonduel]

120. How about banning cars?

They kill people every day. Not only those driving but people in other cars, pedestrians, bicyclists, skate boarders, adults, children, male, female, animals and more. We would immediately save lives if we banned cars or at least people driving them. It would also be much easier to identify those who are driving vs. those who are packing. Or maybe we don't ban the cars but we have "car control". No car NEEDS to go 55 mph. We should only allow cars to go 25. Car control will save lives. Does anyone deny that and if it does save even 1 life shouldn't we do it.

[bongbong]

121. How about not subjecting Liberals to NRA Talking Points?

Give us a break, please.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

122. Or swimming pools

nobody really NEEDS a swimming pool.

[Lex]

126. Or how about we make guns cost the same as cars?

And even regulate shooting like we regulate driving. Picture ID, national database, mandatory insurance in case you injure someone, renewable licenses every few years, revocation to shoot if you break the law.

[Bonduel]

136. I am for all of that. All of that seems to make more sense to me

than to ban guns or styles of guns.

[Sheepshank]

133. Did you just c&p this from freeperville?

As soon as you can ponit out to me where all guns are being banned, we will talk. As is stands, there are standards of safety and operation and manufacture that all auto manufacturers must abide by. There are standards and rules for receiving a license to drive and rule for retaining a license to drive.

Your idiotic statement is chocked full of embarassing holes. Aren't you ashamed to have written what you wrote? I'm hoping you have enough brains to figure it out. Oh and BTW...go back and read where the 55mph/Nixon rule came about in the 1970's. You may just turn on a bulb in the darkenss you have allowed to cloud your judgement.

[sir pball]

124. Tobacco should be a Schedule I drug..

Per 21USC.812:

(1) Schedule I.—
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Tobacco clearly meets all three criteria...so why isn't is scheduled? AFAIK the DEA can do an "emergency" scheduling without legislative approval and then the onus is on the "druggies" to prove that it shouldn't be scheduled. Isn't that what happened with MDMA?

[former9thward]

127. Smoking is not banned because government is addicted to it.

It is addicted to the taxes it receives. They would never ban it.

[SummerSnow]

128. Many gun nuts smoke too

[union_maid]

130. Here in NY smoking is banned in most public places

Not only is it no longer allowed in bars and restaurants, offices and just about every indoor space there is, increasingly it's even banned in outdoor spaces. There are state laws and some local laws involved in where and under what circumstances smoking is banned. One big difference between smoking and guns is that local control is possible. If smoking laws are more lenient in one state, that doesn't affect other states. Community standards can prevail. Not true with guns. States with gun control laws are still faced with a constant influx of guns from other states. which is a huge reason why we're so mad at each other about it. Only one side gets to set their own community standards on this issue.

[dmallind]

131. Well of course it would - but there are differences as well as similarities.

Some differences posited upthread are spurious however. People ARE legally protected from second hard exposure to the harmful effects of guns - far more than they are from cigarettes even after much recent improvement there. It's a far more serious crime to spray bullets around a public place than smoke, and of course it should be so.

Some legitimate differences exist. Guns kill far more decisively and with far less variation than ETS. Plenty of people survive gunshots of course - but most people subjected to decades of workplace ETS are not killed by it. Most people getting shot as part of their daily routine would not be so lucky. The death count IS higher yes - but only because far more people smoke in public than carry guns in public, let alone actually shoot them in public (after all carrying a pack of unlit cigs is equally as harmless as the most responsible CCWer imaginable, and it must be said less likely to incur negligent discharges).

There are likwise cases where smoking is far worse than RKBA. Guns if used legally and responsibly without homicidal/suicidal intent kill nobody. Smoking kills when every possible safeguard and restriction short of outright bans are in place. But the obverse is also true. Accidentally lighting up a cigarette without checking your surroundings is at worst going to trigger a stern rebuke and an unpleasant few seconds for a nearby asthmatic. Doing that with a gun kills the kid in the next apartment way too often.

In pure body count you have a fine point the more overwrought shrieking side of the antis will wilfully ignore. You likewise have a point in that whatever positive use of guns you want to imagine, it is not zero. Lives have been saved aplenty by guns. If not none at all by smoking, certainly far fewer by orders of magnitude. The hypocrisy regarding body count is indeed strong. Guns are evil if they kill 30000. Tobacco less so if it kills 15 times that. Noted. Even said so myself. BUT there is also a grave difference in the risks of negligence, in the finality and immediacy of harm, and in the specificity of results.

To be honest the antis would be well-served by following smoking as a model. In a few decades smoking went from a nigh universal image of coolness to a shrinking minority of pariahs, and all because of public perception of negative impact and the resulting media image shift. Doing the same for gun ownership would take as long, and would be protected from a final ban by 2A, but is certainly possible.

[JoeyT]

139. "This place would freak out if you wanted to ban smoking. "

Shit, don't bet on it. Some people would dearly love to micromanage just as much of your life as anyone on the right.