maine

[TheIncredibles!]

Until people stop turning a blind eye to the public health crisis that is tobacco (480,000 deaths per year in the US, 41,000 of those due to secondhand smoke) and alcohol (140,000 deaths per year in the US) nothing will be done about 48,000 gun deaths per year in the US.

I believe that anyone that thinks guns should be banned but is not also willing to admit that alcohol and tobacco should be banned as well are not being truthful with themselves or sincere in their goals for the ban they advocate.

Yup. There are MANY hands in political pockets Let’s add Big pharma

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Actually, most gun owners I know have a gun either for hunting or to protect their homes/selves when directly attacked. I don't think when someone decides to carry a gun, they do so to be able to stop a mass shooting. They are thinking more about protection during a home invasion, from being held up at the ATM, preventing being car jacked, etc. Most of the people I know who have guns use them for hunting, not for protecting themselves from a mass murderer.

That’s not the case for the people I know who carry.

 

[TheIncredibles!]

That makes zero sense.
People choose to smoke. And the effects are long term not instantaneous.
Not the same as being shot.

Politically…it all makes sense. The NRA, Big Pharma, Tobacco companies, top alcohol companies and who knows what else I don’t know…all have political influences they should not have.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

I don't think I have ever seen, listened to or read an intelligent discussion by folks who advocate for SOME gun regulation suggest that guns (again, with no modifier of types of guns) be banned, taken away or anything similar.

I’ve seen plenty of unintelligent comments that have made that argument. If you don’t want all guns banned then what’s the limiting principle? Please define a “military type weapon” using objective terms.

 

[kdonnel]

I’m still not understanding your point. It’s so vague.

If someone thinks the way to solve gun deaths is to ban guns, then they should also think that the way to solve the tobacco and alcohol crises is to ban them as well.

I don't see why banning guns is seen as a solution by people who don't also see banning tobacco and alcohol as a solution.

Millions of people use alcohol and tobacco on a daily basis that does not cause harm to others, just like millions of people own guns on a daily basis that does not cause harm to others.

Why is it ok to advocate taking away something from responsible gun owners and not also advocate taking away tobacco and alcohol from responsible users?

It seems to be because we as people can easily discount the thousands of innocent deaths directly and indirectly attributed to tobacco and alcohol use because they either happen slowly or not in mass.

 

[Marrila]

If someone thinks the way to solve gun deaths is to ban guns, then they should also think that the way to solve the tobacco and alcohol crises is to ban them as well.

I don't see why banning guns is seen as a solution by people who don't also see banning tobacco and alcohol as a solution.

Millions of people use alcohol and tobacco on a daily basis that does not cause harm to others, just like millions of people own guns on a daily basis that does not cause harm to others.

Why is it ok to advocate taking away something from responsible gun owners and not also advocate taking away tobacco and alcohol from responsible users?

It seems to be because we as people can easily discount the thousands of innocent deaths directly and indirectly attributed to tobacco and alcohol use because they either happen slowly or not in mass.

Maybe because shaking up a Bud light and spewing it over Applebee's will only make people mad and wet.
Assault weapons, on the other hand ...

 

[CdnCarrie]

If someone thinks the way to solve gun deaths is to ban guns, then they should also think that the way to solve the tobacco and alcohol crises is to ban them as well.

I don't see why banning guns is seen as a solution by people who don't also see banning tobacco and alcohol as a solution.

Millions of people use alcohol and tobacco on a daily basis that does not cause harm to others, just like millions of people own guns on a daily basis that does not cause harm to others.

Why is it ok to advocate taking away something from responsible gun owners and not also advocate taking away tobacco and alcohol from responsible users?

It seems to be because we as people can easily discount the thousands of innocent deaths directly and indirectly attributed to tobacco and alcohol use because they either happen slowly or not in mass.

No idea. I’ll let you ponder that while I enjoy my Saturday in a country that hasn’t had a mass shooting this year.
Enjoy your weekend!

 

[robinb]

No idea. I’ll let you ponder that while I enjoy my Saturday in a country that hasn’t had a mass shooting this year.
Enjoy your weekend!

Braggart.

Enjoy your weekend too!

 

[Douglas Dubh]

. I’ll let you ponder that while I enjoy my Saturday in a country that hasn’t had a mass shooting this year.

Five people were shot dead in Ontario last week.

 

[kdonnel]

Maybe because shaking up a Bud light and spewing it over Applebee's will only make people mad and wet.
Assault weapons, on the other hand ...

So indirect deaths caused by alcohol and tobacco are somehow less tragic?

Deaths by gun require a more stringent approach to solve by taking away the rights of non abusers but indirect deaths from tobacco and alcohol for some reason do not require the same approach?

That’s what I don’t understand.

 

[Moliphino]

If there’s multiple problems why is the rate of gun deaths in Massachusetts relevant?

Because it shows that stricter gun laws do work to lower the rate of gun deaths.

 

[Moliphino]

I’ve seen plenty of unintelligent comments that have made that argument. If you don’t want all guns banned then what’s the limiting principle? Please define a “military type weapon” using objective terms.

Bring back the assault weapons ban. Require more stringent background checks and vetting of people buying guns. Require that people buying guns have had training in how to use and store them properly.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Five people were shot dead in Ontario last week.

As I noted before.

Domestic violence. Not random strangers in a church, school or parking lot.

Still awful of course.

 

[tx911]

Bring back the assault weapons ban. Require more stringent background checks and vetting of people buying guns. Require that people buying guns have had training in how to use and store them properly.

Seriously though, what do you then do when people invariably start using hunting rifles, handguns, and illegally obtained assault rifles to commit these crimes?

 

[Moliphino]

Seriously though, what do you then do when people invariably start using hunting rifles, handguns, and illegally obtained assault rifles to commit these crimes?

The background checks, vetting, and required training will help keep guns away from people who would commit crimes. Look at the rest of the world.

 

[tx911]

The background checks, vetting, and required training will help keep guns away from people who would commit crimes. Look at the rest of the world.

I tend to think that those who would commit these crimes will find ways to get weapons that circumvent these laws. Perhaps the number would be fewer though.

 

[john7994]

So indirect deaths caused by alcohol and tobacco are somehow less tragic?

Deaths by gun require a more stringent approach to solve by taking away the rights of non abusers but indirect deaths from tobacco and alcohol for some reason do not require the same approach?

That’s what I don’t understand.

So following your logic, given the indirect deaths caused by alcohol or tobacco - and why not - lets throw in drug abuse as well, the future mass shooting victims and their families can just deal with tragedy as collateral damage because gun-owner rights are somehow more important?

Here's a thought exercise - what if tobacco, alcohol and drugs are banned - so then and only then would it be ok to take away the guns? Or, are we going to find something else - like automobiles, trucks, and trains?

 

[CdnCarrie]

Fun fact - 85% of illegal guns in Canada are from the USA.

 

[tx911]

Fun fact - 85% of illegal guns in Canada are from the USA.

Somehow I don't find it very surprising that they come from the country that's directly next door.

I guess there is a demand for illegal guns in Canada.

 

[robinb]

So following your logic, given the indirect deaths caused by alcohol or tobacco - and why not - lets throw in drug abuse as well, the future mass shooting victims and their families can just deal with tragedy as collateral damage because gun-owner rights are somehow more important?

Here's a thought exercise - what if tobacco, alcohol and drugs are banned - so then and only then would it be ok to take away the guns? Or, are we going to find something else - like automobiles, trucks, and trains?

You know as well as I that the "whataboutism" never ends.