We have spent literally generations working very hard to reduce every one of those, with no real, organized opposition (despite such examples as drivers griping that using seat belts restricted their “freedom”), and with great effect too. That includes tobacco use, btw, since that’s the focus of what you think is your strongest “Yeah, but”.
But there’s one notable exception, one that has a loud, well-financed faction devoted to *preventing *any action that would substantively reduce the death rate. You know it too. Now tell us why.
You do realize that we can multitask? We can try to reduce preventable deaths across the board, including guns. The question isn’t why go after guns, it’s why not go after guns?
Mostly because the people doing it are really bad at it. Seriously. Dumb redneck hicks from Bumblefuck, Alabama sound more rational and well informed than many of the folks that advocate gun control.
I’ve spent 20 years in the gun-free paradise that is the UK. It’s freaking great (in that respect, at least - politically it’s a shitshow at the moment).
You mean you’re *not *cruelly oppressed by a tyrannical government wanting to erase your freedoms and keep you cruelly enslaved? No? Maybe Canada or Australia … no, not there either? WTF?
**Lumpy **must be thinking of some real place, mustn’t he? No to that too? America really must be different somehow, like those guys keep saying although they can’t say how. And it *is *true - it’s different in that there’s an actual number of gun fetishists here, holding us back and keeping the death count rolling.
The factor that keeps getting left out of the “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” equation is that if guns are outlawed, outlaws will have a much harder time getting guns. Guns will be much harder and much more expensive to obtain - they won’t be able to acquire them through direct purchases or “straw buys”, and they won’t be able to steal guns from law-abiding gun owners. Furthermore, criminals often feel the need to arm themselves because the law-abiding folk are armed, creating a vicious circle.
There are still guns on the streets of London but they are relatively few and are more likely to be used against other armed criminals or gang members than against the unarmed populace. Indeed, when using a gun ratchets up the punishment level exponentially you might as well mug someone at knifepoint than at gunpoint (and even knives carry penalties of their own). And the odds of someone crazy enough to go on a homicidal spree yet savvy enough to acquire a gun is vanishingly small (at least until 3D-printed guns become an option). Fewer guns means fewer guns.
So I don’t worry about bad guys with guns, and I don’t feel like I need to carry a gun myself in order to defend myself from a bad guy with a gun. Sure, I could still get shot by accident in a drive-by but I’m far more likely to be run over by a car than shot at from one.
Maybe take a page from the gun control workbook and just implement a tax per piece like Seattle’s ammunition tax. Say 2 cent’s per fry or 5 cents per onion ring. I would actually support a tobacco ban. No pesky constitution protecting your right to be a chimney.
Nice argumentum ad absurdum. Or not. No more than I advocate legalizing homicide because guns are only the 7th in the list. By the same token, I’m not going to try to mandate chastity belts for everyone to prevent rape which is no more realistic a solution than banning assault weapons. The Assault Weapon Myth
No real, organized opposition?
So the tobacco lobby spending 20 million in 2015 lobbying politicians doesn’t count as opposition? Compared to the gun lobby with 11 million. The tobacco lobby doesn’t get loud because it doesn’t have to.
In other news, the NRA still remains silent on the shooting of Philando Castile. This is a man who legally owned and legally carried a firearm, yet was shot after politely informing the officer that he was carrying. If you assume that the second amendment does indeed protect unlimited possession and carry (it doesn’t, but that’s another issue), this is about as egregious a constitutional violation as one can imagine. Yet the NRA, the premier “defender” of the second amendment, remains silent.
They’re probably trying to figure out how to spin this. On the other hand, I don’t recall hearing a peep from that steaming pile of elephant excrement Wayne LaPierre after Orlando.
It was broached for a few seconds on their radio show, I heard. I bet they’re waiting to see what kind of feedback that gets. (Which, after what just happened in Dallas, will I suspect be negative.)
I see several Yahoos in Dallas have decided to use their misperceived constitutional right to guns to fight what they viewed as an oppressive and tyrannical government. Assholes. I look forward to them being handed the death penalty they so richly deserve.
Gun reform is coming, just like gay marriage rights finally gained acceptance, and those who have to have their guns pried from their cold, dead hands, that’s fine with me.
I have spent more than 60 years here. What would you like to know? We have drug violence? Yes. Where do the majority of the weapons come from? Where does the money come from to buy the weapons?