Political Crossfire Forums

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 10973 Location: Podunk, Colorado

Smoking good! Guns bad!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jwt/gun_free.html

Quote: WHAT IS LUNG CANCER?

Lung cancer is the leading cancer killer in both men and women. An estimated 173,700 new cases of lung cancer and an estimated 160,440 deaths from lung cancer will occur in the United States during 2004.

Quote: WHAT CAUSES LUNG CANCER?

Smoking is the number one cause of lung cancer. Lung cancer may also be the most tragic cancer because in most cases, it might have been prevented -- 87% of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking. Cigarette smoke contains more than 4,000 different chemicals, many of which are proven cancer-causing substances, or carcinogens. Smoking cigars or pipes also increases the risk of lung cancer.
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35427

Quote: [Firearms - all ages- 2003]
Suicide........... 16,907
Homicide.........11,920
Accident...............790
___________________________
Total...............29,789
http://www.nraila.org/nchs_data/us.xls

Kind of makes you think the Brady Bunch has they priorities messed up eh?

OneZero · Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 3413

Yeah, smoking WILL kill you, having a gun might (chances are very low) kill you. Why are cigarettes legal without a permit but guns are not?

Ssushi · Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 7019

OneZero wrote: Yeah, smoking WILL kill you, having a gun might (chances are very low) kill you. Why are cigarettes legal without a permit but guns are not?

Smoking is not guaranteed to kill you! That's one of the main reasons it's still allowed; there is significant evidence to link smoking with cancer but is is not 100% definitive. Many people smoke there whole lives and die at an old age of something else. Having said that, few of us would defend smoking.

The main difference in these two things is that smoking primarily harms the smoker and secondarily harms others via passive smoking. You cannot really passively die of a gun shot as the aim of a gun is to harm someone else.

Honestly lads, this line of defence for gun ownership is weak - very very weak...

leftneckredwing · Joined: 13 Nov 2004 Posts: 32350 Location: North America

This is the kind of thing I was trying to get one of the posters here to elaborate on. Their name shall go unmentioned. As far as I'm concerned they no longer post here.

There are so many more easily preventable causes of deaths, yet guns are the ones they focus on. There is no fundamental principle or guiding philosophy behind their goals. There are only issues. None of them bother to concern themselves with right and wrong. Only with the cause du jour.

It is odd they only concern themselves with making something inaccessible through law, but things that are illegal and cause no harm or are victimless, go unnoticed and unmentioned.

Without looking at the particular issues, only the methods, if one were to more closely examine the results, their goals become apparent.

It is little different from Christian Fundamentalists wishing to force Intelligent Design on education. Especially since American schools are mostly run from public funding. That particular aspect forces law to engage in morality and moral judgements. The gov should be amoral. But anti gun lobbyists and fundies all seek to engage law to impair the right to choose.

OneZero · Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 3413

Ssushi wrote: OneZero wrote: Yeah, smoking WILL kill you, having a gun might (chances are very low) kill you. Why are cigarettes legal without a permit but guns are not?

Smoking is not guaranteed to kill you! That's one of the main reasons it's still allowed; there is significant evidence to link smoking with cancer but is is not 100% definitive. Many people smoke there whole lives and die at an old age of something else. Having said that, few of us would defend smoking.

The main difference in these two things is that smoking primarily harms the smoker and secondarily harms others via passive smoking. You cannot really passively die of a gun shot as the aim of a gun is to harm someone else.

Honestly lads, this line of defence for gun ownership is weak - very very weak...

I don't see as it is any weaker to defend smoking. It is way more likely that a life-long smoker will get killed because of his habit than a lifelong hunter/gun owner will get killed because of his property.

OneZero · Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 3413

leftneckredwing wrote:
It is little different from Christian Fundamentalists wishing to force Intelligent Design on education. Especially since American schools are mostly run from public funding. That particular aspect forces law to engage in morality and moral judgements. The gov should be amoral. But anti gun lobbyists and fundies all seek to engage law to impair the right to choose.

This is off-topic, but I disagree here. Christian Fundamentalists, as I understand, do not even want to stop teaching evolution in the classroom, they simply want Intelligent Design to be taught in the SAME classroom and given the SAME thought and emphasis.
Also it should be pointed out that Intelligent Design is not in and of itself a religious belief, Creationism is.

leftneckredwing · Joined: 13 Nov 2004 Posts: 32350 Location: North America

OneZero wrote: leftneckredwing wrote:
It is little different from Christian Fundamentalists wishing to force Intelligent Design on education. Especially since American schools are mostly run from public funding. That particular aspect forces law to engage in morality and moral judgements. The gov should be amoral. But anti gun lobbyists and fundies all seek to engage law to impair the right to choose.

This is off-topic, but I disagree here. Christian Fundamentalists, as I understand, do not even want to stop teaching evolution in the classroom, they simply want Intelligent Design to be taught in the SAME classroom and given the SAME thought and emphasis.
Also it should be pointed out that Intelligent Design is not in and of itself a religious belief, Creationism is.

The point was how it was intended to be introduced as forced curriculum. It's more forced curriculum at the behest of a special interest group, just like the anti gun lobby.

leftneckredwing · Joined: 13 Nov 2004 Posts: 32350 Location: North America

Ssushi wrote: OneZero wrote: Yeah, smoking WILL kill you, having a gun might (chances are very low) kill you. Why are cigarettes legal without a permit but guns are not?

Smoking is not guaranteed to kill you! That's one of the main reasons it's still allowed; there is significant evidence to link smoking with cancer but is is not 100% definitive. Many people smoke there whole lives and die at an old age of something else. Having said that, few of us would defend smoking.

The main difference in these two things is that smoking primarily harms the smoker and secondarily harms others via passive smoking. You cannot really passively die of a gun shot as the aim of a gun is to harm someone else.

Honestly lads, this line of defence for gun ownership is weak - very very weak...

Neither are guns guaranteed to kill you.

The reason it's still allowed is the corporate lobby. The anti smoking lobby would have it banned if they had more power and it achieved an objective of gov or a powerful enough special interest group.

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 10973 Location: Podunk, Colorado

Ssushi wrote: OneZero wrote: Yeah, smoking WILL kill you, having a gun might (chances are very low) kill you. Why are cigarettes legal without a permit but guns are not?

Smoking is not guaranteed to kill you! That's one of the main reasons it's still allowed; there is significant evidence to link smoking with cancer but is is not 100% definitive. Many people smoke there whole lives and die at an old age of something else. Having said that, few of us would defend smoking.

The main difference in these two things is that smoking primarily harms the smoker and secondarily harms others via passive smoking. You cannot really passively die of a gun shot as the aim of a gun is to harm someone else.

Honestly lads, this line of defence for gun ownership is weak - very very weak...
Its hardly a defense, that certainly wasn't the intent of the topic.

My intent was to point out how pathetic the Brady Campaign is.
They should be after cigarettes, and bicycles if they really want to save the children.

Ssushi · Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 7019

Wolverine wrote: Ssushi wrote: OneZero wrote: Yeah, smoking WILL kill you, having a gun might (chances are very low) kill you. Why are cigarettes legal without a permit but guns are not?

Smoking is not guaranteed to kill you! That's one of the main reasons it's still allowed; there is significant evidence to link smoking with cancer but is is not 100% definitive. Many people smoke there whole lives and die at an old age of something else. Having said that, few of us would defend smoking.

The main difference in these two things is that smoking primarily harms the smoker and secondarily harms others via passive smoking. You cannot really passively die of a gun shot as the aim of a gun is to harm someone else.

Honestly lads, this line of defence for gun ownership is weak - very very weak...
Its hardly a defense, that certainly wasn't the intent of the topic.

My intent was to point out how pathetic the Brady Campaign is.
They should be after cigarettes, and bicycles if they really want to save the children.

But in some small way, children still make the decision to smoke (although we could say that they aren't old enough to understand the consequences).

The children in the Columbine school had no choice, none what so ever. Us adults could affect change and remove guns from society but we don't because:

1) Guns are a representation of liberty.
2) People get a kick out of shooting stuff.
3) The arms industry is good for the economy.

Yet, children have been killed by people with guns and will continue to be killed by people with guns.... But that's OK, because:

1) Guns are a representation of liberty.
2) People get a kick out of shooting stuff.
3) The arms industry is good for the economy.

lilwolf · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 14133 Location: idaho

smoking is always going to kill more than guns. I do not smoke (anymore). I stopped 10 years ago. I wanted to live after seeing someone die from it. But there is never logic in the smoking debate. The tobacco lobby is a big money thing. But I have never been able to figure out why a gun is nastier than a cigarette. I like the smell of a freshly fired round and I hate the smell (now) of tobacco.
There will in all likli hood never be an easy answer on that one.

I still say guns kill less, and always will. Intertesting subject. :-D

Ssushi · Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 7019

lilwolf wrote: smoking is always going to kill more than guns. I do not smoke (anymore). I stopped 10 years ago. I wanted to live after seeing someone die from it. But there is never logic in the smoking debate. The tobacco lobby is a big money thing. But I have never been able to figure out why a gun is nastier than a cigarette. I like the smell of a freshly fired round and I hate the smell (now) of tobacco.
There will in all likli hood never be an easy answer on that one.

I still say guns kill less, and always will. Intertesting subject. :-D

But no-one's saying that guns kill more people. The point is that guns are primarily used by the owner and against the someone else, cigarettes are primarily used against the owner and secondarily against someone else.

That's why guns are perceived in this way...

leftneckredwing · Joined: 13 Nov 2004 Posts: 32350 Location: North America

Ssushi wrote: Wolverine wrote: Ssushi wrote: OneZero wrote: Yeah, smoking WILL kill you, having a gun might (chances are very low) kill you. Why are cigarettes legal without a permit but guns are not?

Smoking is not guaranteed to kill you! That's one of the main reasons it's still allowed; there is significant evidence to link smoking with cancer but is is not 100% definitive. Many people smoke there whole lives and die at an old age of something else. Having said that, few of us would defend smoking.

The main difference in these two things is that smoking primarily harms the smoker and secondarily harms others via passive smoking. You cannot really passively die of a gun shot as the aim of a gun is to harm someone else.

Honestly lads, this line of defence for gun ownership is weak - very very weak...
Its hardly a defense, that certainly wasn't the intent of the topic.

My intent was to point out how pathetic the Brady Campaign is.
They should be after cigarettes, and bicycles if they really want to save the children.

But in some small way, children still make the decision to smoke (although we could say that they aren't old enough to understand the consequences).

The children in the Columbine school had no choice, none what so ever. Us adults could affect change and remove guns from society but we don't because:

1) Guns are a representation of liberty.
2) People get a kick out of shooting stuff.
3) The arms industry is good for the economy.

Yet, children have been killed by people with guns and will continue to be killed by people with guns.... But that's OK, because:

1) Guns are a representation of liberty.
2) People get a kick out of shooting stuff.
3) The arms industry is good for the economy.

Every comparison you make only reinforces what you are arguing against:i.e.Children still make the decision to smoke, without realising the consequences.

I see your list of 3 reasons exclude the right to self defense.

Ssushi · Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 7019

leftneckredwing wrote: Ssushi wrote: Wolverine wrote: Ssushi wrote: OneZero wrote: Yeah, smoking WILL kill you, having a gun might (chances are very low) kill you. Why are cigarettes legal without a permit but guns are not?

Smoking is not guaranteed to kill you! That's one of the main reasons it's still allowed; there is significant evidence to link smoking with cancer but is is not 100% definitive. Many people smoke there whole lives and die at an old age of something else. Having said that, few of us would defend smoking.

The main difference in these two things is that smoking primarily harms the smoker and secondarily harms others via passive smoking. You cannot really passively die of a gun shot as the aim of a gun is to harm someone else.

Honestly lads, this line of defence for gun ownership is weak - very very weak...
Its hardly a defense, that certainly wasn't the intent of the topic.

My intent was to point out how pathetic the Brady Campaign is.
They should be after cigarettes, and bicycles if they really want to save the children.

But in some small way, children still make the decision to smoke (although we could say that they aren't old enough to understand the consequences).

The children in the Columbine school had no choice, none what so ever. Us adults could affect change and remove guns from society but we don't because:

1) Guns are a representation of liberty.
2) People get a kick out of shooting stuff.
3) The arms industry is good for the economy.

Yet, children have been killed by people with guns and will continue to be killed by people with guns.... But that's OK, because:

1) Guns are a representation of liberty.
2) People get a kick out of shooting stuff.
3) The arms industry is good for the economy.

Every comparison you make only reinforces what you are arguing against:i.e.Children still make the decision to smoke, without realising the consequences.

I see your list of 3 reasons exclude the right to self defense.

OK

1) Guns are a representation of liberty.
2) People get a kick out of shooting stuff.
3) The arms industry is good for the economy.
4) The right to self defence

You chose these over trying to prevent another Columbine. Just say it clearly:

"I prefer the above than trying to save another school massacre"

OneZero · Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 3413

Ssushi wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: Ssushi wrote: Wolverine wrote: Ssushi wrote: OneZero wrote: Yeah, smoking WILL kill you, having a gun might (chances are very low) kill you. Why are cigarettes legal without a permit but guns are not?

Smoking is not guaranteed to kill you! That's one of the main reasons it's still allowed; there is significant evidence to link smoking with cancer but is is not 100% definitive. Many people smoke there whole lives and die at an old age of something else. Having said that, few of us would defend smoking.

The main difference in these two things is that smoking primarily harms the smoker and secondarily harms others via passive smoking. You cannot really passively die of a gun shot as the aim of a gun is to harm someone else.

Honestly lads, this line of defence for gun ownership is weak - very very weak...
Its hardly a defense, that certainly wasn't the intent of the topic.

My intent was to point out how pathetic the Brady Campaign is.
They should be after cigarettes, and bicycles if they really want to save the children.

But in some small way, children still make the decision to smoke (although we could say that they aren't old enough to understand the consequences).

The children in the Columbine school had no choice, none what so ever. Us adults could affect change and remove guns from society but we don't because:

1) Guns are a representation of liberty.
2) People get a kick out of shooting stuff.
3) The arms industry is good for the economy.

Yet, children have been killed by people with guns and will continue to be killed by people with guns.... But that's OK, because:

1) Guns are a representation of liberty.
2) People get a kick out of shooting stuff.
3) The arms industry is good for the economy.

Every comparison you make only reinforces what you are arguing against:i.e.Children still make the decision to smoke, without realising the consequences.

I see your list of 3 reasons exclude the right to self defense.

OK

1) Guns are a representation of liberty.
2) People get a kick out of shooting stuff.
3) The arms industry is good for the economy.
4) The right to self defence

You chose these over trying to prevent another Columbine. Just say it clearly:

"I prefer the above than trying to save another school massacre"

How could we prevent it? The killers broke like 17 local, state, and federal laws including: gun-free schoolzone, concealed carry without a permit, underage possesion of a handgun, shotgun with barrel below the legal length, and straw purchaser.

What is your grand scheme that would have stopped these very determined killers (who planned extensivly and even planted bombs) from committing this crime?

Now let's think about it... what if the teachers had guns? What if there were armed adults who could have stopped the rampage? Think about it, why did the Columbine teachers call the cops? BECAUSE THEY HAD GUNS AND COULD STOP THE KILLERS!!!!!!!! We already trust our teachers with our kids, why not let them have guns too?

Ssushi · Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 7019

OneZero wrote: How could we prevent it?

By removing guns and gun culture from your society???

The Central Scrutinizer · Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:46 am Post subject:

Ssushi wrote: OneZero wrote: How could we prevent it?

By removing guns and gun culture from your society???

Ok, but only once you remove alcohol and alcohol culture from your society. :roll:

Please. "Preventing another Columbine" is probably the weakest argument for gun control ever invented. If anything, Columbine proves that criminals will, oddly enough, break the law in order to get guns and do what they want regardless of gun control legislation. Gun control merely keeps the guns out of the hands of good, law-abiding citizens who could have used those guns to shoot Klebold and Harris before they were able to mow down their classmates.

"Gun-free zones" are the stupidest idea in the history of the planet. Because basically, who will be free of guns? The good, law-abiding citizens who will obey the damn zone! And who will be the only ones left with guns? The malicious, violent criminals! (And maybe those of us who are intelligent enough to realize how f*cking stupid gun control is.)

leftneckredwing · Joined: 13 Nov 2004 Posts: 32350 Location: North America

Ssushi wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: Ssushi wrote: Wolverine wrote: Ssushi wrote: OneZero wrote: Yeah, smoking WILL kill you, having a gun might (chances are very low) kill you. Why are cigarettes legal without a permit but guns are not?

Smoking is not guaranteed to kill you! That's one of the main reasons it's still allowed; there is significant evidence to link smoking with cancer but is is not 100% definitive. Many people smoke there whole lives and die at an old age of something else. Having said that, few of us would defend smoking.

The main difference in these two things is that smoking primarily harms the smoker and secondarily harms others via passive smoking. You cannot really passively die of a gun shot as the aim of a gun is to harm someone else.

Honestly lads, this line of defence for gun ownership is weak - very very weak...
Its hardly a defense, that certainly wasn't the intent of the topic.

My intent was to point out how pathetic the Brady Campaign is.
They should be after cigarettes, and bicycles if they really want to save the children.

But in some small way, children still make the decision to smoke (although we could say that they aren't old enough to understand the consequences).

The children in the Columbine school had no choice, none what so ever. Us adults could affect change and remove guns from society but we don't because:

1) Guns are a representation of liberty.
2) People get a kick out of shooting stuff.
3) The arms industry is good for the economy.

Yet, children have been killed by people with guns and will continue to be killed by people with guns.... But that's OK, because:

1) Guns are a representation of liberty.
2) People get a kick out of shooting stuff.
3) The arms industry is good for the economy.

Every comparison you make only reinforces what you are arguing against:i.e.Children still make the decision to smoke, without realising the consequences.

I see your list of 3 reasons exclude the right to self defense.

OK

1) Guns are a representation of liberty.
2) People get a kick out of shooting stuff.
3) The arms industry is good for the economy.
4) The right to self defence

You chose these over trying to prevent another Columbine. Just say it clearly:

"I prefer the above than trying to save another school massacre"

How convenient for you to be able to put words into my mouth.

Either you can debate honestly or you can go on the ignore list.

OneZero · Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 3413

Ssushi wrote: OneZero wrote: How could we prevent it?

By removing guns and gun culture from your society???

:lol:

How do we do that? Ban them? That won't work, criminals already have guns, they won't give them up. Gun owners already have guns, they won't give them up. I repeat, YOU CANNOT EVER REMOVE GUNS FROM AMERICA. no matter what you do, they are here to stay, like it or not.

lilwolf · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 14133 Location: idaho

I agree with that Onezero. My guns are here to stay no matter what. No one will ever get my guns either by force or by law without an actual fight. They (govt. or whoever) might get them but they will earn them.