Jon Stewart's plea for gun control
Since your idea is to "legalize everything" should we just legalize bombs for public use? And if you're trying to show that we can all die from bombings, so we need protection, I don't know what owning a gun will do if someone drives a car bomb into a church.
The fact that cancer kills infinitely more people than guns doesn't mean that we should keep guns. Gun violence is it's own issue.
Back to my original point, gun violence doesn't happen at nearly the frequency that alcohol related deaths do. Do you support banning of alcohol or limiting the amount people can buy so nobody can drink beyond the legal limit or reducing the alcohol by volume to levels that people can't drink fast enough to get drunk?
More people are killed in auto accidents than people are murdered by guns. Do you suggest we make cars that can not exceed 70mph?
Fast food, sweets, soft drinks, etc are the leading cause of heart disease, diabetes and other diseases that kill at thousands of a percent higher rate than gun homicides. Do you suggest we get rid of all red meat, fast food, sugar products?
Most likely you enjoy having an alcoholic beverage and a steak with dessert sometimes and feel like banning these items are foolish. Thousands of people love to take their firearms to a range to shoot, hunt or find comfort in being able to protect themselves, family and property but feel banning an item that contributes to hundreds of thousands of less deaths per year than the items above is foolish.
I find it baffling how far you can get off of the point. People die from chemo theropy, should we ban cancer drugs? I mean anyone can throw out these statements, and they may sounds like you're comparying apples to apples but you're really not.
70MPH - A lot of states have lower speed limits than louisiana to try an cut down on the fatalities that car crashes cause. But as you keep mentioning cars, I will keep mentioning that cars are not designed to harm a human being. That is what a gun is designed to harm a living creature. You can argue until you're red in the face that they are designed for sport, but they are designed to maim and kill things, and the higher bullet capacity is designed to harm more things in a shorter amount of time.
Sugar and alcohol - Many cities are already implimenting taxes and bans on sugar drinks, alcohol and cigarettes. You say you could never see a gun tax or taxing bullets. Here in NYC alcohol is taxed heavily, and adults pay for it. Cigarettes here in NYC cost like $12 a pack. You know what people would do if they taxed guns and bullets? nothing. No militia would form. We're adults, and if you're saying that shooting is for sport then it is a luxury, not a necessity. Pay a little more for it and register your gun like you have to register your car (the death machines you keep going on a bout.) Oh, and there are dry counties. These people aren't rioting.
And sugar? here in NY bloomberg is banning sugar drinks over a certain size. I like to have my large soda in the theater, but after seeing honey boo boo child sized children with their faces buried in big gulps I don't think it's a big issue. You know what people did? complained. No riots, no militia formed.
And have you forgotten a ban on supersize at mcdonalds, thanks to "supersize me". People complain, but people deal with vice taxes. They are luxuries.
These are all things that have been curbed to protect people from themselves and we are talking about products that are designed for transportation, get inhebriated and quench a sweet tooth. Guns are designed to harm things. I don't understand how you can't see the difference.
Again, I'm not saying we should ban guns. But lets keep the discussion logical. This country is not going to legalize cocaine, heroine, crack, meth, crocidile and weed and start handing out legal guns to everybody. We have to keep our ideas within the realm of possibility.