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.
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.
We don't have a problem with bombs. There aren't millions of bombs already in the hands of civilians. Besides, if someone wants to make a bomb they just need about $100 and make a trip to Ace Hardware, Wal-Mart or Lowe's. Legalizing them would make no sense and they serve no legit purpose.
Cancer drugs save lives, alcohol for consumption does not. Alcohol ruins lives, kills families and provides very little social benefit. I'm not for outlawing it or even limiting volume because we have the right to make our own decisions and making laws to stop people from drinking doesn't work anyway.
You will never agree with what I have to say. From your post you thinks guns are only made, purchased and used to harm things. You think shooting up a paper target at a target range is harming things. You think that providing food while keeping animal populations in check and limiting diseases is harming things. You think someone having a shotgun in their closet for home defense is harming things. You think shooting skeet is harming things.
Guns are already curbed. The public with extremely few exceptions can't go buy an automatic weapon. You can't go to the store and buy a gatlin gun or even a true multi-fire assault rifle.
The comparison is more than legit. My points are more than fair, you just don't have the ability to see these because you probably enjoy alcohol and despise guns. It's different when it impacts your life and so much easier to try and pass laws and bans for other people. How can you not see that booze related deaths are multiple times higher than gun deaths. How can you not see that millions of people are addicted to alcohol? How can you not see that roughly 100,000,000 in the US alone have an alcoholic in their immediate family? Why is it worse when a 100 or so kids are killed in the classroom each year than when 1400 children are killed by drunk driving accidents? Do you only value the life of a child that was shot?
We've had an assault rifle ban before. We've also had quite a few studies from both sides of the aisle saying it had
NO IMPACT ON CRIME, GUN CRIME, HOMICIDES, GUN RELATED DEATHS. So if it doesn't solve any problems why do you care? Do you drive around in fear that some guy is going to pop up with an AR-15 and open fire on you at the Supermarket? If so that fear is irrational, the odds you are killed by a rifle of any kind at any time in the next year is 1:1,800,000, much lower for just assault rifles. The odds you are killed by a drunk driver in the next year 1:19000 or over 100 times more likely than being killed by an assault rifle.
Then again, you are the same person that doesn't mind the goverment telling you what you can eat and drink.
As for the dry counties, one of the dumbest things left in this country. It doesn't stop people from drinking, it simply encourages them to spend their money and tax dollars in neighboring counties while driving drunk for extended distances.
http://thetimestribune.com/local/x1511619555/Dry-counties-show-higher-rates-of-DUI-related-crashes