politicartoons | (no subject)

You choose to use tobacco; no one comes up to you, throws it at you, and you magically get complications and/or death from it.

This.

Except for second-hand smoke.

which is why so many places have bans against smoking indoors in restaurants and the like.

People still go to those places voluntarily. The law is backwards; where smoking really needs to be banned is in public places like sidewalks and bus stops.

In Melbourne it is. Smoking is banned in or near any "permanently covered area", including bus stops, train stations, covered walkways, under bridges, and so on.

In most situations it's 20+ feet away from a public building. Much like guns, it's about enforcement.

And furthermore, as a smoker I have no problem calling out someone who is smoking publicly in the way of other non smokers. Unlike gun enthusiasts, I don't make excuses for irresponsible smokers.

Unlike gun enthusiasts? Please, show me someone defending the actions of a mass shooter.

Gun owners are just defending their own right to own guns responsibly, just like you would defend your own right to smoke responsibly despite the vast number of people who do it rudely and even harmfully around others.

I don't need to give you specifics...there are numerous posts in this community alone with people stating that nothing needs to be done about gun laws and enforcing current regulations.

Those that oppose safe keeping laws, those that oppose stricter background checks, those that oppose laws preventing straw purchases....I could go on. You may not be backing mass shooters, but throwing up your hands and saying nothing could be done to even remotely prevent it IMO is just as bad.

"Those that oppose safe keeping laws, those that oppose stricter background checks, those that oppose laws preventing straw purchases"

Safe keeping laws defeat one of the major purposes of owning guns in the first place. They're off the table forever.

But the only opposition I've ever seen to stricter background checks is when anti-gun nuts want to add checks for crimes they think the buyer might commit instead of crimes the buyer has committed. I've never seen any opposition to enforcing the background checks that already exist.

And there are already laws preventing straw purchases, so it would be ridiculous to advocate or oppose creating more of them. If you've seen that conversation, please point it out so I can ridicule both sides.

So what you're saying is that you can't.

Did someone say straw purchase?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/markkelly.asp

lol second hand smoke

The date used in the image isn't from second hand smoke though.

Tobacco has undergone a lot of regulation in recent decades, and most people think guns need to be better regulated as well.

The question being where that line is drawn.

yes, because the tobacco companies are held in such high regard.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

At first I thought it said 'TACO DEATHS PER YEAR.'

We probably do need to regulate Taco Bell better and watch what they put in there. :D

Have you seen what they put in there?!? That would put you off your lunch in a right hurry.

I remember that there was supposed to be a big lawsuit on the issue, but I guess that got settled.

So, I see you found your way to PolitiCartoons. It's a more easygoing joint. Just kick back and relax!

Shut up and drink your malk (now with Vitamin R!)

Nothing would stop me from eating it. NOTHING!!!

Honestly, I think it's delicious, so I don't really care what it is.

Welcome to Taco Bell. What shape do you want us to put your bean and meat substance in?

They can have my tacos when they pry them from my greasy, satisfied fingers!

Begun, the Restaurant Wars have.

Okay, I'm convinced. Let's ban handguns instead.

Given how few murders assault rifles are responsible for compared to handguns, this is one of the most intelligent statements from a gun control proponent that I've seen recently

Just let victims sue the manufacturers.

Absolutely. And then we can let people hurt in DWIs sue auto manufacturers. We can let them sue Budweiser, too. And drug manufacturers should totally be sued if someone ODs on painkillers!

Okay, but recognize the profit chain is more sacred to us than the people the bullets kill.

Edited 2013-03-22 19:47 (UTC)

Profit? I don't make a penny off of anything firearms industry-related. To me, it is a fairness issue: punish the people committing the crimes, how about we...?

I love it when people are forced to see their own failed analogies in context.

I'd gladly give up handguns for MANPADs. Let's make a deal.

which of those two things is designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible?

It's just for show, I'm sure. ;)

There's no doubt arms manufacturers make lots of money. But I continue to find it exceedingly insane to blame an object for human actions.

Well, if we change gun with nuclear bomb, do you feel the same?

Lockheed Martin could make big bucks and please their investors by pumping out ICBM's and selling them to the whole world, but is that really a good idea long term?

Edited 2013-03-22 19:50 (UTC)

If we change purple with donkey, do you feel the turnip?

If everyone could be trusted with nukes, sure. But the problem is, plenty of rogue nations and terrorist groups will use nukes as soon as they can get their hands on them. That is why the global community (pretends to) try hard to keep countries like Iran from getting them.

The thing is, a responsible gun owner can be trusted with assault rifles because they're responsible. Responsible people aren't the problem here, so it makes no sense to me to pass gun control laws that affect them and not criminals and the irresponsible.

Edited 2013-03-23 22:29 (UTC)

Nice strawman. Maybe next time you can compare guns and cars.