I think most people are of the view that we tried to ban alcohol and that was a disaster. So instead we have imposed controls that are somewhat successful.
We have imposed controls on guns that have been somewhat successful as well.
I suspect that we'd be much more successful if we tried to ban alcohol today - in our high-surveillance, much more militarized society. Even high proof booze is fairly bulky stuff and even banned it would never produce the profits per pound you can get from cocaine or even pot. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting we do it.
Agreed on all points.
We have had and are still moving ahead with a very successful anti-smoking campaign. That's an interesting comparison because, like most gun control proposals, it still allows individual choice. But there are strict controls - such as public smoking bans in the case of cigarettes and owning only "approved" guns in the case of guns.
True, it also important to note that early education is also a key component, which even in this thread it was discussed about not letting kids use guns.
Cars are another top killer. We have lots and lots of regulations on driving and vehicle ownership. But they are still top killers. We as a culture feel we can't do without them, so we tolerate and try to manage the carnage. But that probably won't be true in a few generations. Despite current objections, it's easy to imagine a future with computer-driven vehicles, more public transport and so on. I'd bet that your kids (if not mine) will need special licenses and proven competency to be allowed to pilot a classic car on automated highways.
Not saying you are making this arguement, but comparing deaths from something that has a public benefit to something that doesn't isn't the greatest argument for both sides. I think we both could agree that alcohol, tobacco and guns don't serve an direct public benefit and I could also argue that out of those three guns have the greatest net positive indirect benefit.
Harmful pharmaceuticals and foods, improper disposal of industrial and other wastes, needless wars, and so on are all top killers. And, like the cigarette debate, we are obstructed from doing as good a job as we could be doing because of profit motives and a sometimes twisted notion of individual liberties that makes a false equivalence between my right to do harm and your right not to be harmed. But people are working on all those things. The big newish one is climate change. Which is finally coming out of the denial stage - but maybe not quickly enough.
Goes along with my other point to a point. I find it hard to believe that people care about lives and aren't political hacks trying to use deaths to push agendas. Its like the GOP wanting to make spending cuts by going after entitlements and not touching defense budgets. Yes they want to save money and they can save a little bit by reforming that portion of the pie, but in general how serious do you think they are about really cutting spending?
