Nearly a year ago in Las Vegas...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
No, I’ve got him in a corner and I’m going to squash him with this rolled up magazine!

When you're done high fiving your moral support feel free to respond. Do you want me to post videos of bad guys getting shot, where having a gun truly did make an innocent person safer? Do you not believe this ever happens or something?
 

cfenton

Senior member
Jul 27, 2015
277
99
101
This is a really weird argument. People can be concerned about more than one thing. There is a constant push to get people to stop smoking and it has been very effective. The percentage of people in the US who smoke has gone from about 42% in 1965, to 30% in 1985, to 25% in 1995, to 21% in 2005, and finally to about 15% today. There's a clear trend there. What we're doing is already working. Gun violence, on the other hand, does not follow a similar pattern. It's down from it's high point in the 90s, but it's about where it was in the 70s. That suggests that what we are doing is, at best, controlling gun violence, but not reducing it.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
This is a really weird argument. People can be concerned about more than one thing. There is a constant push to get people to stop smoking and it has been very effective. The percentage of people in the US who smoke has gone from about 42% in 1965, to 30% in 1985, to 25% in 1995, to 21% in 2005, and finally to about 15% today. There's a clear trend there. What we're doing is already working. Gun violence, on the other hand, does not follow a similar pattern. It's down from it's high point in the 90s, but it's about where it was in the 70s. That suggests that what we are doing is, at best, controlling gun violence, but not reducing it.


I agree that gun violence is under control and therefore we shouldn't limit rights. To further improve the situation, like with tobacco, a change in culture and education can go a long way. Reasonable limitations are already in place for guns. I say this because, again, guns do far less harm and far more good for society than other rights and liberties that no one care about further limiting. There are roughly 100,000,000 gun owners in America, a very small percentage of that is responsible for the harm done by guns. On the other hand every smoker puts carcinogens in the air that we all breathe. The anti-2A'ers want to limit the the rights for everyone in regards to the former, they don't life a finger for the latter.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,040
136
I agree that gun violence is under control and therefore we shouldn't limit rights. To further improve the situation, like with tobacco, a change in culture and education can go a long way. Reasonable limitations are already in place for guns. I say this because, again, guns do far less harm and far more good for society than other rights and liberties that no one care about further limiting. There are roughly 100,000,000 gun owners in America, a very small percentage of that is responsible for the harm done by guns. On the other hand every smoker puts carcinogens in the air that we all breathe. The anti-2A'ers want to limit the the rights for everyone in regards to the former, they don't life a finger for the latter.
Yet mass shootings and school shootings are on the rise...
I see you "claim" to be against air pollution, do you agree with the current administration cutting regulations on pollutants?
You realize Tobacco companies are owned mostly by those on the right, don't you?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17

Chocu1a

Golden Member
Jun 24, 2009
1,426
80
91
Well, gee...let's see. I have not been subjected to second hand smoke in almost a decade since all public smoking has been pretty much banned. This thread is positively without any merit. Nice try, though.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
Yet mass shootings and school shootings are on the rise...
I see you "claim" to be against air pollution, do you agree with the current administration cutting regulations on pollutants?
You realize Tobacco companies are owned mostly by those on the right, don't you?

Again, I am not against any of those, I am simply using tobacco (and alcohol) as an example of how liberties we have can harm us. And if you compare guns ownership as a right vs. the harm this right causes to society, it is well within the range of harm we accept for other things that do less good for society that no politician is arguing for further restriction on.
 

cfenton

Senior member
Jul 27, 2015
277
99
101
I agree that gun violence is under control and therefore we shouldn't limit rights. To further improve the situation, like with tobacco, a change in culture and education can go a long way. Reasonable limitations are already in place for guns. I say this because, again, guns do far less harm and far more good for society than other rights and liberties that no one care about further limiting. There are roughly 100,000,000 gun owners in America, a very small percentage of that is responsible for the harm done by guns. On the other hand every smoker puts carcinogens in the air that we all breathe. The anti-2A'ers want to limit the the rights for everyone in regards to the former, they don't life a finger for the latter.

I would think we'd want to reduce gun violence, rather than simply keep it from getting worse. That's what we've done quite successfully with smoking. I'd like to see deaths from both causes go down, but we're only seeing that with smoking.

I would also guess that the reason you see far more people calling for restrictions on gun ownership than you see calling for restrictions on smoking, is that no one is loudly advocating for the tobacco industry anymore (with the exception of whatever small group is still morally bankrupt enough to lobby for the tobacco industry). There are no political points to score by being pro-smoking. Everyone, more or less, agrees that smoking is bad. On the other hand, there are plenty of political points to score by being pro-gun ownership. There are lots of people who don't think guns are bad, and appealing to them can secure votes.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,241
48,426
136
I would think we'd want to reduce gun violence, rather than simply keep it from getting worse. That's what we've done quite successfully with smoking. I'd like to see deaths from both causes go down, but we're only seeing that with smoking.

I would also guess that the reason you see far more people calling for restrictions on gun ownership than you see calling for restrictions on smoking, is that no one is loudly advocating for the tobacco industry anymore (with the exception of whatever small group is still morally bankrupt enough to lobby for the tobacco industry). There are no political points to score by being pro-smoking. Everyone, more or less, agrees that smoking is bad. On the other hand, there are plenty of political points to score by being pro-gun ownership. There are lots of people who don't think guns are bad, and appealing to them can secure votes.

I feel like I should probably notify you that he is not arguing in good faith and has no interest in anyone else's point of view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
26,280
24,326
136
I would think we'd want to reduce gun violence, rather than simply keep it from getting worse. That's what we've done quite successfully with smoking. I'd like to see deaths from both causes go down, but we're only seeing that with smoking.

I would also guess that the reason you see far more people calling for restrictions on gun ownership than you see calling for restrictions on smoking, is that no one is loudly advocating for the tobacco industry anymore (with the exception of whatever small group is still morally bankrupt enough to lobby for the tobacco industry). There are no political points to score by being pro-smoking. Everyone, more or less, agrees that smoking is bad. On the other hand, there are plenty of political points to score by being pro-gun ownership. There are lots of people who don't think guns are bad, and appealing to them can secure votes.

shortbus spyder is just here for the trolling. Save you time.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
I would think we'd want to reduce gun violence, rather than simply keep it from getting worse. That's what we've done quite successfully with smoking. I'd like to see deaths from both causes go down, but we're only seeing that with smoking.

I would also guess that the reason you see far more people calling for restrictions on gun ownership than you see calling for restrictions on smoking, is that no one is loudly advocating for the tobacco industry anymore (with the exception of whatever small group is still morally bankrupt enough to lobby for the tobacco industry). There are no political points to score by being pro-smoking. Everyone, more or less, agrees that smoking is bad. On the other hand, there are plenty of political points to score by being pro-gun ownership. There are lots of people who don't think guns are bad, and appealing to them can secure votes.

Since the number of guns is rising rapidly, and violence is holding steady, I'd say that violence is going down proportional to the number of guns we have in society, or at least that's the current trend. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for common sense restrictions that don't harm the 2A. I think universal background checks fall into that category, personally. I can see how over time that will make a difference. I do not agree with silly ideas like suppressor bans, "assault weapon" bans or capacity limits.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Almost one year ago today, a mad man used a semi auto firearm with a bumpstock to murder dozens of unsuspecting victims in what should have been a careless fun filled night at a concert. Since that time, more than 15,000 other innocent victims of gun violence have died and well over 23,000 more due to suicide by gun.

However, in the same time frame over 50,000 innocent victims of second hand smoke have died, and almost 500,000 people have died due to tobacco related self harm. In the case of guns, the anti-2A left will wipe their ass with the constitution to harm our constitutionally guaranteed rights to move their partisan agenda forward. But, those same people give zero fucks about all the lives lost to things like tobacco and alcohol (both significantly more harmful than guns and both do not lawfully stop up to 50,000 crimes a year (as even this elite leftist anti-2A AT P&N'er admitted), they have no upsides while guns do). In light of this, it is a hard argument to further limit gun rights, when the same people that make their anti-2A arguments with so much emotion can't be bothered to care even a little about lower hanging fruit that harms minorities more than white people (like guns) and does significantly more harm overall. It is obvious that the anti-2A agenda is a partisan agenda built on emotion and not logic. When you weigh the risks vs rewards of certain rights, guns do comparatively little harm compared to other things that no one care to further limit or even have more discussion about. This is why the anti-2A agenda is see through and nothing more than a vile partisan attack on the constitution and our rights.



P.S. - Has the Trump economy crashed yet? When I last posted here I was told it was going to happen soon..


Good luck with the fishing.
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,030
5,321
136
Almost one year ago today, a mad man used a semi auto firearm with a bumpstock to murder dozens of unsuspecting victims in what should have been a careless fun filled night at a concert. Since that time, more than 15,000 other innocent victims of gun violence have died and well over 23,000 more due to suicide by gun.

However, in the same time frame over 50,000 innocent victims of second hand smoke have died, and almost 500,000 people have died due to tobacco related self harm. In the case of guns, the anti-2A left will wipe their ass with the constitution to harm our constitutionally guaranteed rights to move their partisan agenda forward. But, those same people give zero fucks about all the lives lost to things like tobacco and alcohol (both significantly more harmful than guns and both do not lawfully stop up to 50,000 crimes a year (as even this elite leftist anti-2A AT P&N'er admitted), they have no upsides while guns do). In light of this, it is a hard argument to further limit gun rights, when the same people that make their anti-2A arguments with so much emotion can't be bothered to care even a little about lower hanging fruit that harms minorities more than white people (like guns) and does significantly more harm overall. It is obvious that the anti-2A agenda is a partisan agenda built on emotion and not logic. When you weigh the risks vs rewards of certain rights, guns do comparatively little harm compared to other things that no one care to further limit or even have more discussion about. This is why the anti-2A agenda is see through and nothing more than a vile partisan attack on the constitution and our rights.




P.S. - Has the Trump economy crashed yet? When I last posted here I was told it was going to happen soon..
lol.. this fucking guy is back.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
National laws and tegulations against smoking::

Effective April 1998, inflight smoking is banned by the United States Department of Transportation on all commercial passenger flights in the United States, and/or by American air carriers.

On August 9, 1997, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 13058, banning smoking in all interior spaces owned, rented, or leased by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, as well as in any outdoor areas under executive branch control near air intake ducts.

Statewide laws against smoking:

As of July 2018, 26 states have enacted statewide bans on smoking in all enclosed workplaces, including all bars and restaurants. Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin

12 other states have enacted statewide smoking bans but have carved out an exception for certain establishments and workplaces. Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.

As of July 2018, 12 states have not enacted any general statewide ban on smoking in workplaces and/or bars and/or restaurants.

In the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands, smoking is banned in all enclosed public places, including bars and restaurants.

California has banned: smoking within 20 feet of a public building, smoking in a moving vehicle while in the presence of a minor (18 years or younger), and many cities in California has banned smoking in all multi-unit housing projects.

The strictest smoking ban in the United States is in Calabasas, California, where smoking anywhere a non-smoker could congregate, including public sidewalks and apartment complexes, is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of at least $250.

I could go on and on. Basically every state, city, and municipality has multiple laws banning or curtailing smoking in public. How about we treat the right to carry a firearm the same way?
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,099
5,577
146
lol.. this fucking guy is back.

Of course. He (and the others that run away to their safe spaces when people don't put up with their atrociously stupid arguments; well that and the shitshow that is Turmp has not given them a lot to gloat about the past few months) think they'll get to gloat about Kavanaugh being seated on the Supreme Court. Like flies to shit, they're drawn to the scummy antics of Republicans, hoping to feast on it.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
National laws and tegulations against smoking::

Effective April 1998, inflight smoking is banned by the United States Department of Transportation on all commercial passenger flights in the United States, and/or by American air carriers.

On August 9, 1997, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 13058, banning smoking in all interior spaces owned, rented, or leased by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, as well as in any outdoor areas under executive branch control near air intake ducts.

Statewide laws against smoking:

As of July 2018, 26 states have enacted statewide bans on smoking in all enclosed workplaces, including all bars and restaurants. Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin

12 other states have enacted statewide smoking bans but have carved out an exception for certain establishments and workplaces. Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.

As of July 2018, 12 states have not enacted any general statewide ban on smoking in workplaces and/or bars and/or restaurants.

In the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands, smoking is banned in all enclosed public places, including bars and restaurants.

California has banned: smoking within 20 feet of a public building, smoking in a moving vehicle while in the presence of a minor (18 years or younger), and many cities in California has banned smoking in all multi-unit housing projects.

The strictest smoking ban in the United States is in Calabasas, California, where smoking anywhere a non-smoker could congregate, including public sidewalks and apartment complexes, is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of at least $250.

I could go on and on. Basically every state, city, and municipality has multiple laws banning or curtailing smoking in public. How about we treat the right to carry a firearm the same way?



https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...1ce6d0ed278_story.html?utm_term=.3b11ba01dbed

A history of gun control legislation. And yet one kills half a million people, one kills less than a tenth that. The one that kills less than a tenth that you guys will burn the constitution over, the other one? Don't care.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,647
5,221
136
First statewide smoking ban was passed in CA in the 90s. Smoking ban hold outs are largely on the South.

The West tends to always lead in healthy lifestyles, while the South and upper rust belt lags.

Cool gif of the history of cigarette sales.
https://media.giphy.com/media/SDdId4wYYg5Ww/giphy.gif

Map of bans. Where states have lagged, cities step in.

20141220_USM933.png


white-men-lc-mortality.png

(Couldn't find a nice map w/o race/gender, so used the one with the people Republicans care about most)

Smoking of course if not the only risk, so surely @SlowSpyder also supports clean air legislation, like the Clean Air act, Clean Power Plan, and state's ability to set their own minimum environmental standards.

However, at the end of the day, a key metric is life expectancy.
Where do you want to live and who's policies are working?

6a01348793456c970c01b7c7e78a4e970b-500wi
 
Last edited:

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,647
5,221
136
I agree that gun violence is under control and therefore we shouldn't limit rights. To further improve the situation, like with tobacco, a change in culture and education can go a long way. Reasonable limitations are already in place for guns. I say this because, again, guns do far less harm and far more good for society than other rights and liberties that no one care about further limiting. There are roughly 100,000,000 gun owners in America, a very small percentage of that is responsible for the harm done by guns. On the other hand every smoker puts carcinogens in the air that we all breathe. The anti-2A'ers want to limit the the rights for everyone in regards to the former, they don't life a finger for the latter.

Holy shit, you call this under control?! What does out of control look like?

AP103799426012.jpg


171002125435-graphic-33-las-vegas-incident-1002-super-169.jpg
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,625
8,155
136
the anti-2A agenda is see through and nothing more than a vile partisan attack on the constitution and our rights.
I give you a choice:

1. Enter a room where people are drinking and smoking.

2. Enter a room where people are in waiting with guns, hoping to shoot you in the stomach and laugh their heads off.
 

Viper1j

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2018
4,170
3,650
136
Almost one year ago today, a mad man used a semi auto firearm with a bumpstock to murder dozens of unsuspecting victims in what should have been a careless fun filled night at a concert. Since that time, more than 15,000 other innocent victims of gun violence have died and well over 23,000 more due to suicide by gun.

However, in the same time frame over 50,000 innocent victims of second hand smoke have died, and almost 500,000 people have died due to tobacco related self harm. In the case of guns, the anti-2A left will wipe their ass with the constitution to harm our constitutionally guaranteed rights to move their partisan agenda forward. But, those same people give zero fucks about all the lives lost to things like tobacco and alcohol (both significantly more harmful than guns and both do not lawfully stop up to 50,000 crimes a year (as even this elite leftist anti-2A AT P&N'er admitted), they have no upsides while guns do). In light of this, it is a hard argument to further limit gun rights, when the same people that make their anti-2A arguments with so much emotion can't be bothered to care even a little about lower hanging fruit that harms minorities more than white people (like guns) and does significantly more harm overall. It is obvious that the anti-2A agenda is a partisan agenda built on emotion and not logic. When you weigh the risks vs rewards of certain rights, guns do comparatively little harm compared to other things that no one care to further limit or even have more discussion about. This is why the anti-2A agenda is see through and nothing more than a vile partisan attack on the constitution and our rights.
P.S. - Has the Trump economy crashed yet? When I last posted here I was told it was going to happen soon..

When was the last time a kid managed to sneak a Marlboro out of mommy's purse and blow his/her brains out?

Just askin'..

National laws and tegulations against smoking::

Effective April 1998, inflight smoking is banned by the United States Department of Transportation on all commercial passenger flights in the United States, and/or by American air carriers.

On August 9, 1997, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 13058, banning smoking in all interior spaces owned, rented, or leased by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, as well as in any outdoor areas under executive branch control near air intake ducts.

Statewide laws against smoking:

As of July 2018, 26 states have enacted statewide bans on smoking in all enclosed workplaces, including all bars and restaurants. Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin

12 other states have enacted statewide smoking bans but have carved out an exception for certain establishments and workplaces. Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.

As of July 2018, 12 states have not enacted any general statewide ban on smoking in workplaces and/or bars and/or restaurants.

In the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands, smoking is banned in all enclosed public places, including bars and restaurants.

California has banned: smoking within 20 feet of a public building, smoking in a moving vehicle while in the presence of a minor (18 years or younger), and many cities in California has banned smoking in all multi-unit housing projects.

The strictest smoking ban in the United States is in Calabasas, California, where smoking anywhere a non-smoker could congregate, including public sidewalks and apartment complexes, is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of at least $250.

I could go on and on. Basically every state, city, and municipality has multiple laws banning or curtailing smoking in public. How about we treat the right to carry a firearm the same way?

It's only a matter of time when the guy that used to stand the alley pushing heroin and meth will have a new cash crop to sell.

"Yo man, you lookin'? I got Marlboros fresh off the truck, and I can hook you up with a carton of Salems real cheap.. "

Where's Pablo Escobar when we need him?
 
Last edited:

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
Guys, I got it, you don't care about rights that carry risk to society unless it advances your partisan agenda.