Originally Posted by
Averageman
Just something to ponder when someone brings this type of thing up.
Would we save more lives by "banning" cigarettes, than banning guns? I would argue, yes.
Would we save more lives by "banning" Alcohol again than by banning guns? Well again, very likely yes.
I would argue that we might very likely save more lives by banning fatty foods also, but you'll notice in a conversation with an anti-gun proponent, if you go this route, the next steps quickly become emotional and they will say, "but my alcohol, cigarettes and fatty foods don't kill you." That may be true, no one has committed mass murder with a Big Mac, but we subsidize through are tax dollars and insurance payments all of the above listed bad behaviors. To another point, how many of your privately owned guns have committed murder?
You can't win with these people, you very likely wont change their mind, but you might as well, again, make that point.
Going to the extreme of changing the Constitution in order to fail at controlling guns and violence seems to me to be an unwarranted extreme, and yes, it will fail miserably.
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but, it aggravates me to an extreme to hear this malarkey.