D
DArtagnan
Guest
There is a fundamental difference. Drinkers aren't making you or me drink. Smokers are effectively making you and me smoke.
So, if you're attacked by a drunk - that's not his fault?
There is a fundamental difference. Drinkers aren't making you or me drink. Smokers are effectively making you and me smoke.
So, if you're attacked by a drunk - that's not his fault?
Yup, it's his fault. Which has what to do with what?
And how about driving while intoxicated? And how many wifes/kids were battered because their father had a cigarette?
And why is that I wonder?
Why would I conceed something that simply is not true? Alcohol is simply not a major contributor to violence. THAT'S common sense. The vast majority of people that are arrested for violence are not drunk at the time.
Oh, look - Pibbur had the energy to educate you out of your ignorance:
I'm not tryong to educate any one. What I wrote was not (despite mentioning him) directed at BN, it wasn't directed at anyone. At least i didn't attend to.
Let me elaborate a bit on second hand smoking. I don't doubt that even small doses of second hand smoking have health effects. But the risk for long term effects from random exposure has to be very small (and we readily expose ourselves to activities with higher risks without any concern).
I would be more concerned walking by a group of drunk people on the street, than a group of people smoking, even if the risk of the drunkards unprovoked attacking a sober person is small. That may be partially, but not completely, due to irrational fear, and it doesn't make me advocate banning drinking.
So, again, are you looking to institute a smoking ban to go with prohibition v2.0 to go with your gun ban? Or none of the above? Or are you going to pick just the gun ban because you don't own a gun yourself?
Don't you guys have work ?
Don't you guys have work ?
Indeed I do!
I also participate on 3 forums while minding the work
Can you imagine the ill will I generate across the globe? Hehe.
I did read it. I find it pointless to simply tell you that you're all over the map and tremendously inconsistent--you get all fussy and you resist any attempt (whether backed by "common sense" or backed by a wall of documentation--as a side note, I find your clearly stated reliance on "common sense" in this thread ironic given your utter disdain when others use it) at people telling you how to think. Thus, the only real avenue to get you out of your mental bunker is to ask questions that (attempt to) lead you to the desired thoughts all by your little lonesome. If the thought ain't "DArt sense" then you're simply not going to accept it.Do you honestly expect the same stupid question asked over and over again, is going to benefit anyone in any way?
If not, then why ask it? The motivation is what I don't get - and I'm curious.
Here's a thing you might try. Go back and read the response to your previous version of the same question - and instead of ignoring the answer - read it.
If you read it and you don't understand something, then ask for clarification rather than asking the same question again.
That's fine. I've actually stated my personal opinion to be much the same, although probably not a limiting as your desired level of control. DArt has actually called for a total ban of guns.I do have problems with D'Arts "common sense" myself dte but "control" is not the same concept as a "ban". I'm not advocating banning guns, tobacco or alcohol but I'm certainly in favour of controlling them.