Firearms and Cigarettes - Bastard Twins?

T

TheBluesMan

Moderator Emeritus
Believe it or not, there appears to have been a non-negative firearm-related story on CNN. This story ran on Tuesday, July 13. I just found the transcript which can be found here. http://cnn.com:80/TRANSCRIPTS/9907/13/ee.06.html
In the wake of the NAACP lawsuits, the reporter, Carol Lin, brings up a valid point. "The tobacco companies were found liable for the impact of their product. Why shouldn't gun manufacturers be responsible for the impact of weapons?" Although Wayne LaPierre effectively counters the argument, many Americans believe that these two issues are bastard twins.
The fact is that weapons manufacturers, by and large, make quality products that when used properly do not kill people. Cigarette manufacturers make a quality product that when used properly causes Cancer.
My question is: "Can cigarettes be made that do not contain nicotine and do not cause cancer?"
If the answer is 'NO' then cigarette manufacturers can either continue to make their product that causes cancer and let adults do with it as they wish, or quit making this product because it is bad.
If money can be made by making cigarettes then someone is going to do it, legally or illegally. Would you rather buy your smokes from a reputable maker or from some back-alley tobacco roller? (Kinda reminds me of the abortion debate.)
No matter what they do to restrict cigarettes, they're going to kill somebody. No matter what they do to restrict firearms, they're going to kill somebody.
The question is at what point do we finally make adults be adults and take responsibility for their actions?
 
Blues Man,
To paraphrase Clark Gable, "Frankly, my dear, I don't think they give a damn!"

One gun control group wants total power - without pesky interference from the "subjects".

Other gun control advocates are incredibly myopic in their relentless pursuit of Utopia. They play directly into the hands of the tyrants.

Others are so simple minded they think if we all just grew flowers and watched Rosie, nobody would get hurt.

As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a bunch of maroons!"
 
You're "missing the point." Legally the "wrong" of the cigarette makers was all the lying about 1). "we don't think it causes cancer..." when their own research suggested different AND 2). "naw, we don't add anything to make the nicotine kick harder..." The legal problem is over the lying, dishonesty, etc. I am not aware of any J. Elders type gun makers who have been out saying "we make safer guns and safer bullets and our products really don't hurt people..." The resistance of the police to the "safe gun" systems that only permit the owner to fire, is pretty strong evidence that they are not ready for the general public. (but its coming) !
 
The anti-tobacco effort set a horrible precident for personal rights. Now, don't get me wrong, I am extremely unfond of the stuff. The smoke gives me violent headaches. Three of my four grandparents have died of lung ailments, and the fourth was told to quit or die, and remains beset with heart and lung problems. I've never used tobacco, and never will.

But the point is that it's personal choice. Anyone who has smoked in the last thirty, maybe forty years knew damned well it was bad for them. People are sueing after smoking all their lives, even after calling their drug of choice plucky names like "coffin nails" and "cowboy killers".

And the government and the lawyers are happy to oblige them, for their own take of the money. Locally here, those dollars the government needed to "take care of ailing smokers" are being spent on a "anti-smoking dance performance".

It all leads up to you having no responsibility for your actions, so you don't need personal rights or freedoms, now do you?

The State is here to help you. The State is here to protect you. Trust the State. Obey only the State.
 
You would probably be better off with hand rolled, pure tobacco cig's. At least then they wouldn't have the 100's and 1000's of additives the cig manufacturers are using. Would probably not have as high a risk of cancer (I know it's a stretch.)

I think suing gun makers because their product is dangerous is just the latest assinine example of some lawyers willingness to do anything for a buck. One of a guns functions is to harm people. If used properly the gun hardly ever malfunctions and causes injury or death to the user. Which is where I thought product liability ended.

By their logic, if a criminal stole my car (very easy to do) and used it in the commission of a crime (either a get away vehicle or to injure people), the victim/families/mayors would then sue the car makers for not making the car harder to steal or use in the commission of a crime, and the cities would sue the car dealerships.


------------------
Peace...
Keith

If the 2nd is antiquated, what will happen to the rest.
"the right to keep and bear arms."
 
You make a good point KAM. Think of all the inanimate objects used in the commission of wrongs since the dawn of time. The club that Cain used to slay Abel, the knife Abraham tried to kill his son with, the nails and the cross, the sword of an inquisitioner, the fire and wood in Salem, the plane of a kamikaze, ropes, pipes, hammers, hatchets, rocks, chainsaws, cars, etc. All these things can and have killed when used improperly.

But.... Not one of these above mentioned things are defined as a RIGHT under the constitution. All of the above items are readily available to the average citizen and not one of them is controlled half as much as guns.
I wonder if there has ever been a lawsuit against the maker of a non-defective product that was misused and killed or maimed someone. I would think that it would be thrown out of court. RepublicT is correct in that the cigarette rulings set a horrible precident for personal rights. The lawyers get all the money, and our rights get flushed down the crapper.

Maybe we should be pushing for Tort Reform as hard as we are pushing for 2nd amendment rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top