[P95Carry]

Well I guess she says in effect - use of tobacco = abuse, by default and so is being accurate in her comparisons.

Whether to take that as pro-gun or not is less easy but if she was anti then there are many ways she could have applied spin to suit. It does show that she appears to have a good head on her shoulders!

 

[QKShooter]

Yep, I've heard of her. Brilliant person.
I don't know exactly how her name is spelled either but, we all have an an excuse...we're not as smart as she is. :rofl:

MEANWHILE...great answer! Right on the mark. Thanks for posting it.

 

[duckhunter]

Yep, she's right on the money. Now 'scuse me as I go freshen up this lip full of Copenhagen.

 

[Euclidean]

I think her answer is bull hockey. If someone smokes like a freight train in the privacy of their own space, that's their business. People know what happens when you use tobacco products: you get addicted, take in larger and larger amounds, and eventually sick and die. If they choose to use them anyway, they have no right to sue the tobacco company.

 

[40FIVER]

I agree with Euclidean. I dip snuff, and I fully understood the risks when I started. I was just stupid for ever starting. I would never think I have the right to sue if my lips fall off.

 

[Rock and Glock]

If they choose to use them anyway, they have no right to sue the tobacco company.

I tend to agree with you entirely. I'm not defending or attacking the tobacco industry; but two different issues may be present:

1) The tobacco industry may have arguably misled the public about the "safety" of the so-called "light" cigarettes (e.g. "less" addicting and "less"dangerous i.e. "low tar and low nicotine"),

2) The Plaintiffs bar had the government data from years of public hearings to build "their" cases for their plaintiffs rather than through expensive and time-consuming discovery case-by-case.

The gun industry didn't mislead the public about the lack of dangers of guns, and did not commission the crimes comitted.

The fast food industry learned from the tobacco industry, and has been on the offensive since the first "fat" fault case.

I think that plaintiffs bar has become a force unto itself, and they actively target industries in conjunction with social-activist professors, expert witnesses, and a social-activist judiciary. The cases against the tobacco firms and the asbestos users are play-book examples of how they do this.

Personally, I believe we need much more stringent limitations on awards and legal fees, as well as limitations and prohibitions against certain types of claims.

IMHO, we have too many people resorting to legal claims after they've failed to take personal responsibility and have a "bad outcome", and too many attorneys that pander to folks like that.

 

[AutoFan]

Tobacco has had warnings plastered on it for 40 (maybe more?) years now. PSA's are on TV and radio. Anti-tobacco articles appear regularly in newspapers and magazines. Books are written on the effects of tobacco. Yes, it is addictive and not attractive. But as I recall, about 75% of users will not suffer major diseases from their use of tobacco products. And the last time I checked, we are still a free people.

So why let these vultures go after any legal product? Especially those regulated by local, state and federal law, & regularly investigated by the press?

 

[Tangle]

I think we may be missing the point. She could have used this as an opportunity to make some very anti-gun remarks had she chosen to. Instead, she put guns in a positive light, suggesting that they can be used responsibly.

But on the side, I knew 30 years ago that smoking could cause cancer. We seem to find more and more health issues linked to smoking and other tobacco use. We don't seem to be seeing a parallel with guns.

As for fast foods, I know of one guy who claims that the fast food industry is every bit as guilty of making their products addictive as the tobacco industries. What if that's true and it's just now starting to surface?

 

[Euclidean]

While I agree the response could have been some typical leftist fantasy fueled outrage that you can't sue Remington if you're shot with an 870, she's still wrong. I think she missed the point.

Freedom is freedom even if it's a freedom you don't like, approve of, or consider moral.

"Those who would give up liberty for safety..."

 

[Tangle]

She didn't really say anything about giving up a freedom or the moral implications. She didn't say anything about personal choice. She was simply making the point that guns can be used responsibly and tobacco can not.

Tobacco is known to cause many, many health and health related problems. The cost of treatment for those problems is reflected to society as a whole. Can one use/own a gun responsibly? Can one smoke responsibly? There are more and more institutions prohibiting smoking to reduce health issues, public safety, and lost productivity. The same is not true for guns.

 

[Euclidean]

I just think that's awful arrogant of anyone to say "X" can/cannot be used responsibly without any sort of clarification or explanation.

Back to my example of the smoker at home, how is that irresponsible? They are not exposing anyone but themselves to that substance and assuming they took proper safety precautions for ventilation and lighting the product, I fail to see why I should get my underwear in a knot about it.

We could argue that Twinkies, red meat, pain killers, coffee, and any other number of substances or possibly objects can't be used responsibly if we followed her logic.

 

[AutoFan]

What Euc said.

 

[tanksoldier]

Heroine addicts can be functional members of society, not harming anyone but themselves with their addiction... but EVENTUALLY an insurance company or the taxpayer will have to cover the costs of treating the health problems heroine addiction causes, thus either raising our (MY) taxes or insurance rates.

Likewise tobacco. It cannot be used in any form without causing harm to, at least, the user. Even if a tobacco user never imposes his habit on anyone else he imposes his eventual medical costs on everybody. Likewise those who ride motorcycles without helmets, or ride in cars without wearing a seatbelt.

Having said all that, I'm actually a libertarian. Anyone who signs a waiver stating that they will not impose upon society (especially me)to pay for any medical costs incurred by their reckless behaviour should be able to do anything they want: base jump, run with scissors, whatever.

Perhaps they could take out special insurance at a higher rate...

 

[Tangle]

Guys, guys, guys, I think there's a greater point here. A woman that is nationally published and listed in Guiness as having the highest IQ, made a positive statement about gun ownership. She has to be a hero to many women and men as well. Her positive statement about being able to own a gun responsibly may change the minds of many readers about how they perceive guns.

But as to the tobacco issue, in addition to what tanksoldier said, my father smoked most of his adult life until he died from a heart attack at the age of 45. Try to tell me as a 17 year old son that smoking doesn't hurt anyone else. He smoked responsibly.

I lost my mother to cancer. Her lungs were scarred and damaged from years of smoking and she actually died from heart failure because her heart literally worked itself to death trying to get oxygen from her scarred lungs. I dare anyone to tell me that her smoking and subsequent premature death only effected her. She smoked as responsibly as one could, whatever that means.

My wife's aunt has now had 1/2 of her lung removed and has to be on oxygen 24/7 and she too smoked as responsible as anyone could.

My experience and pain from others smoking leads me to believe that smoking and responsible is an oxymoron.

But, still the point I had hoped to make was that a person, esp. a woman with national exposure, made a positive remark, publicly about guns.

The thought was that "hubby" could say to the gun illiterate wife, Hey look what Mariland Vos Savant says about guns.

 

[mzmtg]

I think what she means is that the use of tobacco is always harmful in some way, at a minimum, to the user.

Guns and food can be used in ways that are not harmful at all.

It's simple really.

 

[Janq]

Well I guess she says in effect - use of tobacco = abuse, by default and so is being accurate in her comparisons.

P95,

Thats not the point though.

It's not possible to 'abuse' tobacco.
Moreover Marilyn is correct as the analogy as proporsed is apples and cactus.
A firearm and food are not inherently toxic to the human body as used.
If a person comes across a BLT, a cocked, locked & loaded 1911 and a single cigarette all lying on a table the first two can be used (e.g. eaten and fired) as designed and no negative effects occur to the individual. Meanwhile the cigarette if used as designed, e.g. 'smoked', will 100% of the time leave the user with damage even as he/she might not feel worst off or notice any change immediate or lon term.

This was an easy kill for Marilyn as the writer choose a wrong subject to focus on.
It's without doubt and much medical proof that manufactured tobacco product damages the body directly and secondarily. No such proof toward this exists as related to the human body for food or firearm use.
As to others this fact has nothing to do with laws toward smoking in public, at work, home or anywhwere else if at all.

- Janq

 

[P95Carry]

Janq - my meaning of ''abuse'' was, with tobacco - abuse of one's body and not the abuse of the product itself. I see what you are getting at tho.

 

[Janq]

Janq - my meaning of ''abuse'' was, with tobacco - abuse of one's body and not the abuse of the product itself...

Ohh...I got ya.

- Janq