People will argue that smoking and alcohol are different somehow because the vast majority of harm from smoking and drinking is self inflicted with the knowledge and participation of the victim.

However, if you look at the numbers for innocent DUI victims and passive smoking deaths they are worse than any numbers you can throw up for firearms.

Hence my position that its hypocritical in the extreme to want to legislate against guns and not apply the same logic to casual access to tobacco and alcohol.

In ways I am agreeing with you but I don't like the defense of one act attacking a completely different act. (They can and should be viewed independently of each other).

Deflection of an argument isn't addressing the issue.

Smokers once said it's alright for you now as this doesn't affect you but when they are done with us it'll be you next. This statement was aimed more at fat people and drunks but perhaps this issue also falls into their warning.

can you say "straw man"?

Well I didn't want to repeat myself but as I pointed out upthread, California has tougher gun laws than Canada does, but the rate of firearm-related homcide is seven times the national average in Canada and four times the rate in Alberta (which has a similar rate of gun ownership to California).

Simply saying that the UK has less mass shootings doesn't establish anything, like I said, the changes in 1988 didn't stop Dunblane and the changes in 1997 didn't stop the shootings in Cumbria. So those specific pieces of legislation don't appear to have worked.

It's not actually established that "more" gun laws do stop mass shootings.

I was going to reply to Shard but I'll reply to you instead - gun laws are not scientific, there's not a causal relationship between gun law A and lower crime rate B. Also you can't just take country A and compare with B because you can prove anything with a sample size of two.

Mass shootings by individuals like this are so rare it's very hard to establish any kind of causal relationship.

If there were, and it were easy to prove, it wouldn't be such a contentious issue and every country in the world would have the same gun laws, but they don't. The NRA does have an argument, like it or not. There are statistics that support their position, for example armed crime has been going down sharply in the US over the last decade or so even though the number of guns in circulation has increased substantially.

What typically happens is someone goes off on a rampage and then a kneejerk law is passed and then it happens again sometime later in a slightly different way - because the reality is that it's very hard to pass a law that is going to have an effect on someone who doesn't care if they die in the process.

It's just as likely that other differences in culture or law could explain different rates of firearm-related crime. Canada is the case in point because it has significantly lower rates but the gun laws can't explain that, so it is likely a cultural factor or something else (better healthcare?)

Like I said if it was easy to pass a law to stop it, it would have been done a very long time ago.

They should be viewed independently, but the same logic should be applied.

I agree with you, straw arguments like that are a bit silly because they're separate issues really, all I was trying to do is illustrate a mindset - the person with his guns in his safe knows it is safe. No-one is getting hurt, no-one was hurt, no-one is likely to get hurt unless he goes bonkers and no-one thinks to themselves they're going to go bonkers. Smoking tobacco for example, on the other hand, is inherently dangerous, when done properly.

So you are not going to deny it would be hypocritical?

No,

because in your original point you stated that 'cars' kill more people than guns therefore we should ban 'cars', your original point had nothing to do with smokers and it included drunk drivers but it wasn't limited to drunk drivers.

Therefore 'logically' in your mind cars should be banned before guns.

Quite. And yet, this is exactly what has happened in the air travel industry, with the ridiculous security-theatre shenanigans and indignities of having to remove shoes and belts to go through a scanner. I feared that we'd all have to strip naked after that guy tried to smuggle explosives in his underwear.

Gun laws are, I suppose, a shorthand for cultural norms of gun ownership. It is those cultural norms that have to change if there's ever to be a possibility of limiting the availability of firearms for nutters to use to shoot strangers. There's no quick or simple solution, and frankly politicians are more likely to make a mess of it in the hope of short-term electoral advantage, than they are to pass any kind of considered framework of regulation that will actually address the societal issues at the root of all the killings.

If I smoke in my garage and I am the only one in my garage it's only dangerous to me.

If I shoot my gun in my garage I may get hurt but so might the person standing on the outside of it.

Edit: I am a non-smoker but I know plenty of smokers who only smoke outside and on their own (or with other smokers)

Of course I'm going to deny it would be hypocritical. The two issues are not related.

Hypocrisy implies some sort of deliberate "don't do as I do, do as I say" mentality. I don't believe that applies where you are trying to draw parallels between better regulation of firearms and tighter restrictions on smoking or drink-driving.

The counter argument was that cars have a useful purpose. People dont seem to like the argument that guns have a useful purpose, and truth be told most people with guns dont keep them for a useful purpose, not one that couldnt be achieved some other way. They have them because they enjoy using them , its fun for them.

So the argument turned to something that people enjoy, but dont really need. I dont much expect Brits to choose to suddenly take up arms for fun, its just not part of UK culture, so I was wondering what posters here could probably relate to enjoying from time to time themselves in the same way that recreational firearm users might enjoy owning a gun. Hence alcohol and tobacco came to mind.

So it is OK to deprive one part of society something it enjoys because a tiny minority are affected when one or two people act irresponsibly, but only if its not something that you dont particularly enjoy doing.

Interesting, and thats not hypocritical?

And I know plenty of gun owners who only shoot at the range in a responsible manner. In fact I dont know any that have ever been irresponsible. I do know people that smoked with their kids in the car though....

So what does that prove?

It proves that logic (and statistics) can be manipulated by changing scenarios or even re-wording.