Submitted by 1Bzi t3_1174nce in Connecticut
slipperyrock4 t1_j9a9bzm wrote
Reply to comment by mrjharder11 in So we have a top 10/20 causes of death in CT yet we waste time with gun control by 1Bzi
Licensing of the purchase of foods, including a two feature deadly food ban. Features of a deadly food include: trans fats, high fructose corn syrup, sugar, salt, and being cooked with or otherwise incorporating the use oil including but not limited to vegetable.
Foods banned by name: Hostess Twinkies, Funny Bones, Chips, Mcdonald’s Cheeseburger, Oreos Cookies, Taco Bell Beefy Four Layer Burrito, and Popeyes Chicken Sandwich.
Foods made prior to September of 1994 are exempt from the aforementioned deadly food ban and can be transferred and possessed freely unless these food items are listed by name in the above section.
Doctors and nurses are exempt from this ban, supposing they can obtain an exemption letter from their Chief Medical Officer.
That should get rid of cardiovascular disease.
mrjharder11 t1_j9adtzz wrote
Ok you can ban those foods by name in schools but not in the public realm. I'm guessing it's unconstitutional but even if not, that's a stack of lawsuits waiting to happen. Also if you're going to ban these there are many you have omitted that deserve consideration. People will notice the selectivity.
How about a tax on trans fats? Or just phase it out completely over time? The subsidized corn industry will never allow banning HFCS, but I like the idea of not subsidizing corn. The reason these foods are overconsumed is because the raw materials are cheap from taxpayer subsidies. Beef and pork - cheap from corn subsidies - also not very good for you I see these didn't make it into your list.
You're also dealing with a public that likes these foods. Politically unpalatable. Wouldn't it be more prudent to educate the public about diet and exercise? Policy making doesn't have to start and end with bans. Gun policy isn't all banning either. I personally don't like the fact that the state is in our homes telling us how we can store guns and ammo, but I also want to live in a place where gun violence is low. Absent, really, but not in the US, unfortunately.
Im assuming you're trying draw a parallel with gun bans but that's a false equivalence. Handguns are made for killing. Not for target practice, hand/eye coordination or recreational. They're made for killing people. People frequent McDonald's to eat. It may be a poor choice from a health standpoint, but they're doing it out of choice. People DO NOT go out in public to get shot by a crazy or get caught in crossfire.
slipperyrock4 t1_j9b5ncf wrote
It’s essentially the 2013 CT assault weapons ban but with food. I know it’s not a perfect comparison, but it’s a starter for the issues I personally have with this manner of reducing gun violence.
Regarding my (contrived) analogy: people do notice the selectivity. AR-15 style rifles are not banned in this state, they just have a $3000 price tag for being made before 1994. Ironically the target pistol used in the Olympics is an assault weapon and illegal under CT law.
Having destitute populations and readily available firearms and you will yield gun crimes. You take away the guns and all you’re left with is destitute people. Addressing the economic and social issues that drive people towards committing violent acts will prevent more of these acts long term. But it’s a lot harder to do this.
It’s not a fix to the issue. It’s aspirin for the side effects.
mrjharder11 t1_j9bm9f7 wrote
"You take away the guns and all you’re left with is destitute people" You're proving my point. The presence of guns IS THE difference.
I'm with you on the guns with a destitute population argument but isn't that the point of gun safety? I mean there are destitute and crazy people all over the world, not just in the US. Despite the problems we face in CT and the US, there are plenty of countries that have a destitute population. The difference in most cases is their people don't have easy access to guns.
Yet here we have a representative body in DC that thinks we should just hand them out like candy. Unfettered access to lethal weapons if the NRA had it their way. An institution, by the way, that receives less than 5% of it's contributions from its 5 million individual members. Hmmm, wonder who's chipping in the other 95%??? Perhaps a small group of manufacturers that profit from fearful citizens arming up against fearful citizens who are simultaneously arming up.
Let's help the mentally ill get off the streets. Let's adopt a tax policy that pays to help people instead of sapping them of any extra wages. But until we solve the social issues, let's just keep the guns away from the people that don't need them.
As for the AR-15 I don't understand why people want these weapons. I get people want to plink and shoot boar down in Texas but what is the need for a firearm originally commissioned by the military to replace the M1 Garand with it's large capacity and rapid fire? It really shreds up bodies in a gruesome way. Why does anyone need access to this weapon or anything else like it? Please don't tell me about how it's just a rifle that looks scary. It has a recoil buffer in the stock and its super light weight. Perfect for keeping your sights on target through rapid fire. Great for large mammals like boars and humans.
I find it puzzling that people go hard for the second Amendment but when it comes to states rights it's like No Fuckin Way. There are plenty of states where you can purchase an AR with little resistance. Any US citizen can always move there and fire away. They may use imperfect calculus, but I am glad my Statehouse is making it hard for people to get a gun.
I'll end with the tired analogy of drivers licenses. Why can't you just go get a license at DMV on a whim? Why can't children drive? Why do younger people pay a much higher premium for insurance? For whatever reason we don't apply this logic to firearms.
pond_minnow t1_j9aohha wrote
> Handguns are made for killing. Not for target practice, hand/eye coordination or recreational.
Blows my mind y'all still try to make this argument
NahImGoodThankYouTho t1_j9bk6bx wrote
Seriously! Especially after the very persuasive counter arguments such as “nuh uh” and “it’s fun”.
pond_minnow t1_j9g0az5 wrote
Yeah, no body goes shooting for sport! It's solely about killing!
What an anti-2A fruitcake, and y'all wonder why you aren't taken seriously
NahImGoodThankYouTho t1_j9g1ihq wrote
The first guns were not invented so people could have a fun hobby. They were designed to efficiently kill people and animals, and in the case of handguns, specifically people. The fact that people made a game of seeing who was the most accurate with their killing machine by shooting targets doesn't change that fact.
And the fact that you haven't figured out that that's what people mean when they say "Handguns are made for killing. Not for target practice, hand/eye coordination or recreational." is why you aren't taken seriously.
pond_minnow t1_j9gi5o9 wrote
At least ya finally acknowledged handguns can be shot competitively and for fun too
NahImGoodThankYouTho t1_j9gmgmn wrote
Is that what this about? This whole time, you thought that every time someone pointed out that guns are a tool designed for killing, they just didn't know that you have fun shooting your gun at a range? We're all aware.
pond_minnow t1_j9grl7e wrote
Plenty do in fact think that on Reddit. To those types guns only have one purpose and anyone saying otherwise must be in favor of killing children with their "murder toys". They are the worst kind of social media moron tbh, and there are far too many of them.
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j9cfm53 wrote
Food tastes good.
What redeeming benefit to society do guns offer?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments