If "gun violence" is "epidemic" and a "national emergency" and a "national health crisis", that inspires legislators everywhere, including Hawaii, to think up and attempt to pass evermore laws that restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to have access to firearms, why aren't they up in arms (so to speak  ) about another "national health crisis" that takes at least dozens (more probably HUNDREDS) of TIMES more lives annually, and leads to far more disabilities as well? Surely, based upon numbers alone, and the total impact on our society, there is a far greater need to control the diets of people than control the number and kinds of firearms in circulation. Some of the people leading the civilian disarmament movement do recognize this fact and advocate for government imposed dietary regulations, not the least among them Michael Bloomberg (with his (in)famous attempt to regulate the size of sugary carbonated beverages (aka "soda")). But most the "gun grabbers" ignore this much much much greater threat to our well-being, both on the individual health level AND to costs to us all for the medical costs of dealing with people simply making bad choices for their nutritional input. The efforts at getting people to change their diets via "education" have largely failed, and continue to fail (see the statistics), thus suggesting that the only way to "control" this epidemic is, as with firearms, to restrict and/or take away the very ability to acquire the dangerous stuff. The legislators seem willing to take this kind of action, to some degree, regarding another "public health epidemic", tobacco use. Of course they also completely ignore another more serious one, alcohol use. Where's the legislation to ban alcohol?

Where's the consistency? I know, some people supposedly quote Ralph Waldo Emerson with "Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds", but what he actually wrote was "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds". Why would it be "foolish" to impose government control on something (diet choices) that is dozens of times more deadly and debilitating than another (firearms) problem that is relatively minuscule by comparison, when the underlying principle is "public safety"/"public health"?

Besides, "the right to keep and bear arms" is a pre-existsing natural civil right that is unalienable and protected by being enumerated in the Constitution, whereas there is nothing in natural or civil law even vaguely implying a right to consume (an unlimited amount of) Ding Dongs.

I believe our legislators unwillingness not only to not address this with forthright and serious broad restrictive dietary legislation, but at all, demonstrates that their concern with firearms is really a part of another agenda and has nothing at all to do with "public safety", but only with what will be possible that would not be possible if civilians are seriously armed.

Unhealthy diets kill more people than cigarettes do, study says

https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/unhealthy-diets-kill-more-people-than-cigarettes-do-study-says

There were 11 million deaths worldwide attributed to an unhealthy diet in 2017, according to a new study published in the medical journal The Lancet. That’s 4 million more than those who die each year from diseases related to smoking tobacco. Of those 11 million diet-related fatalities, 50 percent were reportedly caused by high intake of sodium and low intake of whole grains and fruits.

To gather this information, researchers evaluated the food consumption of adults 25 and older in 195 different countries by looking at data dating back to 1990. Then they estimated the impact of unhealthy diets on the risk of death from chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer, with the biggest killer being cardiovascular disease.

In addition to death, unhealthy eating habits were also connected to 255 million disability-adjusted life years or the estimate of years lost due to poor health or disability. In short: A balanced diet could help deter health complications and improve overall human vitality.

“I don't know how many alarms we need before we start making changes,” Afshin told HealthDay.

[EDIT to add link to original Lancet article: https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2819%2930041-8]

4 times as many innocent people are murdered by smokers (death by second hand smoke) than people murdered by firearms.  Statistically, I will be killed by my mother who smoked in my face age 0-18

Funny to watch people try to argue that fact.  I'd even respect them more if they would just say "guns are scary, I know it may not be logical but I want to ban scary things" 

Nobody ever overthrew a government with a Big Mac and large fries

I have yet to find a single liberal individual who wants to ban alcohol even though it can be shown that alcohol is the cause of more deaths than firearms and arguably more dangerous than firearms.

I have yet to find a single individual who wants to ban alcohol even though it can be shown that alcohol is the cause of more deaths than firearms and arguably more dangerous than firearms.

They tried that in 1920 to 1933...…..  Look where that lead.

Imagine the insaneness that would happen if they ban guns. 

They tried that in 1920 to 1933...…..  Look where that lead.

Imagine the insaneness that would happen if they ban guns. 

Alcohol is much much easier to make than firearms (I have some going right now in my kitchen  )

But interestingly enough, they almost never reply by pointing out that it was tried and it failed, they respond with some other type of argument but usually seem to try and ignore the logic.

Hammers kill more than all long guns. And golf clubs almost as much as all long guns in 2017.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Alcohol is much much easier to make than firearms (I have some going right now in my kitchen  )

But interestingly enough, they almost never reply by pointing out that it was tried and it failed, they respond with some other type of argument but usually seem to try and ignore the logic.

Are you kidding....    there are over 300 million guns in America owned by citizens legally, and who knows how many illegally.  You think if they ban them they'll all get turned in....  doubt it. 

Organized crime will get insane, and all the criminals will go berserk

Are you kidding....    there are over 300 million guns in America owned by citizens legally, and who knows how many illegally.  You think if they ban them they'll all get turned in....  doubt it. 

Organized crime will get insane, and all the criminals will go berserk

I was coming at it from the angle of new production. Existing stock would of course be something they would have trouble dealing with.

If “they” want to see what blood running in the streets is, ban and try to confiscate guns.  I would not want to be a LEO or military participating in that exercise.  From IEDs to sniping or direct confrontation, more than a few will die.  Just a bad idea.  Go on Scribed and you can download dozens of books on how to make your own firearm, some are pretty sophisticated made in a well equipped home shop.