Pardon the naivety of my question, but couldn't the same example be followed here?
In the 50s and 60s smoking was everywhere, the mega corporations advertising it with full force, marketing it to children even. A few decades later, it's a night and day difference. Americans are vehemently anti-smoking, to an extent us Europeans can only dream about!
Was it difficult? Of course it must have been, as tobacco is extremely addictive. But it happened, the public understood what is good for them and they made the obvious choice: smoking just isn't worth it.
You're telling me the same can't be done with gun ownership? Something that doesn't even involve addictive substances? Why not?
What I'm saying is: smoking was deep rooted in American culture. Just like guns. Both backed by all-powerful lobbies. But when it comes to smoking, the public opinion changed. There must be something we can do to change it for guns too.
In the 50s and 60s smoking was everywhere, the mega corporations advertising it with full force, marketing it to children even. A few decades later, it's a night and day difference. Americans are vehemently anti-smoking, to an extent us Europeans can only dream about!
Was it difficult? Of course it must have been, as tobacco is extremely addictive. But it happened, the public understood what is good for them and they made the obvious choice: smoking just isn't worth it.
You're telling me the same can't be done with gun ownership? Something that doesn't even involve addictive substances? Why not?
What I'm saying is: smoking was deep rooted in American culture. Just like guns. Both backed by all-powerful lobbies. But when it comes to smoking, the public opinion changed. There must be something we can do to change it for guns too.