Wouldn't banning smoking save more lifes than banning guns?

[Honeycombe8]

65. I am not in favor of banning people's addictive choices. None of my business.

Besides, you can't ban substances successfully. That just creates a corrupt blackmarket. Haven't we learned anything from prohibition of booze?

If you want to create a list of harmful, possibly addictive substances, we would have quite a list:
butter
sugar (more harmful to the masses than ciggies, IMO)
cigarettes
chewing tobacco
BOOZE (the worst of all, judging by the sheer numbers of people harmed, from DWI accidents to liver disease to domestic violence to GUN violence to general health deterioration)

Guns are not addictive. They do serve a purpose that is not evil. There's no reason to ban them. And they won't be banned.

Which makes me wonder....do some people want guns banned just because they don't like them, and therefore, don't want others to have them? Or do they want to stop mass murders? If it's the latter, a gun ban won't stop mass murders. It's only semis and assault weapons and high count mags that cause mass murders.

I'm surprised at Democrats, who are so against the right trying to control others' behavior, themselves trying to control others' behavior.