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

[Sheepshank]

119. Well first, I don't think a total ban of Guns is in the works

and second, there have been significant changes made to laws that reduce exposure to second hand smoke. Most restaurants are no longer permitted smoking sections, no more smoking on airlines. Airport smoking only permitted in areas/rooms where the ventilation is separated from the general passengers. No smoking in all public buildings. Warning labels, fully exposed and believable documentation regarding the high addictive factor and the damages of smoking. Hollywood has greatly reduced the amount of actors that smoke, in their films and on tv. Tobacco lobby to have picked up the bill on many smoking cessation ads and warnings and forced to provide part of the cost of the public information. Rules to reduce ad targeted at young persons.

It's called passing 'make sense' laws that have a longer term positive effect. The Tobacco industry has been held accountable. There have been a lot of people that were exposed to 2nd hand smoke and that are no longer exposed. Those lives may have been saved, as are the live of many that will never become smokers because of the andti smoking campaigns. But as you must realize, the long term effects of tobacco exposure are still being realized. People are still dying from tobacco exposure from years past. The change has to start somewhere.

What equivalent should be placed on the ownership of guns? That is the discussion at hand.

Your equivalency premise in the OP is out of whack.