SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tejek who wrote (142175)1/28/2002 3:55:24 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1578935
 
.my original analogy was that I believe its as difficult to cure cancer as it is to control the proliferation guns [you had felt that it would pretty difficult to control the proliferation of guns in the US], nonetheless we do not give on the goal to find a cure for cancer so why should we give up on the goal to control guns?

1 - It is more difficult to control the proliferation of guns then it is to cure cancer. Another analogy you could use is that we don't give up on our attempts to control drugs, but I think that perhaps we should.

2 - "Nonetheless we do not give up on our goal" - Exactly, your analogy begins with the assumption that controlling the proliferation of guns is a good goal. The steps towards that goal would cause more deaths. If you actually could effectively ban guns then you would get less gun deaths but even if such a ban could work it would violate the constitution and reduce our freedom. It would also have the practical effect of making some people more vulnerable to non gun crime because they could no longer defend themselves with a gun and criminals would know this.

3 - I think what you are trying to get at is that we don't give up on difficult things simply because they are difficult, however sometimes we do, and sometimes we should. Also the question with gun control is not just the difficulty but the desirability of the goal.

Tim