Massive School Shooting at an Elementary School

[DGFone]

You can't prevent cancer. That's the point. Great analogy, actually. Crime is a cancer, gun violence is a tumor. We can't cure cancer: at least not yet, and not in the foreseeable future. But we can work on this particular aspect, or tumor, and even though it is not a panacea, it's doable and will have a considerable impact.

Sure you can. Millions and millions are poured into exactly that. At the very least, you can try to find the more realistic solution of defeating cancer the moment it's detected. Either way, no need for painkillers.

[Azdgari]

...?

Is that why we never excise tumors, perform chemotherapy, or offer painkillers or sedatives to cancer patients?

[DGFone]

We offer painkillers to patients because with our current medicine, the strategy to kill cancer is simple: Kill the cancer cells before you kill the human.

Now what will happen when we will devise a medicine that only attacks cancer, is therefore safe, and quite painless?

Painkiller companies won't be very happy. But people will be.

[Azdgari]

Right, so until we devise that cure [which does not exist and will not in the forseable future], we let every cancer patient die in hospice without chemo, tumor excision, right? Because to take measures to improve their condition without entirely curing it is, as you say, pointless.

Sorry if that sounds harsh. But really, your logic, not mine.

[DGFone]

Right, so until we devise that cure [which does not exist and will not in the forseable future], we let every cancer patient die in hospice without chemo, tumor excision, right? Because to take measures to improve their condition without entirely curing it is, as you say, pointless.

Sorry if that sounds harsh. But really, your logic, not mine.

You'll be surprised how rapidly cancer research is improving. Not in the foreseeable future? I think not.
From what I see, it's this kind of defeatist attitude that prevents people from doing great things. It's always easier to find a reason why not to go to Mars than why to go there.

Same here: It's always easier to say "let's ban guns" knowing fully well that it doesn't do anything to the underlying problem of crime at all. But as long as banning guns is easier then trying to prevent crime, it's better to ban guns, right?

Take a look at all the cities that banned guns because of crime. Gun crime might have fallen, but crime as a whole didn't. In places like in D.C., it grew.

[Azdgari]

Agreed. DG, want to comment on the measures I proposed a couple pages back?

[DGFone]

Yeah- they don't work.

I live in California, where they placed a lot of these measures - and more. We are only allowed single-shot rifles with 10 round magazines tops, and to reload, we need to use a reloading tool.

It's better than no guns at all, but when a maniac in LA is toting around a 30- round mag, fully automatic AK-47, you really start thinking...

[Regulus]

It only takes one bullet to kill, and I trust that someone as proficient with guns as yourself would be able to use what little ammo you have effectively.

[Kopalover]

I know this is what Chris Rock said.
But wouldn't it make sense to sell guns, sure its a gun, but what's a gun without ammo. If the ammo was like .. $10,000 a pack or per bullet. Wouldn't that kind of be a waste of money just to kill people in a school, mall or movie theatre?
I don't know, its kind of stupid but it's a useful argument?

[Regulus]

A tax on bullets?

I like your thinking. I'm not sure how well it would work, but it's an interesting proposition nevertheless.