Is there actually a name for this logical fallacy?
Sam Garza
1

Gun vs Drug Regulation

We essentially have three choices:

  1. Outright ban
  2. Tight or sensible regulation
  3. None or weak regulation

I am generally highly skeptical to option 1 and 3. In the US guns falls in the 3rd category and drugs in the 1st with some exceptions. I would like to see both moved to the 2nd category.

The problem with a lot of outright bans is that many of the people affected are victims themselves. Drug dealers and pimps e.g. are a scourge on society, however drug users and prostitutes are often victims, who want to get out of the situation they are in. Strict bans and punishments just make that harder.

The question should not be about whether a bad thing such as guns, drugs or prostitution should exist in society or not but how we can make as few people as possible suffer.

You have to deal with the realities of the society on is in. E.g. introducing as strict gun laws as the UK from one day to the other in the US may not be possible. Since so many criminals in the US have guns, people will not accept that they are given no option of protection against that.

Instead one has to to work towards a gradual reduction. E.g. first restrict access to high capacity magazines to reduce ability for mass shootings. Gradually get the most lethal guns out of the market.

Likewise drug legalization should be fairly loose initially to kill the black market and tightened later. It is all about being tactical and pragmatic rather than let moralism be the guide for policy making.

I would not call that “give up” but being smart.