Quote:
|
Now, this is a hypothetical situation, but it does demonstrate how you could have two different points that are locally optimal. Getting from one to the other can't be done easily, without lots of effort.
|
What I got from your post, particularly this last paragraph: it's a difficult choice for anti-gunners. I didn't get a sense that:
anti-gunners who owned guns for a given reason and wished to deny pro-gunners (who invoked the same reason) the guns they desire
aren't being inconsistent. All I saw was that they were in a conundrum that could easily lead to that inconsistency. They should realize that trying to get from city C to city D involves denying many people the protection that they themselves are unwilling to give up. That is a a problem of inconsistency, one that could be resolved by being an example to others first.
Unless they can come up with a reason why they should have guns, but a given other person should not. Possible, but city D becomes much less likely when anti-gunners don't seek to deprive
every average citizen of guns. And city C goes from highly improbable to certifiably impossible.
edited for grammar