I agree that gain-of-function research is very much playing with fire, but who is "we" that could stop doing gain-of-function research? The worst outcome, in my opinion, would be that all of the cautious ethical scientists stop doing gain-of-function research, organizations stop publishing safety guidelines because after all who needs safety guidelines when the research itself is illegal, and the only remaining people doing gain-of-function research are either irresponsible (grad student who doesn't know or doesn't care, and definitely doesn't have the equipment to do it safely) or nefarious (bioweapons research).
I see somewhat of a parallel with security research for computers -- you can try to ban it, and it will probably reduce the total research volume, but it will also decrease the level of openness and harm mitigation of the research that does remain.
I'm a layperson, but AFAIU GoF research in principle is a good thing. It helps us anticipate future viruses, study how they impact humans, and prepare for an eventual outbreak.
It's obviously very risky to do, but we should focus on adopting and enforcing better security practices to minimize the risks, not ban GoF altogether.
