Quote:
Originally Posted by PR_Tom
I always find it strange when people argue that making something harder to do will not prevent something from happening anyway. As if that was the point. Because that's never been and never will be the point of making it harder to do.
Why tell your child not to play with fire? Fire can burn the child anyway.
Why lock your door at night when you go to sleep? If someone wants to get in, they'll just break down the door or come in a window.
Why wait at a cross walk for the light to turn green before crossing? A garbage truck can still plaster a person all over it's grill even when they're as careful as they possibly can be.
The answer is that these are deterents. There are millions of them that we all do and see every day of our lives. That's why I find it strange that in gun discussions it comes up like it's a good point or something when it's completely lame. A total misfire, pun intended.
|
The same argument is always raised whenever I open up a discussion about the future of fully autonomous vehicles. Auto enthusiasts always say "you're not going to STOP people from being killed in a car. Why even attempt to stop it? If you insist in being in something that you don't control, why don't you just take the bus?"
Since we can't stop vehicular fatalities, it would make sense by their logic to remove seatbelts... and take away reinforced cross bracing, to put gas tanks on the outside of the frame structure (Ford Pinto, anyone?) and do away with crumple zones and airbags. We'll also remove the electronic stability traction control that has been credited with reducing fatalities by several percentage points over the years since it became mandatory. The reason for removing all the safety equipment will be "we can't stop auto fatalities".
Makes sense... only to these idiots.
So yeah, in their fantasy world... the world is currently perfect. Technology should never advance. Let's just bring back the horse and buggy, wash boards and buckets, and let's all move into caves.
