Why is it?

Here’s a research topic for an aspiring student. Why is that for nearly all dangers prevention involves the reduction of said danger? For example no one ever suggests the solution to preventing death from fires is more fire. The only exception that comes to mind is the NRA suggestion that to prevent getting shot we need more guns.

  • mxyzptlk

    The NRA response is actually kind of like chemo; let’s see if we can kill the body with an antagonistic response before the disease kills the body with an antagonistic response. Chemo/the NRA just doesn’t want to kill the body too much, but it’s still pretty indiscriminate.

  • thosalumpagus

    yea, the whole fighting fire with fire tactic only works in very specific instances, literally and figuratively. But if everyone who wanted a gun shot everyone else who wanted a gun then we’d just be left with people who don’t want guns, right? haha. For real though i’m not against guns for sport/hunting/etc., but i also don’t want to live in a society where i have to be strapped cuz crazy uncle louie got an assault rifle and bunch of un-qualified people also carry. Who wants to drive down a crowded freeway full of people driving cars that don’t have a license and never learned to drive well?

  • Knile