That is a valid argument. However, conservatives refuse to make any connection between the tool, the wielder, and the fact that the tool is designed to make the job easier. Whether it be hammering a nail or killing people as quickly as possible. Usually followed by taking the absurd and hyperbolic argument that baseball bats or cars kill people too while ignoring that cars are specifically designed to avoid causing death and baseball bats are for sport with no intent to maximize harm like bullets or blades.
Ah the whataboutism. I have run into that one too when I argue against recreational drugs. Pro drug users always always always bring up alcohol and everytime I’m like "yes, alcohol sucks too and I would ideally see it phased out of society instead of adding weed and cocaine etc to the legality club. And then they start their blabbering about how restrictions just makes the black market boom and yadda yadda and you shouldn’t have any restrictions because criminals will win, then. But I’m still like: yeah, but making accessibility easier will also not benefit society.
It’s the same discussion as it is with guns. They never want to actually talk about the issues, but would rather deflect and focus the discussion in on topics that has less and less and less to do with the original point. Ignore all your arguments and declare themselves the winner of the discussion because they feel they successfully won against their own strawman argument instead of actually trying to engage in the conversation.
That is a valid argument. However, conservatives refuse to make any connection between the tool, the wielder, and the fact that the tool is designed to make the job easier. Whether it be hammering a nail or killing people as quickly as possible. Usually followed by taking the absurd and hyperbolic argument that baseball bats or cars kill people too while ignoring that cars are specifically designed to avoid causing death and baseball bats are for sport with no intent to maximize harm like bullets or blades.
Ah the whataboutism. I have run into that one too when I argue against recreational drugs. Pro drug users always always always bring up alcohol and everytime I’m like "yes, alcohol sucks too and I would ideally see it phased out of society instead of adding weed and cocaine etc to the legality club. And then they start their blabbering about how restrictions just makes the black market boom and yadda yadda and you shouldn’t have any restrictions because criminals will win, then. But I’m still like: yeah, but making accessibility easier will also not benefit society.
It’s the same discussion as it is with guns. They never want to actually talk about the issues, but would rather deflect and focus the discussion in on topics that has less and less and less to do with the original point. Ignore all your arguments and declare themselves the winner of the discussion because they feel they successfully won against their own strawman argument instead of actually trying to engage in the conversation.