cardaway said:
The only way to be safe in your home is to lock up your family in a panic room every night.
If people were saying that anybody who doesn't install a panic room in their house obviously didn't care about safety, how would you feel about that?
So the solution is to not bother to take any precautions at all? I am not getting your point. When did I say anyone "obviously didn't care about safety"?
Of course there is no way to guarantee safety. I never suggested that locking a door guarantees safety. In fact, somewhere in this thread I have a very long post about various things that are merely deterrents, and I noted that a locked door is among those things - just a deterrent.
But just because something is not foolproof, do we throw up our hands and say "oh well" and not do anything?
Let's pretend for a minute that wearing seatbelts was not a law. Seatbelts make the car safer, but won't guarantee your safety in a car crash. Would you wear it anyway, or figure that because it isn't foolproof, why bother?
All methods of birth control, except abstinence of course, are not foolproof. So should couples figure "oh why bother, it's no guarantee" and just take their chances?
Living a healthy lifestyle - maintaining an average weight, not smoking, eating a varied diet, exercise etc. is not a guarantee of good health. You can do all those things and drop dead of a heart attack at age 40. You can do none of those things and live to be 100. So does that mean there is no point to living a healthy lifestyle, since it isn't a guarantee?
If we only do those things with a guaranteed outcome, all we would do is sit around and wait to die.
And let me just spell it out, since subtlety isn't getting me anywhere. I am
NOT equating unlocked doors with sitting around waiting to die. I am trying to point out the illogic in arguing against doing something (not necessarily locking doors, but anything ) on the grounds that it is not guaranteed.