In India, when tigers attack, kill, and eat humans, the adult Indians kill tigers where they find them. No doubt they kill some innocent ones. No doubt they also kill some guilty ones. They continue to kill tigers until their community is again safe from the threat of the terrorism of beasts which cannot be reasoned with.
Animal rights activists think this is unfair. 'How can you kill all the tigers when maybe only one or two may be guilty?'
I can explain it like this. I don't give a damn which one is guilty. What I give a damn about is the fact that tigers are killing our children. I couldn't care less about the civil rights of tigers. For you to expect me to think differently is absurd.
That kind of logic is exactly the same logic used by the ban-the-gun advocates. All gun crimes are committed by gun owners so assume all gun owners are guilty. The terrorist acts were committed by Muslims so assume all Muslims are guilty. One statement seems just as assinine as the other to me.
In India, when tigers attack, kill, and eat humans, the adult Indians kill tigers where they find them. No doubt they kill some innocent ones. No doubt they also kill some guilty ones. They continue to kill tigers until their community is again safe from the threat of the terrorism of beasts which cannot be reasoned with. Animal rights activists think this is unfair. 'How can you kill all the tigers when maybe only one or two may be guilty?' But if you want to make the analogy to what FresnoDA is saying, you would have to kill all members of the cat family, including pet housecats.