Yeah, that logic works well doesn't it?
So if one person is allergic to bees, we should eradicate all bees? Kind of like not allowing PB&J in school lunchrooms.
Thus no one else would either...hmm...
I guess if one person isn't allergic to bee stings, no one else could possibly be allergic either.
Fact: The vast majority of "users" of porn are neither sexual addicts nor sexual predators. How can I possibly say that this is a fact? Given the amount of money spent on porn every year, that would indicate that about 1/3 of the population of the US is addicted to porn (can't be, since most people still manage to get to work every day), or are sexual predators. Do you really want to keep something out of the hands of the vast majority who "use it responsibly," simply because there are some sociopaths who might come into contact with it and be "sent over the edge?" (this is something about which I'm NOT convinced, the role of porn and causality).
Congratulations on being the Brady Campaign Poster Boy for 2005.
Is prior restraint really the solution that you're looking for? After all, how many murders might not have happened if the gun wasn't there? And how many other things can we relate to this argument?
Mark
"I guess if one person isn't allergic to bee stings, no one else could possibly be allergic either."
Well that doesn't mean if a single person were allergic to bee stings we should eradicat all bees, does it?
Your approach is similar to the one taken by liberals -- reduce everything to its least common denominator and use that as a baseline. People get killed by guns? Ban guns. Cigarettes cause cancer? Ban cigarettes. Someone uses porn as an excuse to hurt someone else? Ban porn.
Some people can't handle the liberty of gun ownership either therefore.......