3 ms·
Imo it's the author's attitude for why we have so many regulations on things. Their argument is essentially "I didn't do my reading to learn the implications of
by daenz 5y ago
Imo it's the author's attitude for why we have so many regulations on things. Their argument is essentially "I didn't do my reading to learn the implications of doing this thing, and now it hurt me." It's why the concept of an "accredited investor" exists.
- jjeaff 5y agoIt's also why we have a safety on firearms. I mean, it's pretty simple, if you don't want the gun to shoot, don't pull the trigger.
- daenz 5y agoI think I see your point, which is that sometimes safeties/regulations are necessary to prevent harm from people that don't know what they're doing. However, I'd counter your firearm example with one of the world's most popular firearms, the Glock handgun, which only has safety mechanisms that help ensure that the firing pin strikes the primer from an intentional trigger pull. You can still not know what you're doing ("what does the trigger do?") and have an ND (negligent discharge).