If it only saves one-fallacy
Ich habe schon länger nichts mehr gepostet und das hier fand ich ganz schön:
„if it only saves one“ fallacy
The problem with the “If it only saves one life” argument for passing laws is that it can be easily turned on itself by finding instances in which the implementation of the law would cost a life or three as well. For example, banning guns may save lives by making it harder for really dumb criminals to get one, but it may also cost lives by removing the ability of the law-abiding folk to defend themselves against the smarter criminals. When you point that out, however, those possible deaths are written off as acceptable collateral damage.