I think that, if we are going to engage in a discussion on the subject, that it is productive to stick with the matter at hand. Compare apples to apples, so to speak. Keep to the point, instead of muddying the waters with false analogies.

So, if we're going to discuss the topic of exotic venomous snakes in a non-native setting and the potential hazard they represent, then the most appropriate thing to do is to compare the risk of harm without the snakes present vs. with the snakes.

Example: If there were no black mambas in New Haven, then the odds of being bitten by one while in that town would be nil. If, subsequently, a resident of New Haven decides to obtain and keep a black mamba, then the odds of being bitten increase. Nominally perhaps, but certainly creating a risk where no risk had previously existed.

[ Show Entire Thread ]