602
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] 5wim@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 months ago

"wildly understood"

I said widely.

I don't expect to dissolve the biases between us, but if you are trying to understand my comment, pay attention to the focus on "relatively" and "perspective:"

Guns, and knives, and people, are inherently dangerous. That is a given, a truism. They are to be respected - humans for their innate value, and each for their capability to harm.

The risk of handling knives can be mitigated with respect, forethought, training, proper application, tool maintenance, etc. The fact that they are capable of hurting us should not be forgotten, but our relationship with them need not be dominated by it. In fact, with proper safety on the part of the handler, knives can be considered "relatively safe," especially from a statistical standpoint.

The same can be said for guns. And people.

[-] 404@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yes but the reason I don't agree with you is that knives, and cars for that matter, serve different purposes:

  • A knife that is safe for the chef will be safe for his guest if operated correctly
  • A guillotine that is safe for the executioner will not be safe for his victim if operated correctly
  • A car that is safe for the driver will be safe for the pedestrian if operated correctly
  • A gun that is safe for the shooter will not be safe for the target if operated correctly

Do you not see the difference here?

[-] 5wim@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 months ago

This difference was the subject of my original comment. I see nothing being stated here beyond truisms.

The "safety" of those targeted for killing by killing tools or any tools used on purpose for defense or offense is a strange focus. The target of a tool used for killing being killed is not very safe, good observation?

[-] 404@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago

Sure, it's truism. I just felt like I had to make myself super clear since you kept using car and knife safety as examples.

Your original comment spoke about safety mechanisms in gun construction, not about how carrying, in itself, makes others more unsafe, which is my point here. Along the way you've written things I thoroughly don't agree with, like

A trained person carrying a gun is safer than not.

Take this video of unarmed policemen trained in de-escalation, for instance. Would this situation have been handled more safely if it was handled by gun-trained, armed policemen?

[-] 5wim@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 months ago

carrying, in itself, makes others more unsafe, which is my point here.

I appreciate your point being made clear. Now, please apply the concept of "carrying (a gun) makes others more unsafe" to cars and knives, examples of obviously inherently dangerous tools.

The real issue for me is capitalism. Are you a liberal? Because your "point" is liberal propaganda. Guns are not correlated to violence, inequality is.

this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
602 points (99.8% liked)

196

16505 readers
2287 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS