• swim@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      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?

      • swim@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          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?

          • swim@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            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.