4 ms·

> Weapons are frequently used in self-defense To be pedantic, you're still applying violence in this case. It's just violence in the response to potential or

by bradhe 5y ago

> Weapons are frequently used in self-defense To be pedantic, you're still applying violence in this case. It's just violence in the response to potential or actual violence.

jakearmitage 5y ago
Touché. I wanted to understand the perspective and show a different one, though, not correct or debate his point. There are other uses which I could have presented to counter that point: sports, rehabilitation, recreation. However, I find that this would deviate from my point of trying to show the diversity of gun owners and the many uses of defensive gun use. Some stats on defensive gun use: https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/ https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-g... I do understand that different people from different upbringings, as well as different parts of the world, might have a difficult time seeing how a gun can be seen as a good thing. Which I why I'm trying to present different perspectives.
nradov 5y ago
No that's not how it typically works. In the vast majority of cases where a firearm is used for self defense the weapon is merely brandished and there's no actual violence.
- bradhe 5y ago
  Split them hairs, man.
  - graderjs 5y ago
    In fact I see it as you splitting (or rather melding) the hairs, so if you're going to do that, you should be able to take it, too, right? :) Your point was violence in response to violence, as if the two are interchangeable, but there is a huge difference, both legally, morally and practically I think. One the one side you have, the primary aggressor, the "attacker" and they presumably can have the element of surprise. On the other side you have self defense and (in some places) "stand your ground", where you are "a true victim, defending yourself against an attacker". So you seem to say there's no much difference, but there's a huge difference. In the second case, where you accuse someone of splitting hairs, not only have you already done it (in a reversed way, by making a (as you admit) "pedantic" (but i'd say, incorrect) statement about two types of violence, where you conflate, rather that split, them), the point you are again conflating, "between violence actualized and violence only threatened" is also huge, and something I didn't know. I was grateful to learn that, and it's fascinating. I think that's something about guns that is ignored often in, is that they can be an effective deterrent. The effect of which, actually makes it, possibly that violence is less likely to be effected, perhaps precisely because, major violence is so easily applied. Anyway, aside from all these down in the details stuff (which are important in this topic, the semantics and nuance are key here), I'm sure you have good ideas and thinking for why you are anti-gun. It's not an easy topic for either side to argue, I think.

by bradhe 5y ago

> Weapons are frequently used in self-defense To be pedantic, you're still applying violence in this case. It's just violence in the response to potential or actual violence.

jakearmitage 5y ago

Touché. I wanted to understand the perspective and show a different one, though, not correct or debate his point. There are other uses which I could have presented to counter that point: sports, rehabilitation, recreation. However, I find that this would deviate from my point of trying to show the diversity of gun owners and the many uses of defensive gun use. Some stats on defensive gun use: https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/ https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-g... I do understand that different people from different upbringings, as well as different parts of the world, might have a difficult time seeing how a gun can be seen as a good thing. Which I why I'm trying to present different perspectives.

nradov 5y ago

No that's not how it typically works. In the vast majority of cases where a firearm is used for self defense the weapon is merely brandished and there's no actual violence.

bradhe 5y ago
Split them hairs, man.
- graderjs 5y ago
  In fact I see it as you splitting (or rather melding) the hairs, so if you're going to do that, you should be able to take it, too, right? :) Your point was violence in response to violence, as if the two are interchangeable, but there is a huge difference, both legally, morally and practically I think. One the one side you have, the primary aggressor, the "attacker" and they presumably can have the element of surprise. On the other side you have self defense and (in some places) "stand your ground", where you are "a true victim, defending yourself against an attacker". So you seem to say there's no much difference, but there's a huge difference. In the second case, where you accuse someone of splitting hairs, not only have you already done it (in a reversed way, by making a (as you admit) "pedantic" (but i'd say, incorrect) statement about two types of violence, where you conflate, rather that split, them), the point you are again conflating, "between violence actualized and violence only threatened" is also huge, and something I didn't know. I was grateful to learn that, and it's fascinating. I think that's something about guns that is ignored often in, is that they can be an effective deterrent. The effect of which, actually makes it, possibly that violence is less likely to be effected, perhaps precisely because, major violence is so easily applied. Anyway, aside from all these down in the details stuff (which are important in this topic, the semantics and nuance are key here), I'm sure you have good ideas and thinking for why you are anti-gun. It's not an easy topic for either side to argue, I think.