3 ms·
This is the same fallacy that makes people who are afraid of flying say they feel safer driving (in) a car because they are 'in control'. It doesn't change the
by virtualritz 14y ago
This is the same fallacy that makes people who are afraid of flying say they feel safer driving (in) a car because they are 'in control'.
It doesn't change the fact that in reality they are orders of magnitude more likely to get hurt or even die while being in a car than while being on an airplane.
Not having a gun when someone armed threatens me will most likely increase my chances of survival/getting out of the conflict unharmed.
Maybe with a gun I have a better chance of retaliation but I'm also more likely to die.
The bottom line is: any weapon you /add/ to a conflict rises the stakes for /all/ parties involved. And vice versa.
- monochromatic 14y ago> Not having a gun when someone armed threatens me will most likely increase my chances of survival/getting out of the conflict unharmed. Maybe with a gun I have a better chance of retaliation but I'm also more likely to die. And this is known as the fallacy of making things up and asserting that they are most likely true.
- virtualritz 14y agoThe 1st sentence can be easily backed up by statistics about gun crimes. The 2n part is purely speculative on my behalf but I'd dare say that's straightforward enough to conceive by noticing the word 'maybe', prominently placed at the beginning. ;)
- monochromatic 14y agoI'd be curious to see your statistics. If they control for situations where two criminals have guns and are shooting at each other (i.e., they're actually about defensive gun use by the good guys) I'll be pretty shocked.
- qu4z-2 14y agoI agree with you, but I just wanted to point out that it's fairly easy to read the Maybe as applying only to the first clause: > (Maybe with a gun I have a better chance of retaliation) but (I'm also more likely to die).