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 3 weeks ago (2 children)

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 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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 3 weeks 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.