swim

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?

“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.

100%

I appreciate that you qualified your stated opinion with “personally,” because I agree that this is a matter of perspective.

In my opinion, the word “safe” when applied to cars assumes we understand that traveling at 60+ MPH is itself more dangerous than standing still. Then, to call a certain car “safe” is to be using obvious relative terms; safer than this other car, rated highly by impartial safety experts, etc.

To wit: No one in a conversation about a car’s safety would genuinely say “sure, if I buy your new vehicle I’ll be better protected on the road than any other driver of a current production mid-size sedan, thanks to all these state-of-the-art safety features, but - pray tell - how ‘safe’ can you really call this car if could be stolen from me and used to run me down?” Or “this car doesn’t seem safe, I could walk to the store and not need rollover protection.”

I think guillotines would also work fine to illustrate the point. Guillotines are, of course, built to kill. Handled properly, I can easily imagine them being safe. If we put a rich man’s neck in it and he loses his head, that is the correct function of the tool.

Safety is widely understood as protection from inadvertent danger. The rich man’s death was not inadvertent. The car being stolen and used against you was not inadvertent. A trained person carrying a gun is safer than not. These tools are safe.

Luckily, though, it’s clearly an official Foot Locker Nike pistol, so false alarm

I’m not confident your interest is genuine, as your incredulity seems intent on maligning gun owners, but giving you the benefit of the doubt and for the edification of lemmy readers:

while carrying a gun at the front of your torso does generally provide slightly quicker drawing speed on trained individuals and all things being equal, the “level of quick access” is not usually the reason to prefer this style of carry. Rather, many that choose “appendix” carry tend to do so for ergonomics and comfort.

Also, “the gun itself is not quick access” is a misapprehension on your part; every feature I listed that you replied to, other than leaving the chamber empty, does not add any time to the deployment of the gun.

And if you are genuinely curious, you may be interested to know that because modern firearms are so incredibly safe (like modern cars - its the people using them that make them unsafe, unlike the guns and cars of the past which were much more inherently unsafe in design), leaving the chamber empty is usually not necessary or practiced.

They say that 50 years or so ago a method of drawing a pistol with an empty chamber and chambering a round in the same motion was made procedure by the IDF, as their weapons were coming from many disparate sources and shouldn’t be trusted to have functional firing pin safeties, etc., so they were trained to carry them with an empty chamber. Nowadays, carrying, drawing, and charging a pistol on an empty chamber is known as “Israeli carry” or “Israeli draw.”

Passive and active safeties, a trigger guard, a stiff trigger, and, for some, not having a round in the chamber.

I use tagging in Boost

We already went over it, I hit him so no refunds

Ya but you got that DAWG in you

Oh yeah well im bigly better at gulf than you

What? What? Fat chance, jack

etc.

this is true and I’m tired of pretending it isn’t

Lol bad take

Reference

But I’ve read they have since mitigated the traceability of their pizza eating through various means.

Yes, and I feel like the Republicans as you describe them would aptly be called “creepy.”

And I think “cringe” is often a feeling of second-hand embarrassment.

“Weird” and “strange” are more general and synonymous with “unusual” and “peculiar.”

None of that is in disagreement with your take, though

For real tho

Shamming

I laughed, that was good

If only there was a way to get to the root of the problem.

Ah ok, I get you, then. I didn’t downvote your comment.

Guns are tools. And what’s more, “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”