• postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      In the example only the initial victim had a gun, presumably the ‘burliest of asailants’ was using physical strength as their weapon.

    • aidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      No it is not, you are saying two completely different things.

      Does having a pilots livense reduce your likelihood of dying in plane crash?

      Vs

      Does having a pilots license give you the ability to be responsible for your own safety in plane?

      Two completely different things

        • aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          having a gun to defend yourself from someone with a gun works

          No, it’s that it grants you the opportunity to defend yourself, not that you can.

          (more guns reducing gun crime)

          That is not what that means. Nowhere is that claimed. Maybe ask ChatGPT to rephrase it for you.

            • aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              You’re unable to come up with a response to my argument so you try to discredit me by claiming I used AI to write it?

              Can you respond to something without a strawman?

              That is not what I said. I told you to ask ChatGPT to rephrase the initial point for you. Y’know so you could understand it instead of strawmanning it.

                • aidan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Why would I spend the time having a discussion with you when you accuse me of using ChatGPT then don’t even have the balls to stand behind your claim?

                  Yeah, I thought this was just bad faith, but now it’s clearly entirely malicious. I’m not a pro at phrasing, but I clearly said rephrase it FOR YOU.

                  You maliciously interpreted what OP said, where they never said anything about crime rates, just about ability to defend oneself. You maliciously interpreted the analogy about how a pilots license increases your risk of dying in a plane crash not because riding on a plane is more dangerous when you have pilots license but because of other behaviors that a pilots license correlates with.