Its a narrow argument I will give you that but most good arguments are. It is not technically circular as there is no premise in that is supported only by the conclusion and it seems, as stated, is only a conclusion. The word "virtually" disallows the use of single-point data to critically damage the argument to where it is not tenable. In the end I think the statement, modified through earlier argument, is pretty strong.
I have to disagree. Well I will agree that it's not technically a circular argument. You're right there.
It's the "functional" part that makes the statement less useful, that makes it vague and open to interpretation.
Here I think you begin to see the problem...
In the end I think the statement, modified through earlier argument, is pretty strong
You see that you have to modify the statement by supporting arguments so that folks understand your intent. But then you drop that progress.
It probably should have read: " For the vast majority of defensive handgun use, either for police or civilian carriers, the functional difference between 9MM and .40 is virtually zero."
Here also what you mean by "functional difference" invites confusion and is too open to interpretations to have a useful meaning to all reading it. Which is what you want isn't it? Clarity I mean. It's saying: For the vast majority there is virtually no functional difference between the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause". A few million children would beg to differ as they compare a stack of presents to a basket of painted eggs.
I also wonder, given that most shots fired by police in shootings, miss vital organs and may not result in immediate stops (leave aside that most shots miss altogether) if the difference between a more powerful 40 S&W over the 9mm makes no difference at all as the statement of no "functional difference" implies?
It also begs the question is there no virtual functional difference between the 9mm and the 9mm+P or +P+? If not why use +P?
I believe the intent of what you mean to say is that, two bullets, one in 40 S&W and one in 9mm, built to meet the FBI protocols for law enforcement use, with well placed shots, will be virtually identical in their results as far as stopping a threat. Both can stop the threat and there is no serious functional difference between them in that regard. That statement is clear and takes away any thought of the ballistic difference between the two, any thought of the wear and maintenance of the guns, of the 9mm being more controllable in recoil than the 40 S&W, etc.
Now there is a school of thought that argues that a controversial statement that's only accurate in a narrow range helps to generate discussion where you can clear up any misunderstanding. Personally I never liked this approach as it treats people as objects.
tipoc
Last edited: