I’m not aware of any definition of “less dangerous” that involves the more dangerous job having less deaths and injuries than the less dangerous job.

I personally think “likelihood of being attacked” and “ability to defend themselves” should also be included in the definition we’re working with. Like if Person A is attacked 5 times a day and defends against them without injury 4/5 times, but Person B is attacked 3 times a day and is not trained or equipped to defend themselves so they’re hurt 3 times a day, which person is in the more “dangerous” position?

Want to slow your roll and figure out if you’re talking to the same person before going off?

Fair enough, I didn’t (and routinely don’t) check usernames before responding. Sounds exhausting. Pedantry accepted though; feel free to redact the part of that comment that involves my asking if you realized you were wrong and replace it with something about you realizing they were wrong. Better? You ready to respond to my pointing out that you’re doing a Red Herring now, or is there some other pedantic thing you want to focus on to distract from the broad strokes of you screwing up?

Not at all. If your argument is that cops should get to have guns and shoot people because their job is dangerous, so should pizza delivery drivers, who are more likely to get assaulted than cops.

Yep, I also believe delivery drivers should be allowed to carry a gun. Same with taxi cab drivers and other people who are more likely to be (successfully) attacked and hurt or killed than cops are.

See how using a straw-man argument can make for an awkward situation where you fleshing out your attack into a(n implied) question about their real position can make you look like a fool?