3 ms·
If you really mean what you are saying, then you seem to be suggesting that police armed with butter knives, tazers, or guns all represent exactly equally dange
by glenstein 9y ago
If you really mean what you are saying, then you seem to be suggesting that police armed with butter knives, tazers, or guns all represent exactly equally dangerous situations that can't be distinguished from one another.
It's not just lethality, but it's also not just the way police respond, because it's not one or the the other. If you don't agree that the lethality of the weapon is a significant input to whether or not a dangerous outcome is more likely, we can't have a serious conversation.
- avar 9y agoI'm mostly replying to the thread at large, which started with lb1lf pointing out that the police response was the problem, and this side-thread is now bogged down in the quagmire of arguing what constitutes as a non-lethal and lethal weapon. Of course the weapon in question is also a variable, but I by far the biggest variable is police behavior in the US, where it seems every situation calls for force escalation and solving the matter at hand with a full-on assault of some sort.
- glenstein 9y agoI agree that the thread was needlessly bogged down with a continuum fallacy about the word lethal. I think you're right that escalating behavior is a significant variable. But I think that's a very tough thing to change. It may be that the low hanging fruit consists in changing the equipment rather than the culture. But I don't disagree with you in the big picture. Anyway, I'll be careful not to assume your comments are attempting to be responsive to the things they reply to when I see them in the future, to prevent my misunderstanding.