3 ms·

For contrast, in many parts of Texas, that man assaulting you would have been dead. People may not like it, but reality isn't some idealized abstract notion. K

For contrast, in many parts of Texas, that man assaulting you would have been dead. People may not like it, but reality isn't some idealized abstract notion. Knowing what is good requires you to look carefully at what is.

propter_hoc 4y ago
I'm not sure what you mean here. Looking carefully at what is, in most of the world, this wouldn't have happened in the first place. The Texas solution doesn't sound much better than the SF situation to me.
- kardianos 4y ago
  Watch what you did there. I made a narrow claim: "Rather then the innocent being killed, the person who did the assault would be killed. This is preferable." You chose to interpret this as a very different claim. Yes, an effective good police force and a population that doesn't assault others is essential. There is not one single part of a solution that should stand alone. I stand by my above truth claim. Don't put other words into my mouth.
  - propter_hoc 4y ago
    Didn't mean to put words in your mouth - I actually found your wording very hard to parse, which is why I said I wasn't sure what you meant. I agree that the Texas solution is likely a local maximum. Sounds like we both agree it's not a global maximum.
    - kardianos 4y ago
      Being able to defend yourself during an assault has nothing to do with "a solution". It just means in a moment when the clock is ticking, it is more likely an innocent life is saved. Nothing I said implied this being "a solution". Texas isn't the wild west. We have laws and police. Self defense is just a thing that helps preserve innocent life when laws are disregarded and police are not present.
      - ashwagary 4y ago
        On another timeline (in Texas), a case of possible short term mistaken identity ended up with a person being killed, when the alternative was one party retreating, which bought both parties enough time to avoid injury or a death.
      - reducesuffering 4y ago
        More likely? Seems to cause a lot of issues with "trigger-happy" folks too... Like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7shU6sLy0c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7shU6sLy0c
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - soupfordummies 4y ago
    He said he didn't understand what you meant in his first sentence. Your quoted text is also not what you posted.
andyjohnson0 4y ago
So a (probably) psychlogically ill/troubled person with a (probably) fake gun would have been shot dead by some random passer-by? In what way is that better than the traumatic situation that the op described?
- the_snooze 4y ago
  That person would be a clear and imminent threat. It's completely irrelevant whether they're of sound mind or whether the realistic-looking gun is, in fact, real or not.
- kardianos 4y ago
  Yes. Stop making excuses. This is assault and must not be tolerated. I do not know your inner feelings and I do not know if the gun is fake or even loaded. It is still assault. If you think an ill/troubled person is not capable of being out in society then they need to be locked up or kept under supervision.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - komali2 4y ago
    If I applied your logic to times I ride my bicycle on the road, I would have at this point fired upon... many tens of cars. I find your take to be relatively sociopathic and bloodthirsty. It doesn't sound like it makes for a good society to live in. It kinda sounds like Somalia or something.
- transcriptase 4y ago
  They won’t be terrorizing anyone else for starters.
nrclark 4y ago
Can you give some evidence to support that assertion? I would love to see statistics on the number of assaults that were stopped because the defender had a gun.
roflyear 4y ago
Comparing Texas to a single city isn't really the most honest thing to do. Texas has a higher gun HOMICIDE rate than California, per-capita, btw. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/... Unsure what you're really trying to solve!

propter_hoc 4y ago

I'm not sure what you mean here. Looking carefully at what is, in most of the world, this wouldn't have happened in the first place. The Texas solution doesn't sound much better than the SF situation to me.

kardianos 4y ago
Watch what you did there. I made a narrow claim: "Rather then the innocent being killed, the person who did the assault would be killed. This is preferable." You chose to interpret this as a very different claim. Yes, an effective good police force and a population that doesn't assault others is essential. There is not one single part of a solution that should stand alone. I stand by my above truth claim. Don't put other words into my mouth.
- propter_hoc 4y ago
  Didn't mean to put words in your mouth - I actually found your wording very hard to parse, which is why I said I wasn't sure what you meant. I agree that the Texas solution is likely a local maximum. Sounds like we both agree it's not a global maximum.
  - kardianos 4y ago
    Being able to defend yourself during an assault has nothing to do with "a solution". It just means in a moment when the clock is ticking, it is more likely an innocent life is saved. Nothing I said implied this being "a solution". Texas isn't the wild west. We have laws and police. Self defense is just a thing that helps preserve innocent life when laws are disregarded and police are not present.
    - ashwagary 4y ago
      On another timeline (in Texas), a case of possible short term mistaken identity ended up with a person being killed, when the alternative was one party retreating, which bought both parties enough time to avoid injury or a death.
    - reducesuffering 4y ago
      More likely? Seems to cause a lot of issues with "trigger-happy" folks too... Like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7shU6sLy0c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7shU6sLy0c
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- soupfordummies 4y ago
  He said he didn't understand what you meant in his first sentence. Your quoted text is also not what you posted.

andyjohnson0 4y ago

So a (probably) psychlogically ill/troubled person with a (probably) fake gun would have been shot dead by some random passer-by? In what way is that better than the traumatic situation that the op described?

the_snooze 4y ago
That person would be a clear and imminent threat. It's completely irrelevant whether they're of sound mind or whether the realistic-looking gun is, in fact, real or not.
kardianos 4y ago
Yes. Stop making excuses. This is assault and must not be tolerated. I do not know your inner feelings and I do not know if the gun is fake or even loaded. It is still assault. If you think an ill/troubled person is not capable of being out in society then they need to be locked up or kept under supervision.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- komali2 4y ago
  If I applied your logic to times I ride my bicycle on the road, I would have at this point fired upon... many tens of cars. I find your take to be relatively sociopathic and bloodthirsty. It doesn't sound like it makes for a good society to live in. It kinda sounds like Somalia or something.
transcriptase 4y ago
They won’t be terrorizing anyone else for starters.

nrclark 4y ago

Can you give some evidence to support that assertion? I would love to see statistics on the number of assaults that were stopped because the defender had a gun.

roflyear 4y ago

Comparing Texas to a single city isn't really the most honest thing to do. Texas has a higher gun HOMICIDE rate than California, per-capita, btw. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/... Unsure what you're really trying to solve!