5 ms·

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

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.

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.