3 ms·

Ctrl-F baseball doesn't show any results for me. Has the original article been updated? In any case, to the extent that you're pointing out that it's another t

Ctrl-F baseball doesn't show any results for me. Has the original article been updated? In any case, to the extent that you're pointing out that it's another tricky case of how to distribute responsibility for bad stuff, I agree. Other examples range from electricity (clearly has good uses, bad results are mostly by accident), through littering (how much is Coca Cola's fault, how much is the end user's) to guns (only have "bad" uses -- but you probably still want your own country's military to have them). I don't know of any way to allocate responsibility in these cases that doesn't ultimately amount to pure subjective opinion. Does anyone know of a more objective approach?

gosub100 2y ago
> to guns (only have "bad" uses -- but you probably still want your own country's military to have them). the greatest benefit from guns is their deterrent qualities, which are very difficult to quantify. We never hear of the thefts or violence or other horrors that don't happen because potential perpetrators cannot manage the risk that their victims may fight back.
- xyzzy_plugh 2y ago
  I'm confused. How does a home invader know if I am armed? How is gun ownership supposed to prevent theft or violence? It seems like it instead paves the road to escalating to violence in less-severe scenarios. I suspect it is very difficult to qualify because there are no such qualities in practice.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - metalcrow 2y ago
    >I'm confused. How does a home invader know if I am armed? They don't, but they if you're _not_ if you live in a gun-hostile nation. And knowing you might be is a deterrence, for the same reason knowing you might get caught by the police is. >How is gun ownership supposed to prevent theft or violence? Well, because of the risk of being killed if you try to commit a crime against someone with a gun. The cause-effect there is pretty clear.
  - smeej 2y ago
    It does when it's common. In northern New England, for example, like Maine and New Hampshire, I'd estimate 1 in every 3 or 4 people in most public spaces are armed. I'd be shocked to find out it's less than 1 in 10 in any specific gathering of 100 or more people. Do you start shooting when the odds are that high that someone might shoot back? Maaaaybe, but not as soon as you might if you were surer that you would get away with it.
    - krger 2y ago
      >In northern New England, for example, like Maine and New Hampshire, I'd estimate 1 in every 3 or 4 people in most public spaces are armed. I'd be shocked to find out it's less than 1 in 10 in any specific gathering of 100 or more people. I've lived in Maine my entire life—from the most rural parts to Portland—and this is just nonsense. There is absolutely no way that even 10% of people are armed in public. >Do you start shooting when the odds are that high that someone might shoot back? Maaaaybe, but not as soon as you might if you were surer that you would get away with it. Perhaps you'd like to consider what JUST happened in Lewiston last October.
      - smeej 2y ago
        Very few of them are carrying openly (why make yourself the first target?), but I stand by my statement that I'd be shocked. A youth league bowling tournament would be an exception, given the preponderance of children. There was a combined six minutes between shots fired at the two locations and officer response, four at the youth league event, and only two minutes at the bar. I didn't say nobody's ever going to try it. Some people are going to break, and show up with a lot of firepower and a plan. All I said was people will try it later than they might if they were sure most of their victim pool wouldn't shoot back.
        krger 2y ago
        >Very few of them are carrying openly (why make yourself the first target?), but I stand by my statement that I'd be shocked. This is an extraordinary claim that demands at least some evidence in order to be taken seriously. >A youth league bowling tournament would be an exception, given the preponderance of children. To the contrary: if you honestly believe that somewhere between 10% and 25-33% of Maine adults are carrying for protection—and, once again, there is literally no way that this is even close to true—it would make even more sense that the adults there would have been carrying To Keep Our Children Safe(TM).
  - akoboldfrying 2y ago
    >How does a home invader know if I am armed? They don't. As with many things in life, they have to estimate that risk. A would-be home invader correctly estimates this particular risk to be higher in jurisdictions where guns are legally permitted -- and especially in areas where keeping a gun in the house is known to be common. Does that would-be home invader themselves own a gun that they are prepared to use, which would tend to neutralise this risk? Possibly. I don't know how that probability varies with legality of gun ownership, but I would expect that in both cases (gun ownership legal, gun ownership illegal), more home invaders than home owners have access to guns. If that's true, then more home owners with guns fired act as a deterrent. >It seems like it instead paves the road to escalating to violence in less-severe scenarios. Yes, it probably also (not "instead") does this. There's no dichotomy here. At the end of the day, the reasons for and against legalising gun ownership are similar to the reasons for and against arming your military. Doing either one raises the stakes -- the hope (assumption) being that the other party will then find the stakes too high to engage, even if they themselves are similarly armed.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  We don’t have anecdotes, but we do have statistics
  - blamestross 2y ago
    The thread on warp drives got killed so I'm replying here (sorry for out of context folks) "Would it explode or just punch a hole" depends on the energies of the impact involved. If there is only enough energy to break chemical bonds, it would punch a hole. As energy of the impact gets higher the hole gets deeper. Probably punching all the way through the ship. Once the impact energy gets strong enough to break nuclear bonds, the story changes. Now we have an e=mc^2 event at the impact site. It isn't just the impact energy anymore. At minimum, the punched hole just got wider and potentially radioactive as byproducts go on adventures. Once the hole is wider than the ship, I think that counts as "exploded".
- incompatible 2y ago
  Attackers would have the advantage even if the victim was armed. It's not like they are going to be sitting on the couch with the loaded gun pointing at the front door all day. And shooting somebody if they have a gun, just in case they shoot first, seems to be considered normal in some circles in the US: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-69013312 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-69013312, so carrying a gun seems like a big risk.
jcranmer 2y ago
> Ctrl-F baseball doesn't show any results for me. It's an example in one of the quoted tweets, which is of course an image and not text despite being purely textual content.
- akoboldfrying 2y ago
  Thanks, that helped me find it. And I see they already gave my gun example. Thinking about it some more, this question is closely related to the concept of negligence.
- adamomada 2y ago
  Kind of OT but this is one of the new killer features in MacOS: I was able to Ctrl-F (or CMD-F I guess) ‘baseball’ and it found the text in the image. I can also copy the image text and paste plain text. So much text is now images of text nowadays that it’s almost necessary to have this ability.
imoverclocked 2y ago
> to guns (only have “bad” uses … I’m not sure what you are saying exactly but guns do have legitimate uses that aren’t bad. As soon as you don’t live in high population density, those uses become apparent. I’ve also met people who live on very little means and hunt to provide for their family.

gosub100 2y ago

> to guns (only have "bad" uses -- but you probably still want your own country's military to have them). the greatest benefit from guns is their deterrent qualities, which are very difficult to quantify. We never hear of the thefts or violence or other horrors that don't happen because potential perpetrators cannot manage the risk that their victims may fight back.

xyzzy_plugh 2y ago
I'm confused. How does a home invader know if I am armed? How is gun ownership supposed to prevent theft or violence? It seems like it instead paves the road to escalating to violence in less-severe scenarios. I suspect it is very difficult to qualify because there are no such qualities in practice.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- metalcrow 2y ago
  >I'm confused. How does a home invader know if I am armed? They don't, but they if you're _not_ if you live in a gun-hostile nation. And knowing you might be is a deterrence, for the same reason knowing you might get caught by the police is. >How is gun ownership supposed to prevent theft or violence? Well, because of the risk of being killed if you try to commit a crime against someone with a gun. The cause-effect there is pretty clear.
- smeej 2y ago
  It does when it's common. In northern New England, for example, like Maine and New Hampshire, I'd estimate 1 in every 3 or 4 people in most public spaces are armed. I'd be shocked to find out it's less than 1 in 10 in any specific gathering of 100 or more people. Do you start shooting when the odds are that high that someone might shoot back? Maaaaybe, but not as soon as you might if you were surer that you would get away with it.
  - krger 2y ago
    >In northern New England, for example, like Maine and New Hampshire, I'd estimate 1 in every 3 or 4 people in most public spaces are armed. I'd be shocked to find out it's less than 1 in 10 in any specific gathering of 100 or more people. I've lived in Maine my entire life—from the most rural parts to Portland—and this is just nonsense. There is absolutely no way that even 10% of people are armed in public. >Do you start shooting when the odds are that high that someone might shoot back? Maaaaybe, but not as soon as you might if you were surer that you would get away with it. Perhaps you'd like to consider what JUST happened in Lewiston last October.
    - smeej 2y ago
      Very few of them are carrying openly (why make yourself the first target?), but I stand by my statement that I'd be shocked. A youth league bowling tournament would be an exception, given the preponderance of children. There was a combined six minutes between shots fired at the two locations and officer response, four at the youth league event, and only two minutes at the bar. I didn't say nobody's ever going to try it. Some people are going to break, and show up with a lot of firepower and a plan. All I said was people will try it later than they might if they were sure most of their victim pool wouldn't shoot back.
      - krger 2y ago
        >Very few of them are carrying openly (why make yourself the first target?), but I stand by my statement that I'd be shocked. This is an extraordinary claim that demands at least some evidence in order to be taken seriously. >A youth league bowling tournament would be an exception, given the preponderance of children. To the contrary: if you honestly believe that somewhere between 10% and 25-33% of Maine adults are carrying for protection—and, once again, there is literally no way that this is even close to true—it would make even more sense that the adults there would have been carrying To Keep Our Children Safe(TM).
- akoboldfrying 2y ago
  >How does a home invader know if I am armed? They don't. As with many things in life, they have to estimate that risk. A would-be home invader correctly estimates this particular risk to be higher in jurisdictions where guns are legally permitted -- and especially in areas where keeping a gun in the house is known to be common. Does that would-be home invader themselves own a gun that they are prepared to use, which would tend to neutralise this risk? Possibly. I don't know how that probability varies with legality of gun ownership, but I would expect that in both cases (gun ownership legal, gun ownership illegal), more home invaders than home owners have access to guns. If that's true, then more home owners with guns fired act as a deterrent. >It seems like it instead paves the road to escalating to violence in less-severe scenarios. Yes, it probably also (not "instead") does this. There's no dichotomy here. At the end of the day, the reasons for and against legalising gun ownership are similar to the reasons for and against arming your military. Doing either one raises the stakes -- the hope (assumption) being that the other party will then find the stakes too high to engage, even if they themselves are similarly armed.
jncfhnb 2y ago
We don’t have anecdotes, but we do have statistics
- blamestross 2y ago
  The thread on warp drives got killed so I'm replying here (sorry for out of context folks) "Would it explode or just punch a hole" depends on the energies of the impact involved. If there is only enough energy to break chemical bonds, it would punch a hole. As energy of the impact gets higher the hole gets deeper. Probably punching all the way through the ship. Once the impact energy gets strong enough to break nuclear bonds, the story changes. Now we have an e=mc^2 event at the impact site. It isn't just the impact energy anymore. At minimum, the punched hole just got wider and potentially radioactive as byproducts go on adventures. Once the hole is wider than the ship, I think that counts as "exploded".
incompatible 2y ago
Attackers would have the advantage even if the victim was armed. It's not like they are going to be sitting on the couch with the loaded gun pointing at the front door all day. And shooting somebody if they have a gun, just in case they shoot first, seems to be considered normal in some circles in the US: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-69013312 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-69013312, so carrying a gun seems like a big risk.

jcranmer 2y ago

> Ctrl-F baseball doesn't show any results for me. It's an example in one of the quoted tweets, which is of course an image and not text despite being purely textual content.

akoboldfrying 2y ago
Thanks, that helped me find it. And I see they already gave my gun example. Thinking about it some more, this question is closely related to the concept of negligence.
adamomada 2y ago
Kind of OT but this is one of the new killer features in MacOS: I was able to Ctrl-F (or CMD-F I guess) ‘baseball’ and it found the text in the image. I can also copy the image text and paste plain text. So much text is now images of text nowadays that it’s almost necessary to have this ability.

imoverclocked 2y ago

> to guns (only have “bad” uses … I’m not sure what you are saying exactly but guns do have legitimate uses that aren’t bad. As soon as you don’t live in high population density, those uses become apparent. I’ve also met people who live on very little means and hunt to provide for their family.