# What's With The Guns? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 28, 2005, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298 "2005-02-28T14:59:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/241 "2005-03-02T11:44:04Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > **Quint** , that doesn’t change the fact that any, any, any self defense situation is a zero sum game. I see another reason for our mutual misunderstanding. Preventing someone from robbing you is not necessarily a self-defense situation. It is not over here, in the Netherlands. An example: On 27 May 2004, one of those rare people in the Netherlands licenced to possess and keep a gun shot a burglar in the shoulder. He claimed the gun accidentally went off while chasing away the burglar. Considering the requirements we have before you can keep a gun at home (among others a year membership at a shooting range), this was considered unlikely. The shooter was convicted for 3 years (not sure if he appealed). > [@](#): > > Then, **Malthus** went on to argue that a self defense scenario wouldn’t be a zero sum game because you getting robbed/beaten was somehow mutually advantageous as long as you both survive. > [@](#): > > After that, he retreated and began to talk about ‘angry people’ instead of a clear cut self defense scenario Ok, so now we know that self defense scenarios are not clear cut. > [@](#): > > and accused me of trying to create a ‘morality play’ and created ‘loaded’ scenarios, **when what I was doing was discussing his original scenario**. He also claimed (in error) that I had created, out of wholecloth, a self-defense scenario and that he hadn’t brought it up. Perhaps the confusion is more understandable now, depending on what Malthus considers self-defense. At any rate, I understand why I got confused and had a feeling that you were moving the goal posts. > [@](#): > > (Unless you’re honestly going to tell me that protecting yourself is something different from protecting yourself. And, that’d be tough to argue) Protecting yourself and protecting your property, at least, I do consider different things and don’t find that all too hard to argue either. > [@](#): > > You’re attacked, you don’t fight back and are injured. -5 points. > You’re attacked, you draw and shoot first +5 points. > You’re attacked, you both draw and shoot killing each other -10 points. +5 points for shooting first? Following your own suggestion, the only time +5 points would be appropriate for the person being attacked would be if somehow the attacker magically started paying money not to get shot. > [@](#): > > In order for one person to gain an advantage, the other must be disadvantaged. That makes it a zero sum game. I did make an error here - when I said it leaves a non-zero sum game, I meant to say it \*leaves \* a zero sum game. > [@](#): > > In the case of someone being attacked, it is a single instance not to be repeated, so a single chess game is a much better analogy But it reduces the complexity beyond doing the robber/gun situation justice. In the robber instance, getting killed, hurt or just robbed are different outcomes. Additionally, the robber is still braking the law and risks getting caught, but if he kills me and gets caught, he’s off worse than if he doesn’t kill me and gets caught. The situation is more complex than even the PD, and reducing its complexity to that of a chess game certainly doesn’t do it more justice than reducing its complexity to that of the PD. > [@](#): > > No, it most certainly doesn’t. With guns out of the equation we’re still left with someone trying to rob/harm you. Their gain is your loss. That makes it a zero sum game. So, like I said (or rather, meant to say), it \*leaves \* a zero sum game. > [@](#): > > Possible… but my intuition says it’s unlikely. I’ve been accused of being an optimist before. 😉 > [@](#): > > The situation we are left with, that is, attacker wins or defender wins, is a classic zero sum game. That’s what I meant, and we agree. The situation we are _left_ with. > [@](#): > > But it’s still a zero sum game. > Either one animal gets the mate, or the other does. Not both. One must lose in order for the other to win. This is most definitely not a form of cooperation. Precisely, again, it leaves a zero sum game. > [@](#): > > The fact remains, someone does not have the right to violate your person or property. The fact also remains, the law recognizes the right to self defense. There are societies where killing a person, hurting a person, and violating property are considered different things, even in ‘the law’. Eerily enough, these societies also seem to suffer less killing and hurting involving guns, or, even more shockingly, in general. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/242 "2005-03-02T13:30:52Z")
> [@](#): > > **The Tooth** said: > So I’ll say it again: whatever price I pay for not being able to walk around armed, it doesn’t seem to be reflected in our crime rates. Then why do you give a shit about Americans and our guns? The comparisons show that in the United States, in cities where ordinary citizens are not allowed to keep and bear arms, violent crime rates are higher than in cities where they are. > [@](#): > > **Arwin** said: > Not all crimes make sense though. They didn’t use a .50 BMG. In fact, they could’ve done far more damage had they used a standard hunting rifle than the AR-15 they chose. > [@](#): > > While googling I came across this old Texas incident, which obviously inspired one or possibly even two (brain tumor) Buffy episodes - even the photos of the tower look eerily familiar: > > [http://massmurder.zyns.com/charles\_whitman.html](http://massmurder.zyns.com/charles_whitman.html) He didn’t use a .50 BMG either. Whitman used a 6.1mm, a .35 caliber, and a .30-06 rifle. It took 10 ordinary citizens with their own .22 caliber rifles to keep Whitman pinned down until police could move in on him. > [@](#): > > You yourself have said you understand that a reduced sentence is also a benefit. Both parties not dying is also a benefit. Nobody died when I used my gun to defend myself. No shots were fired at all. I was safe, and the intruder ran off. So damn, I guess you can use guns and have ‘both parties not dying’. Of course, he still lost because _whatever_ it was he was in my home for, he didn’t get. > [@](#): > > Preventing someone from robbing you is not necessarily a self-defense situation. It’s not here either. However, a person who illegally enters your home, especially at night, is considered grounds for reasonable fear for your life. This is especially true if they advance in the face of a gun. ---
**Author:** ![Dancer\_Flight](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dancer_flight/32/7601_2.png) [@Dancer\_Flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dancer_Flight)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/243 "2005-03-02T15:16:46Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > [Not all crimes make sense though.](http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/02/sprj.dcsp.malvo.trial/) Those shootings [the Muhammad and Malvo attacks] were done with a light [AR-15 type, 8.75 lbs (empty), 9.3 lbs (loaded)], short (42.25 inches) and cheap ($500-600) bushmaster rifle. Your typical (I’ll go with the Barrett M82A1 here) .50 cal rifle is heavy (M82A1 - 33.8 pounds, lightest I’ve heard of is 21 lbs), long (M82A1 - 57 inches, smallest I’ve found is 41 inches), and expensive (M82A1 - [$7,775.00](http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifles/rifles_82A1.htm), cheapest I’ve found $2,745.00). Your counterpoint is flawed. According to the [The General Accounting Office](http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=OSI-99-15R), “GAO found that 18 [.50 BMG Rifles, mostly M82A1] were **associated** with criminal activity.” [Bolding mine] A careful reading of the [document](http://archive.gao.gov/f0502/162586.pdf) states that a .50 caliber weapon has been fired in exactly one case, the Branch Davidian / BATF standoff in Waco TX. In no other case, was the firearm in question used in the commision of a violent crime (although a couple were smuggled out of the U.S. and subsequently recovered). A good (i.e. heavily referenced) source of gun myths and facts, especially as they pertain to crime is [http://gunfacts.info/index.html](http://gunfacts.info/index.html). Lest anyone cry “CITE!” for the bushmaster and BMG figures above here are two manufacturer’s sites. [.50 BMG info](http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifles.htm) [Bushmaster info](http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/weapons/lr-24v.asp) -DF ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/244 "2005-03-02T17:23:22Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > I see another reason for our mutual misunderstanding. Preventing someone from robbing you is not necessarily a self-defense situation. It is not over here, in the Netherlands. An example: > > On 27 May 2004, one of those rare people in the Netherlands licenced to possess and keep a gun shot a burglar in the shoulder. He claimed the gun accidentally went off while chasing away the burglar. Considering the requirements we have before you can keep a gun at home (among others a year membership at a shooting range), this was considered unlikely. The shooter was convicted for 3 years (not sure if he appealed). > > Ok, so now we know that self defense scenarios are not clear cut. > > Perhaps the confusion is more understandable now, depending on what Malthus considers self-defense. At any rate, I understand why I got confused and had a feeling that you were moving the goal posts. > > Protecting yourself and protecting your property, at least, I do consider different things and don’t find that all too hard to argue either. > > +5 points for shooting first? Following your own suggestion, the only time +5 points would be appropriate for the person being attacked would be if somehow the attacker magically started paying money not to get shot. > > I did make an error here - when I said it leaves a non-zero sum game, I meant to say it \*leaves \* a zero sum game. > > But it reduces the complexity beyond doing the robber/gun situation justice. In the robber instance, getting killed, hurt or just robbed are different outcomes. Additionally, the robber is still braking the law and risks getting caught, but if he kills me and gets caught, he’s off worse than if he doesn’t kill me and gets caught. The situation is more complex than even the PD, and reducing its complexity to that of a chess game certainly doesn’t do it more justice than reducing its complexity to that of the PD. > > So, like I said (or rather, meant to say), it \*leaves \* a zero sum game. > > I’ve been accused of being an optimist before. 😉 > > That’s what I meant, and we agree. The situation we are _left_ with. > > Precisely, again, it leaves a zero sum game. > > There are societies where killing a person, hurting a person, and violating property are considered different things, even in ‘the law’. Eerily enough, these societies also seem to suffer less killing and hurting involving guns, or, even more shockingly, in general. I must say, **Arwin** , you have far more patience and politeness than I do. There is only so much beating-head-against-brick-wall and abuse I’m willing to take. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![THespos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@THespos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/THespos)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/245 "2005-03-02T17:27:43Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > You are incorrect. I already told you that he said he never intended to make such an argument. Humor me. Assume that _I’m_ making that argument. > [@](#): > > Johnny L.A. did not provide any evidence to support that assertion. He merely _said_ it. I can’t offer a conclusion for such a vague statement. Who are “some people”? What do they “make out”? No time for me to go digging for citations right now, as I have a meeting out of town I’m leaving for in about 15 minutes, but I’ll round out the argument a bit later after I return. In the meantime, what’s your take on the whole limiting the pursuit of happiness thing? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/246 "2005-03-02T18:29:11Z")
> [@THespos](#): > > Humor me. Assume that _I’m_ making that argument. Why are you obsessed with this? Did Uncle Beer (or one of the “uncles”) post some quotes of politicians regarding banning handguns? Yes. Do I think you guys are in danger of having all guns banned nationwide in the near future? No. Any more questions? > [@](#): > > No time for me to go digging for citations right now, as I have a meeting out of town I’m leaving for in about 15 minutes, but I’ll round out the argument a bit later after I return. In the meantime, what’s your take on the whole limiting the pursuit of happiness thing? I thought I was clear, but I don’t believe that _anything_ that gives you pleasure automatically qualifies as “pursuit of happiness” as per the Declaration of Independence. Surely you can think of some things that might give certain people pleasure, but which are quite rightly banned by law, can’t you? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/247 "2005-03-02T18:54:52Z")
**Malthus** : Good to see that you’ve dropped out of the debate and now snipe from the sidelines about politeness while quoting entire massive posts in order to make two sentence witty rejoinders. Irony is a real bitch sometimes. > [@Arwin](#): > > I see another reason for our mutual misunderstanding. Preventing someone from robbing you is not necessarily a self-defense situation. It is not over here, in the Netherlands. Agreed, in the States you don’t have the right to use lethal force to protect property. My scenario was one in which self defense would be valid, that is, say, during a violent mugging, or some such. > [@Arwin](#): > > Ok, so now we know that self defense scenarios are not clear cut. No, I don’t think so, and I think that’d be moving the goalposts. If it’s self defense, it’s self defense. Obviously mere robbery is not self defense, but violent robbery is. So as long as we’re going to apply the original standard of self defense/protection, we can assume that any such scenario is clear cut. > [@Arwin](#): > > Protecting yourself and protecting your property, at least, I do consider different things and don’t find that all too hard to argue either. Of course, but there are situations, amongst them violent robberies, in which you can use force to defend yourself. I’d note that having someone invade your home and you being unable to escape is another situation in which force can be used Stateside. > [@Arwin](#): > > +5 points for shooting first? Following your own suggestion, the only time +5 points would be appropriate for the person being attacked would be if somehow the attacker magically started paying money not to get shot. Not at all. Cooperation would net both parties +5 points, but one party winning while the other loses still gets +5. (Oh, and, in the example I used the attacker would start working for, not paying out to, the defender. It was just an example of a non-zero sum game, which obviously we’re not dealing with.) Second, **Catsix** already gave an example in which her defense of her safety ended up ‘winning’ the encounter. She wasn’t harmed, or robbed. +5 points. > [@Arwin](#): > > I did make an error here - when I said it leaves a non-zero sum game, I meant to say it \*leaves \* a zero sum game. No, that’s been said several times now, and it’s still wrong. A situation like mate selection or self defense is zero sum from the beginning, at least in a species that pair bonds or a situation where one’s safety is in danger. There is no zero sum game ‘left’ at the end, it’s there from the get go. That’s the scenario from the start. Person A wins and thus person B loses, or vice versa. Or, stalemate. > [@Arwin](#): > > But it reduces the complexity beyond doing the robber/gun situation justice. In the robber instance, getting killed, hurt or just robbed are different outcomes. This is what’s been bothing me I think, and **Catsix** touched on it. It’s quite possible to pull a gun on your attacker and have nobody shot, and nobody killed. So the argument that not drawing a gun means no death and drawing a gun means (possibly mutual) death is fallacious. > [@Arwin](#): > > Additionally, the robber is still braking the law and risks getting caught, but if he kills me and gets caught, he’s off worse than if he doesn’t kill me and gets caught. The situation is more complex than even the PD, and reducing its complexity to that of a chess game certainly doesn’t do it more justice than reducing its complexity to that of the PD. It is more complex because you are trying to sneak an Iterated PD through the back door. Naughty naughty! 😉 In order to talk about getting caught, we need to look at future games, and that’s not allowed in a single occurance. The situation may be more complex in its ultimate ramifications, but the fact still remains that in order for the robber/attacker to benefit, you must lose. In order for you to benefit, he must lose. Or there can be some sort of stalemate. > [@Arwin](#): > > So, like I said (or rather, meant to say), it \*leaves \* a zero sum game. Simply not true. It’s a zero sum game if one benefits at the other’s expense or vice versa. If guns are involved, it is still a zero sum game, simply one with more lethality as an optional result. If guns are not involved, it’s still a zero sum game, as either your attacker wins, you win, or it’s a stalemate. Zero sum from the start, nothing ‘left’ . > [@Arwin](#): > > Precisely, again, it leaves a zero sum game. If you start a game of chess and use queens, does it become non-zero sum? Of course not. Likewise, if you play that game of chess and decide not to use your queens, does it ‘leave’ a zero sum game? No, it was zero sum from the very start. > [@Arwin](#): > > There are societies where killing a person, hurting a person, and violating property are considered different things, even in ‘the law’. Yes, the United States of America is one such society. > [@Arwin](#): > > Eerily enough, these societies also seem to suffer less killing and hurting involving guns, or, even more shockingly, in general. Well if nations with such a legal distinction (other than America) suffer from fewer problems I would suggest that the causes and factors are far broader than a bit of jurisprudence. Law is punitive, not prohibitive. So we can’t really look to the law as shaping public consciousness. 'least I dun think so. ---
**Author:** ![Quint](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/76d3ee/32.png) [@Quint](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quint)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/248 "2005-03-02T22:42:28Z")
OK, **FinnAgain** , one last try. In the PD, the reduced prison sentence is the “mutual reward”. Let’s consider that this could involve being beaten in prison, being raped in prison, certainly losing all freedom for a duration. How is considering a violent encounter using no guns vs. using guns different in terms of “reward” than the PD in this respect? In both instances cooperation leads to harsh punishment, the punishment would only be harsher in the event of mutual defection or cooperation in the face of defection. Your main objection seems to be towards the term “self- defense”. It would seem to me that this could be extended to any potentially violent altercation, as I’m sure **Malthus** intended with his initial remark. Someone is coming at you, without a gun, with a seemingly clear intent to cause you physical harm. Without guns you wind up defending yourself with less force, and you are attacked with less force, leading to a lesser likelihood of a fatal encounter. I suppose the only way to apply this analogy exactly to the PD would be to have a completely armed populace, with the 5 point mutual reward for any altercation where guns could have been used, but weren’t. Of course not all altercations involving guns end in shots fired, this is too literal an interpretation. The idea is not to mirror real life on an event by event basis, but to look at overall ways that cooperation can evolve for, in this case, a more peaceful society. Thou may be god, but Spock says “sometimes the needs of the many outnumber the needs of the few, or the one.” We’re all god after all. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/249 "2005-03-02T23:22:54Z")
> [@Quint](#): > > In the PD, the reduced prison sentence is the “mutual reward”. Let’s consider that this could involve being beaten in prison, being raped in prison, certainly losing all freedom for a duration. How is considering a violent encounter using no guns vs. using guns different in terms of “reward” than the PD in this respect? Because in a violent encounter, your loss is your opponent’s gain, even if you don’t draw guns. This is the definition of a zero sum game. [“One traditionally distinguishes two types of games. Zero-sum games are games where the amount of “winnable goods” (or resources in our terminology) is fixed. Whatever is gained by one actor, is therefore lost by the other actor: the sum of gained (positive) and lost (negative) is zero. This corresponds to a situation of pure competition.”](http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ZESUGAM.html) Robber/attacker wins, you lose your money/health. You win, robber/attacker loses and you keep your money/health. Zero sum. > [@Quint](#): > > In both instances cooperation leads to harsh punishment, the punishment would only be harsher in the event of mutual defection or cooperation in the face of defection. No. If you “cooperate” (and I strongly object to this term) with the robber/attacker, you lose while he wins. You get beaten/robbed while he gets your money/beats you. There is no mutual advantage. His advantage is your loss. This is the definition of a zero sum game. > [@Quint](#): > > Your main objection seems to be towards the term “self- defense”. It would seem to me that this could be extended to any potentially violent altercation, I’d be willing to discuss other scenarios, but as of yet nobody has presented one in full. > [@Quint](#): > > as I’m sure **Malthus** intended with his initial remark. I don’t know what he intented, and he’s chosen to drop out of the debate and snipe from the sidelines. If he meant for all violent situations, and not for protection, then he should have said that and not said, specificaly, it was for protection. In other words, you can try to guess as what he was ‘really’ saying, but until there’s some actual clarification I’ll read the words he actually wrote. > [@Quint](#): > > Someone is coming at you, without a gun, with a seemingly clear intent to cause you physical harm. Without guns you wind up defending yourself with less force, and you are attacked with less force, leading to a lesser likelihood of a fatal encounter. You play a game of chess, you don’t put your queen, bishops, knights, or rooks into danger so they’re not lost. You are still checkmated by your opponent. This makes it non-zero sum? Besides, if someone is going to do you harm, they’re going to do you harm. You not protecting yourself won’t stop them from doing you harm. Only protecting yourself will cause them not to do you harm. > [@Quint](#): > > I suppose the only way to apply this analogy exactly to the PD would be to have a completely armed populace, with the 5 point mutual reward for any altercation where guns could have been used, but weren’t. This is in rough equivelance to the Arms Race Scenario, but… I am very wary of giving a positive point value to a situation which leaves you bloody and robbed while your attacker has caused you harm and stolen your property. See, once a conflict is actually engaged in, it’s no longer a non-zero sum game. The Arms Race Scenario only holds as long as neither country invades. Once a war starts, it’s a zero sum game. Either they kill you, or you kill them. Same thing with being violently attacked. > [@Quint](#): > > Of course not all altercations involving guns end in shots fired, this is too literal an interpretation. The idea is not to mirror real life on an event by event basis, but to look at overall ways that cooperation can evolve for, in this case, a more peaceful society. Well, I thought we were looking at self defense situations, and thus looking at real life events. I also fail to see how having robbers/attackers who can steal and harm others with total impunity somehow makes society safer. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2005, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/250 "2005-03-02T23:34:22Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Second, **Catsix** already gave an example in which her defense of her safety ended up ‘winning’ the encounter. She wasn’t harmed, or robbed. +5 points. My inclination to think is that she didn’t lose anything. If you define this game like that, the game can only be won by a robber. You don’t win by not getting robbed, you don’t lose. That’s a good thing, certainly. Anyway, this game theory is running out of hand a little. > [@](#): > > No, that’s been said several times now, and it’s still wrong. > A situation like mate selection or self defense is zero sum from the beginning, at least in a species that pair bonds or a situation where one’s safety is in danger. There is no zero sum game ‘left’ at the end, it’s there from the get go. That’s the scenario from the start. Person A wins and thus person B loses, or vice versa. Or, stalemate. Ok, we’re probably never going to agree on this, because if you refuse to accept the whole killing thing adding another level to the possible outcome (the -10 variety). > [@](#): > > This is what’s been bothing me I think, and **Catsix** touched on it. It’s quite possible to pull a gun on your attacker and have nobody shot, and nobody killed. So the argument that not drawing a gun means no death and drawing a gun means (possibly mutual) death is fallacious. Yes, that is assuming that a robber is also going to hurt you. But that’s not typically what burglars are after. This is balancing the situation between robbing with no intent to hurt, through intent to hurt, to intent to kill. You’re complaining on the one hand that we’re not allowed to bring the absence of killing as a kind of cooperation principle, but you do want to bring in this. > [@](#): > > It is more complex because you are trying to sneak an Iterated PD through the back door. Naughty naughty! 😉 Pot, kettle. I’m just admitting complexity. > [@](#): > > In order to talk about getting caught, we need to look at future games, and that’s not allowed in a single occurance. The situation may be more complex in its ultimate ramifications, but the fact still remains that in order for the robber/attacker to benefit, you must lose. In order for you to benefit, he must lose. Or there can be some sort of stalemate. I know I’m not allowed to bring iteration in, you’ve told me that before. I’ve just been doing that because you’re insistence on making this a game where you can only win or lose with no degrees in winning or losing is making our discussion pointless. > [@](#): > > Simply not true. > It’s a zero sum game if one benefits at the other’s expense or vice versa. > If guns are involved, it is still a zero sum game, simply one with more lethality as an optional result. Yet the PD is one that has bigger, lesser or no prison sentence as results. The robber scenario has death, injury, or loss of property on the one hand, and death injury, or gain of property on the other. In reality, both situations don’t fit the PD quite. What Malthus, I think, was trying to argue, was that the cooperation principle works on the level of taking out death of this equation like the cooperation works on taking out the risk of the 10 year sentence in the PD. But on the other hand you’re right in that the cooperation in some of the cases still leaves the victim a victim (hurt or robbed), so in that sense it is not like the PD. However, there are a fair deal of different kinds of scenarios, like the robber being scared off by catsix without the gun, not being scared off by catsix, hurting catsix, killing catsix, and so on. To determine what is more realistic, you’d have to bring in statistics on what’s more likely to happen, but you’ve already indicated that’s not something you want to do. However, soon enough we’re going to have to leave the limitations of this limited scope, especially the one you’re insisting on. > [@](#): > > If you start a game of chess and use queens, does it become non-zero sum? Of course not. Stop equating the use of queens in a chess game with adding the risk of death to a robbery scenario, it doesn’t make sense. In the chess game, the end result doesn’t change, but in the robbery scenario, there are definitely different levels of losing. Accept that. > [@](#): > > Well if nations with such a legal distinction (other than America) suffer from fewer problems I would suggest that the causes and factors are far broader than a bit of jurisprudence. Agreed on that. It is a very complex issue. > [@](#): > > Law is punitive, not prohibitive. That’s not true. Law is prohibitive. Law-enforcement is punitive. > [@](#): > > So we can’t really look to the law as shaping public consciousness. > 'least I dun think so. It’s definitely more important to convince people there’s a good reason for the law than to tell them they should simply obey it, because otherwise in the absence of law-enforcement they’ll see no reason to obey. Much like cats, in that respect. I tell a child not to touch a vase. When the child touches the vase, and it falls and breaks, I yell “Told you not to touch that, now go to your room.” It would probably have helped if I told the kid that the vase would fall, and lots of people would be upset with the child as a result, including his parent. Though definitely not a guarantee. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/251 "2005-03-03T00:05:17Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > Yes, that is assuming that a robber is also going to hurt you. If he isn’t, it’s not a self defense situation. > [@Arwin](#): > > You’re complaining on the one hand that we’re not allowed to bring the absence of killing as a kind of cooperation principle, but you do want to bring in this. Because a robber/attacker taking your property/health is to his advantage and your disadvantage. If you ‘cooperate’ he still defects, and you lose. > [@Arwin](#): > > I know I’m not allowed to bring iteration in, you’ve told me that before. I’ve just been doing that because you’re insistence on making this a game where you can only win or lose with no degrees in winning or losing is making our discussion pointless. I was just going for simplicity. If you would like we can attempt to create a matrix of interaction to represent various paths. > [@Arwin](#): > > To determine what is more realistic, you’d have to bring in statistics on what’s more likely to happen, but you’ve already indicated that’s not something you want to do. However, soon enough we’re going to have to leave the limitations of this limited scope, especially the one you’re insisting on. Like I said, if anybody wants to create an alternate scenario, I’m game. Likewise, if someone wants to add statistics to the matrix of interaction, I’m game. > [@Arwin](#): > > Stop equating the use of queens in a chess game with adding the risk of death to a robbery scenario, it doesn’t make sense. In the chess game, the end result doesn’t change, but in the robbery scenario, there are definitely different levels of losing. Accept that. No, I won’t accept it, because you’re wrong. In a chess match you receive a score based partially on the pieces you capture. There are still degrees of victory and loss, and it’s still zero sum. > [@Arwin](#): > > That’s not true. Law is prohibitive. Law-enforcement is punitive. Law provides penalties for transgression, but you must first transgress in order to be punished; thought-crime is not yet illegal. > [@Arwin](#): > > It’s definitely more important to convince people there’s a good reason for the law than to tell them they should simply obey it, because otherwise in the absence of law-enforcement they’ll see no reason to obey. Much like cats, in that respect. I agree, Americans in particular are very active in our rejection of authority we do not agree with. During prohibition we drank more than every before. > [@Arwin](#): > > I tell a child not to touch a vase. When the child touches the vase, and it falls and breaks, I yell “Told you not to touch that, now go to your room.” It would probably have helped if I told the kid that the vase would fall, and lots of people would be upset with the child as a result, including his parent. Though definitely not a guarantee. 😉 “And don’t worry about that vase.” “What vase?” ~CRASH!~ “That vase.” " I’m sorry." “I said, don’t worry about. I’ll get one of my kids to fix it.” “How did you know?” "Ohh…what’s really going to bake your noodle later on is, would you still have broken it if I hadn’t said anything? " 😃 ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/252 "2005-03-03T00:44:45Z")
> [@](#): > > **Arwin** said: > Yes, that is assuming that a robber is also going to hurt you. But that’s not typically what burglars are after. You assumed he was a robber. I merely said that this person was an intruder in my home at 2:30 in the morning. I have no idea if he was there to rob me, rape me, kill me, or all three. You can’t just assume that he was a robber with no intent to harm me simply because it makes your argument better. The truth is, I will _never know why he was really there_, and I am extremely glad I won’t. > [@](#): > > However, there are a fair deal of different kinds of scenarios, like the robber being scared off by catsix without the gun, not being scared off by catsix, hurting catsix, killing catsix, and so on. In an scenario where there is an attacker whose intentions I do not know, and that attacker is bigger and stronger than I am, and I have no reasonable way to escape, I want the absolute best tool of self-defense available on my side. When it happens to you, you do not have the luxury of sitting around spending time evaluating the intruder’s intentions and then gradually changing your response to match the intruder’s moves. The entire encounter lasted less than 3 minutes from start to finish, and it ended with no one being injured. I consider that a very good outcome. ---
**Author:** ![Nic2004](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4491bb/32.png) [@Nic2004](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nic2004)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/253 "2005-03-03T16:30:43Z")
**Catsix** , I am in your corner and very glad to hear your encounter went as well as it did. As for the anology of Chess games and weighed responces and such… are you shitting me? This is no game of tactics or strategy. It is dark, you’re alone, there is a nosie you think may be the cat. When you check, the shape in the darkness is 6’3" and 3 feet wide… and you can’t really tell the problems of his childhood, his current financial status or his motivations or intent. The chess analogy tells me this is someone who has never been in a situation that is suddenly upon you, by a preditor whose viciousness is unknown to you. In the next few seconds you will live to see loved one’s again… or you will be DEAD. There are no points or clocks or rules. Alive… or dead. If you have not lived through this your clinical and logical assessments are irrelevent. This person is not one of us, not someone who seeks out knowlege and insight. Not someone who can debate you the on rightness or wrongness of this event. Here is a person that was sitting around his place and deceided to arm himself, travel to the home of someone he never met, break in and attack a stranger. Money, drugs, sex or whatever, these considerations mean NOTHING in that dark room and you are deceiding to live to see your loved one’s. I suspect Sharon Tate and the people that the Manson Family BUTCHERED would not have been able to even comprehend the darkness of the minds at the front door. They could not imagine the workings of minds like these and all the good intentions and understanding would not have changed that outcome. No one made this person do this act and no one suggested to him he would be guaranteed his safety. If you violate the laws and the home of a stranger, you do so at your own risk. And if you die or are seriously injured, it is because _ **YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS** _. Something that seems lacking in the minds of many these days. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/254 "2005-03-03T18:34:27Z")
> [@Nicodemus2004](#): > > As for the anology of Chess games and weighed responces and such… are you shitting me? You’re not understanding evidently. The analogy was not because the consequences are the same, but because both are zero sum games. > [@Nicodemus2004](#): > > The chess analogy tells me this is someone who has never been in a situation that is suddenly upon you, by a preditor whose viciousness is unknown to you. I lived in Manhattan for a while and encountered my fair share of hostile situations (although nothing close to what **catsix** experienced) and once escaped from a pair of rather large men who tried to corner me in a dark alley in Florence. You might wanna think about what my analogy tells you. > [@Nicodemus2004](#): > > In the next few seconds you will live to see loved one’s again… or you will be DEAD. There are no points or clocks or rules. Alive… or dead. Which is why it’s a zero sum game, **just like chess** ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/255 "2005-03-03T19:43:37Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I was just going for simplicity. If you would like we can attempt to create a matrix of interaction to represent various paths. > > Like I said, if anybody wants to create an alternate scenario, I’m game. > > Likewise, if someone wants to add statistics to the matrix of interaction, I’m game. We can take catsix’ example. I’ll get back on that later. > [@](#): > > No, I won’t accept it, because you’re wrong. > In a chess match you receive a score based partially on the pieces you capture. There are still degrees of victory and loss, and it’s still zero sum. Another cultural difference? In my amateur chess career, we never received a score other than win, lose or draw. > [@](#): > > Law provides penalties for transgression, but you must first transgress in order to be punished; thought-crime is not yet illegal. Yes. But it’s not like everyone breaks every law first before they decide to bide by them. So a law is prohibitative until it is transgressed. Then punitative law-enforcement comes in.Some kids do seem to test many of them, agreed, but that’s a different matter. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/256 "2005-03-03T19:58:21Z")
> [@](#): > > **Arwin** said: > So a law is prohibitative until it is transgressed. Most of the people who will never break a law against murder or robbery or burglary are people who wouldn’t do those things if they were legal. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/257 "2005-03-03T20:03:28Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > You assumed he was a robber. I merely said that this person was an intruder in my home at 2:30 in the morning. > > I have no idea if he was there to rob me, rape me, kill me, or all three. > > You can’t just assume that he was a robber with no intent to harm me simply because it makes your argument better. The truth is, I will _never know why he was really there_, and I am extremely glad I won’t. And from your uniquely personal experience of that situation, you couldn’t hold a more viable position. But that doesn’t mean you’re right. It does mean, however, in this instance, that you’re not going to be open to any logic that alters this scenario, simply because it worked. > [@](#): > > When it happens to you, you do not have the luxury of sitting around spending time evaluating the intruder’s intentions and then gradually changing your response to match the intruder’s moves. The entire encounter lasted less than 3 minutes from start to finish, and it ended with no one being injured. I consider that a very good outcome. Even if there was only a tiny, tiny chance that you’ve, by possessing a gun, prevented hurt to yourself, it would be worth any other risk for you at this point. At least, that’s what I think. And, for clarity’s sake, I completely respect that. It’s not a fun experience, at all. That’s not going to stop FinnAgain and me from continuing this discussion though, because the logic behind it is the same that makes people addicted to gambling after they put a coin on 31 and the roulette table turned out 31. Without a sound reality check to back it up, it may not have been the best approach. > [@](#): > > In an scenario where there is an attacker whose intentions I do not know, and that attacker is bigger and stronger than I am, and I have no reasonable way to escape, I want the absolute best tool of self-defense available on my side. FinnAgain, shall we try to make this into a math sum? I’m not a perfect mathster, but this shouldn’t get too complex. I think what we need here, are some statistics (preferably from the area that catsix lives in) on what typically happens when someone breaks in and enters, how often does it happen, how often does the burglar become a molester, murderer, and so on. Different scenarios playing out, and different statistics, and set them against gun accidents in the home, homicides taking place at home, and if possible suicides that could be attributed to the availability of a gun (guns facilitate a lower threshold and higher successrate, which is import in suicides because otherwise most suicides actually fail). It may be hard to get reliable statistics, but do you agree this would be the way to go about determining whether or not having a gun at home is safer or not? ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/258 "2005-03-03T20:05:11Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Most of the people who will never break a law against murder or robbery or burglary are people who wouldn’t do those things if they were legal. Like you’re not allowed to walk on the grass, or not park here, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![danceswithcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9e8a1a/32.png) [@danceswithcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/danceswithcats)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/259 "2005-03-03T22:08:48Z")
I think you’re a asshat **Arwin**. You sit where you are spouting off about how we should conduct business in the US, discussing issues as though they were nothing more than a mathematical probability. In another thread, you condemn how he handle those criminals convicted of murder. I’d give a nickel to know how you’d respond to your head being bashed in, the privacy of your person being invaded by another, what you’d think if you saw a family member or close friend maimed during an assault or home intrusion. It’s not a theoretical issue when it’s **Arwin** ’s blood or money involved, or are you going to tell me you’d go to court and speak on behalf of your assailant, and take him into your home for personal rehab? :wally ---
**Author:** ![Nic2004](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/4491bb/32.png) [@Nic2004](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nic2004)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2005, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298/260 "2005-03-03T23:48:56Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > You’re not understanding evidently. > The analogy was not because the consequences are the same, but because both are zero sum games. I hope you are right and I am not understanding… evidently. By what definition are you considering a Life or Death, live or die, him or me, a GAME. A combat, a conflict, a struggle to survive perhaps but this does not fall under any form of game definition I can think of. I too love chess and games of tactics and strategy. But game? > [@](#): > > I lived in Manhattan for a while and encountered my fair share of hostile situations (although nothing close to what **catsix** experienced) and once escaped from a pair of rather large men who tried to corner me in a dark alley in Florence. You might wanna think about what my analogy tells you. Which is what? There is no winner? If I live and the one who prompted the attack does not… _I win_! Additionally, as a resident of Mantattan you have seen the benifits of gun control up close. No one in that State has a gun except the criminals. The area were the public has the fewest guns and the crime rate is one of the highest. Mere chance? I think not. > [@](#): > > Which is why it’s a zero sum game, **just like chess** I enjoy chess. I even win now and then. That is why I consider it to fall under the “game” catagory. Life and death… not so much. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-guns/292298.md?page=14)