How do I prove what’s not happening? Shall I decree everyone in Calgary carry a weapon from now on and get back to you on it? The best I can do is make comparisons. Comparing a small city like Anchorage to a larger city like Calgary is the best I can do. We do not pay a high price for not being able to carry a gun on our person, crime here is a fraction of what it is in a city one third the size. I’m not trying to prove that guns are the cause, just that we manage without CCW, and as I look around the price of doing without does not seem that high.
That works fine if you cherry-pick cities.
Try comparing, say, Pittsburgh with Washington D.C. and see if you get the same results.
But I don’t live in Pittsburgh or Washington D.C. Why would I compare two American cities in order to show that Canadian cities do just fine without being able to walk around armed, and to show that the idea that the price I pay for not being able to walk around armed is too high is just hyperbole? There’s less property crime and less violent crime here than in a city with one third the population, so whatever price I pay isn’t reflected in the crime rate, be it personal or property crime.
And what makes your choices less cherrypicked than mine?
But since you asked . . .
Pittsburgh’s and Washington’s 1996 homicide rates were 16.5 and 65.2 respectively per 100 000 in 1996. Their forcible rape rates 68.5 and 52.7 per 100 000 respectively. Both cities, to my surprise, have populations smaller than Calgary’s and still have incredibly high crime rates by my standards. Chicago’s homicide rate, incidentally, was 30.0 for that same year, closer to Pittsburgh’s than DC’s, but it has 4 times Washington’s population, and to my knowledge carrying firearms is not allowed. 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. Something other than whether or not I can carry a gun determines the amount of crime here. I don’t care what it is.
I truly believe I am the only person in the world for whom gun ownership is not a political problem. I do not own guns for self defense and I do not feel the need to justify my gun ownership in terms of defense. I own them because they are fun and I justify them as “They are fun, and as I am not a criminal and have no intent of ever allowing the muzzle to point toward another human, I do not see them as a horrid danger of DOOM OH MY GOD.”
I like how “because it’s fun” has been poo-pooed as a legitimate reason several times and yet no one wants to explain why it’s not legitimate or what WOULD be legitimate.
Why are all these Canadians so worried about US of A guns? Why not just stay there and let us die as we want?
The real reason there is less crime from all those Canadians is not becase they are so much better or have less freedom or less guns than us down in the US of A but because it is so damn cold they can’t get out of the house and do anything except for the three weeks that they call “Not Winter”.
I don’t imagine Anchorage is a day at the beach either.
This doesn’t seem right to me. The Bucky Fuller quote, to start, is incorrect in terms of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. The situation is beneficial to all, but disadvantages the prisoner who would defect when the other would cooperate. To quote your own cite:
“For simplicity we might consider the Prisoner’s dilemma as zero-sum insofar as there is no mutual cooperation: either each gets 0 when both defect, or when one of them cooperates, the defector gets + 10, and the cooperator - 10, in total 0. On the other hand, if both cooperate the resulting synergy creates an additional gain that makes the sum positive: each of them gets 5, in total 10.”
So, while the total for both players remains 10, one player can receive all the points by defecting while the other cooperates, therefore there is a loss to that player on any given turn when he could have defected but did not. The benefit occurs over the long haul, when each player realizes that 5 points every time is better than 0 points every time.
It seems to me that Malthus is proposing applying this theory to an entire society, stating that one in which guns are not used is a cooperative one. Points are awarded thus: you get into a scrap, no guns involved, 5 points each. You get into a scrap, pull a gun, terrorize your opponent, 10 points to you, -10 points to your opponent. You get into a scrap, your opponent pulls a gun, you don’t have one, -10 for you, +10 for your opponent. You get into a scrap, you both pull guns, 0 points awarded. So while it’s better for you to have a gun in any given altercation, if everyone cooperates and has no guns at all, it is to the collective benefit. It may seem hard to believe that you getting stabbed by a mugger should result in 5 points being awarded each, but I don’t think it’s impossible to apply game theory to a society at large in this manner.
I assume this was a silly and flippant comment on a Canadian stereotype (says Rebekkah, as she looks out her window to see t-shirt-wearing weather we are currently experiencing)
And. I’m not worried about USA gun culture so much as I am curious about gun culture in general, Canada included.
Plus, I’m putting my money where my mouth is. I talked to my roomate tonight and he thinks hitting a shooting range is a good idea. So, Trupa, see your e-mail. If we can set something up, I’m game (not literally, lol). So says the “anti-gun” chick, whose willing to explore alternate perspectives and enhance her general knowledge base. At the very least, perhaps this will take the “fear” impulse I have to guns to a more rational level.
Hey, at least I’m admitting my bias and tring to educate myself, right?
Ugh. Trying to match Rob’s accent with shots during the Amazing Race does little for my grammar.
“trying” I meant. :smack:
just kidding, of course.
Pardon me if this post is snarky, I’m getting somewhat frustrated. No personal offense is intended.
Okay, this is getting ridiculous.
I’ve been over this several times now. Yes, there is a possible arrangement in the Prisoner’s Dilemma where one of them gets screwed. The point is that there is a possible outcome where both benefit.
And the Fuller quote is dead on, because, yet again, there is a path to be taken whereby everybody benefits and nobody loses. Not all paths have this value, but one does exist.
From my cite, that you just quoted, but evidently did not read closely.
Yes, that’s a non-zero sum game.
What, exactly, is your point?
Again a non-zero sum game is not one in which everybody involved must receive an advantage, but one in which there is a course of action in which everybody can receive an advantage.
Yes, which is the problem, as not using guns cannot possibly be interpreted as cooperation is any sense in which the word “cooperation” is ever used. I’ll deal with your example in just a sec.
You’ve appropriated the formula without, evidently, any clear idea why it’s used.
If you get into a scrap it doesn’t matter if a gun is drawn because someone is getting injured. In fact, the original example that malthus used (before he tried to shift the goal posts) was one of self defense. In that situation, we can assume a clear agressor and defender, and thus, even if guns aren’t pulled, one person’s gain will be another person’s loss. In other words it’s a zero sum game.
In this case, the correct formula would be something like
“You are assaulted, you do nothing and are beaten badly. -10 points. You are assaulted, you pull a gun and shoot your attacker. +10 points. You are assaulted, and you both beat each other bloody till neither can fight. -5 points for both of you.”
Not drawing a gun doesn’t avoid your beating, you still get beaten and still lose points. Again, not drawing a gun does not make it a non-zero sum game. It’s still a zero sum game, the lethality factor is just lower. I don’t know how to make this any clearer, not drawing a gun does not result in both parties being better off. You still get robbed/beaten, and lose points.
Bullshit.
You are attacked by a man intent on doing you serious bodily harm. You do not pull a gun. He beats the snot out of you. Tell me, exactly, how this is a non-zero sum game in which everybody benefits?
Again, since I guess you somehow didn’t read this when I posted it last time. In a game of chess, both people can choose not to use their queens. But there still must be a winner and a loser, or it must end in stalemate (because it is a zero sum game!). It is the same in a situation of self defense. Either you geat beat up, you beat the other guy up, or you avoid the fight entirely/beat one each other till neither can throw punches.
You are correct, it is possible to apply Games Theory to all of society, but the way y’all are going about it is flat out wrong.
If the point is that in cases of non-self defense (ie. non-zero sum games) then, no, neither party is served by drawing a weapon. But in a zero sum game, someone has to lose. And the guy who shoots first and hits, wins.
Notice, again, in a self-defense situation, you do not have the option of cooperation. That’s why it’s a self defense situation. Since there is no option of cooperation, it is a zero sum game. As such, attempting to cast it as a non-zero sum game is simply fallacious.
I know the feeling.
This is where you make a fundamental mistake, I think. In the PD, cooperation leads to a reduced sentence. They only benefit by losing less.
Don’t get too hung up on the advantage word.
Oh yes it can. You just vehemently don’t want to.
On the contrary, you don’t understand. But you’re starting to, and now you’re going to slowly have to change the game to one where person A is intent on killing person B, so that it comes down to person B having a choice between getting killed and possibly getting a shot in first.
[quote]
If you get into a scrap it doesn’t matter if a gun is drawn because someone is getting injured. In fact, the original example that malthus used (before he tried to shift the goal posts) was one of self defense. In that situation, we can assume a clear agressor and defender, and thus, even if guns aren’t pulled, one person’s gain will be another person’s loss. In other words it’s a zero sum game.
[snip]
my point exactly.
Even in a situation where someone is out to hurt me, this can be done without getting killed or with getting killed. I have to run off to work but I can think of tons of examples here.
The point is, both of the prisoners would otherwise go to jail for longer if implicated. So receiving less of a sentence is an advantage.
Um, no.
That’s the difference between a zero sum game and a non-zero sum game.
And, how, exactly, and by which bit of semantic slight of hand, do you plan on making “don’t pull a gun” equal with cooperating?
You claim I vehemently don’t want to see your point, yet the words/phrases have different meanings. If someone pulls a knife on you, and you don’t pull a gun on him, you’re cooperating towards a mutually beneficial outcome?
Bullshit.
Um… no.
The situation in the initial example, posted by malthus before his goal-post-moving, was of self defense. As such, that’s the scenario. I don’t have to change it, becuase that’s already what it is. But please, join the Strawman’s Psychic Assocation and tell me what position I’m next going to take. :rolleyes:
Okay, now you’re just pissing me off.
If you agree that a zero-sum game is not changed into a non-zero sum game because someone doesn’t pull a gun, why the fuck are you arguing with me?
If it’s not a zero sum game, obviously then, it’s not a zero sum game!.
Ya don’t say?
Where have I said otherwise?
Sorry if you feel like you are banging your head against a wall, but I feel like I have to try again. On preview I see this is something of a simulpost, which will clearly make this even more popular, but here we go…
In the classic Prisoner’s Dilemma the two individuals involved, when cooperating, receive reduced punishments. They do not actually “benefit”, except inasmuch as they do not go to jail for as long. To me this is not “everybody benefits”, but rather " nobody loses as much". Getting the snot beaten out of me, while certainly a loss, is not as great a loss as getting shot in the head. So, guy tries to mug me, take my parking spot, whatever, no guns drawn, we get 5 points each. Why? Maybe I win maybe I lose, no one gets shot. Same situation, only one gun, 10 points for the shootist, -10 for the one who is shot. We both pull guns, 0 points because we could both get shot.
So I still think, when applied to a society, the Prisoner’s Dilemma offers an interesting explanation of how cooperation can provide a net overall benefit, even while actually being a disadvantage to individuals in a single encounter. As I understand it, even though the individual may suffer extreme losses in an encounter, it is the society which gains the advantage. The Prisoner’s Dilemma only works over repeated encounters. Once again, from your cite:
" The problem with the prisoner's dilemma is that if both decision-makers were purely rational, they would never cooperate. Indeed, rational decision-making means that you make the decision which is best for you whatever the other actor chooses. Suppose the other one would defect, then it is rational to defect yourself: you won't gain anything, but if you do not defect you will be stuck with a -10 loss. Suppose the other one would cooperate, then you will gain anyway, but you will gain more if you do not cooperate, so here too the rational choice is to defect. The problem is that if both actors are rational, both will decide to defect, and none of them will gain anything. However, if both would "irrationally" decide to cooperate, both would gain 5 points. "
The zero sum situations you describe are accurate for one encounter. It would be folly for anyone not to want a gun. The benefit occurs to the gun- free society when people irrationally don’t start arming themselves “just in case” of such an encounter. This leads to an overall smaller chance of being in a violent situation involving a gun because there are less guns. You take a chance on getting a -10 by cooperating when others may defect so that your society hums along getting 10 points per non- gun encounter.
Oh and I thought I should repost the initial PD post (bolding mine) as there is a question of moving goalposts being brought up.
That has nothing to do with my previous post. You didn’t answer my question.
You are incorrect. I already told you that he said he never intended to make such an 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”?
The way I see it, that’s a benefit.
In a case of self defense, which is what we were discussing before Malthus tried to shift the goal posts, you will be disadvantaged if the attacker wins. If you win, he will be disadvantaged (by being shot). You can also both lose (stalemate). It’s a zero sum game.
I am wary of this reasoning, but I can’t quite put my finger on why, exactly.
I would agree that the Arms Race Scenario has the same general characteristics of asking if a society should have guns or not. However, while the societal example may be a blanket non-zero sum game, individual circumstances where one was attacked still become zero sum games.
Actually, no.
You’re confusing the Prisoner’s Dilemma with the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma, at least in regards to repeated encounters.
With a single encounter, there is no necessity for repeatability. And while a course of action may seem irrational, it would be taken with the (perhaps mistaken) assumption that there would be, so to speak, honor amongst thieves.
Thank you… now I can clean the blood and scalp fragments off that wall. 
I disagree.
Even in a gun free society, there will still be crime, people will be attacked.
If you are attacked, it is in your best interest to not be harmed. And thus, it’s in your best interest to draw a gun and fire first.
Eh… As I see it, you still lose points if someone attacks you and you can’t fight them off. And any self defense situation is a zero sum game. So, while it may be a societal-non-zero-sum-game to attempt to make sure that nobody has guns, in individual zero sum cases the situation is different.
Anyways, it’s now almost four in the morning here in the ATX, so I may be less than fully lucid. I’ll revisit this tomorrow and see if I want to clarify anything.
It is still mutually beneficial not to get killed. But if this was so easy to understand, I guess the U.S. wouldn’t be one of the last countries in the West to get this, obviously.
Well, I’ve always thought and certainly I have always been discussing with the robbers scenario in mind, and so were you with Malthus, initially.
You yourself have said you understand that a reduced sentence is also a benefit. Both parties not dying is also a benefit. The robber (now it’s the robber again) all of a sudden having to work for you to receive a benefit, doesn’t follow.
With all due respect to your intelligence (because I do honestly think you’re really smart), for now I’m going to stick to this post to which you never responded. Not that I don’t blame you for that, you’ve got enough people posting back at you and I’m not able to respond to all of them either. But here’s a link anyway.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5899128&postcount=199
Because I don’t agree. I agree that if the two parties cooperate by taking guns out of the equation, it leaves a non-zero sum game. Again, I’m pointing out the chess-tournament example in my post above.
Nice logic, there.
See my quote of you discussing the robber example.
In the end our disagreement probably comes down to scope. In my view of this, the only difference between the PD and this situation, is that it is more complex. You’re arguing that it is in fact less complex, which is why you say the PD doesn’t apply. I think we’ll find to be in agreement if we agree which aspects of this situation we take into account.
Not all crimes make sense though.
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
Very close to where I used to live, though I wasn’t present at the time, someone lost it too but thank god he could ‘only’ get his hands on a knife and stabbed three people randomly before people managed to subdue him. The three people all lived, too.
Quint, that doesn’t change the fact that any, any, any self defense situation is a zero sum game. So attempting to recast individual situations in a societal context is obfuscatory. An individual scenario which is a zero sum game is obviously not a non-zero sum game.
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, 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.
That, in a nutshell, is 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)
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.
In order for one person to gain an advantage, the other must be disadvantaged. That makes it a zero sum game.
You are attempting to make different situations equal.
Again, think of chess. White can win, black can win, or there can be a stalemate. And that makes it a zero sum game. If white beats black and there is no stalemate, you can’t claim that it’s a win for both of them. Black lost while white won. (I don’t see the relevance of tournaments, because that implies continued scenarios. 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)
Or, to put it another way, and to use a deliberately altered PD:
You rat on him but he doesn’t rat on you/ he rats on you but you don’t rat on him/ you both rat on each other.
You get hurt and your atacker profits/ you stop your attacker and avoid being hurt/ you hurt each other.
See what’s missing from both?
The missing element, of course, is the difference between zero and non-zero sum games.
Actually I totally missed your post, I’ll respond to it in this one.
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.
Possible… but my intuition says it’s unlikely.
If you take away the risk of a stalemate, does that mean that white doesn’t beat black, or black doesn’t beat white?
The situation we are left with, that is, attacker wins or defender wins, is a classic zero sum game.
It is different that the reduced prison sentence.
you rat on him = you shoot him
he rats on you = he robs/attacks you
you rat on each other = you shoot each other
The only way I could see it being a non-zero sum game is if you don’t pull a gun, you don’t get robbed at all.
Actually, I can’t parse this to save my life, or understand it. How many people are involved, what exactly are the possible outcomes?
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.
Grok, thou art god. (ahem)
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.
Oh, and…
Would you mind pointing out exactly where I say that in a situation where someone was out to do you harm, you couldn’t choose between using lethal force and not using lethal force?
To be fair, I’m up far too late, and my mind is a bit muddied right now. And this quote fest is getting frustrating to parse. Mind clearing up my ignorance?