FinnAgain- In a re-read, I think I see the debate you are having with Arwin in it’s being zero sum or non zero sum. I think my hang up is with the use of the gereral term “game”. Ignoring that for a moment, I concur with you in that there are no degrees of winning or losing, it’s victory, defeat or draw. If I was hasty, I apologize.
Nicodemus2004 -
I tried to follow the ‘Game Theory’ posts for a while, but frankly they lost me, or I just lost interest.
Not considering the emotional overload of getting assaulted, robbed or whatever. I do see it as pretty black and white.
Defend yourself, scare the assailant away or even kill them (in the case of justifiable homicide). You win.
Die, get sent to the hospital or get robbed, you lose.
And like you, I don’t really think it’s possible to apply game theory here. But, I may be wrong. I had never heard of it ‘till this thread.
With that said. I am going to rant a bit.
There seems to be three different types of anti-gun people. This is IMHO by the way.
-
Those that know nothing, or next to nothing about guns. They seem to be afraid of guns in general and will believe anything that helps to justify their fears.
-
Those with an agenda. They may or may not be educated about guns. Most of them know enough to spread mis-information that they know that the first group will eat up to justify their fears. Feinstein falls into this catagory.
-
Genuinely concerned people that want to make a difference. Unfortunately, these folks get lost in the noise of the first two groups. Mostly, I think because they are the minority.
For myself. I consider myself close to group three. I’m willing to listen to reasonable legislation. But unfortunately, because of Group 2, I’m very, very, very, leery of new gun legislation. There is always another law waiting in the wings.
So, until group 2 stops pushing their agenda for political gain, and actually starts looking at some numbers, my opinion is…
Fuck ‘em. They have brought that on with their ridicules claims, and pointless laws.
No new laws.
No problem at all, don’t sweat it.
As for why it’s called a game, I’d give you this cite: (but to be fair I’ve always heard it as Games Theory… odd, that…)
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory]Game theory is a branch of mathematics that uses models to study interactions with formalised incentive structures (“games”). It has applications in a variety of fields, including economics, international relations, evolutionary biology, political science, and military strategy. Game theorists study the predicted and actual behaviour of individuals in games, as well as optimal strategies. Seemingly different types of interactions can exhibit similar incentive structures, thus all exemplifying one particular game.
[/quote]
Oh, and, in re-reading the thread, I think I was too nit-picky about the difference between optimal outcomes and best-for-all-outcomes.
Well, you are of course welcome to think that. But you are accusing me of something I’ve not been doing. I’ve indicated to catsix that her response and her feelings about the event were completely legitimate.
However, I also think the feelings of all those who needlessly lost someone to firearms are legitimate. I want to objectively find out which law restricts people’s freedom to live, least.
My head being bashed in would render me senseless. The privacy of my person being invaded would scare the shit out of me (pardon the pun), hurt me, and make me very angry. Worse for the family member or friend. I would definitely feel like hurting whoever did that to me, as I can’t stand it very well when people I care about get hurt - actually for me it’s a lot easier to deal with my own hurt than that of others, so I would have to and maybe not be able to restrain myself from hurting back. If I saw someone attempt to rape someone else, I fear for the consequences. After the anger and hurt, though, being me, I would end up dedicating much of my life to preventing something like that from happening again, in the best way possible. And that would never be at the cost of more hurt to others.
Yes, I’m one of those disgusting people who cares about other people and wants to make the world a better place. I admit there is even a bit of selfishness involved in that, as I happen to live there. But please, keep that nickel and consider the possibility that I actually mean well.
I don’t think that self-defense is a needless loss.
But would you stop them, or would you stand idly by and watch that person rape someone?
Here’s a question for you, Arwin.
If I were walking down the street, minding my own business, while carrying my pistol concealed as it is my legal right to do, and I came upon your mother as the target of that rapist, what would you want me to do?
FinnAgain Thanks for enlightening me. I see where you get the definition you base your discussion on with Arwin. I wonder how the OP of why we love guns turned into the pro-gun/ anti-gun, clinical analysis of a discussion we find ourselves in today. Shame.
My pleasure Nicodemus.
As for why this thread devolved, my guess is that 1) it was better suited for IMHO 2) The OP wasn’t honestly willing to consider the responses she got as evinced by her use of the word ‘juvenile’ 3) love of anything is a personal choice, as such, debating why individuals enjoy things is rather fruitless. People enjoy things because they do.
Amen.
I don’t hunt but I have a few different firearms (pistols and rifles)… and I am Canadian.
Why? It’s damn fun. Plain and simple.
This debate will never be settled. That’s one of the reasons I support the 2nd amendment.
IMHO.
And in my humble opinion, The anti-gun folks know next to nothing about guns. They do know that they don’t like them, and are afraid of them. That’s about as far as their knowledge goes.
It seems that since they won’t educate themselves about guns, they will latch onto any anti-gun propaganda spouted off by anti-gun groups.
The anti-gun groups provide mis-information for those people that don’t know anything about guns. This propaganda helps an anti-gun person support their position. It’s really a ridiculous position to argue from.
The pro-gun people are typically gun owners. And have a lot of experience with guns. They know the subject at hand. I am one of them.
The chasm between the to groups is just too deep. Anti-gun folks refuse to see any benefit from guns. Pro-gun folks see benefit at all times.
A big, big problem is the anti-guns folks desire to pass just ‘one more law’. Yet they don’t know anything about guns.
Before I was on the SDMB, I may have agreed to another law here or there. But since participating in these threads I have to say no. No more laws. The anti-gun people are horribly un-educated about guns. Yet they would like to dictate what others can do. Nope. Not until they can speak with at least a little bit of knowledge of what they would take from other people.
No. Nope.
The anti-gun people have lost all credibility with me.
It’s like having a fish tell me I don’t need air.
Well said. I came to the same conclusion years ago, and really just got sick of arguing about it and defending it here on The Straight Dope to people who, in my opinion, didn’t wan’t to let facts get in the way of their prejudices.
In searching for another class of people who compare somewhat equitably to anti-gunners for block-headed obstinancy, I have come to the conclusion that only hard-core racists meet or exceed them.
I wonder where that leaves someone like me. You see, I *do * know guns. I’ve fired everything from an Uzi to a 0.5" machine gun (I’ve never shot a pistol, but I’s like to some day). I like guns a lot, and while I don’t own any, I can easily see myself buying a nice little automatic in the future. Guns are fun, they’re useful tools, and I respect them immensely.
And because I respect guns so much, I believe in gun control. I’ve seen people hurt bad through the incorrect use of firearms, and I’ve seen people hurt bad through their correct use, too. Guns are dangerous devices, and like other dangerous devices - heavy construction equiptment, certain vehicles etc. - they should require prerequisites for use, such as licensing, training, and even the occasional limitation. I’m not talking about banning firearms - just controlling them.
Maybe it’s because I’m a political moderate, but I don’t believe in slippery slopes. They’re a sign of intellectual laziness - a belief that systems work automatically, without human involvement, and that if things start moving in a certain direction then opponents are powerless to make a change. Democracy, to me, is a system of checks and balances, freedoms versus limitations, law versus chaos, and everything good comes through compromise. Some people push for more gun control; some people push for less. The end result will be somewhere in the middle, which is exactly where it should be.
What I’m saying here, basically, is chill.
I don’t think ‘pro gun control’ is the same as ‘anti-gun’.
If your goal is to convince people that gun-owners aren’t narrow-minded assholes, you just failed.
But anti-gunners and pro-gun control is the same thing in the US. There is no gun control group or legislation passed or introduced that isn’t anti-gun.
Are there any pro-gun groups that aren’t anti-gun-control?
The NRA. They support many current gun control laws and encourage their enforcement.
Alessan: your stated position doesn’t make you “anti-gun.” And while I admit that, rhetorically, “pro-control” often gets equated with anti-gun, you should know me well enough by now to know that I don’t equate the two.
But a casual analysis of the stated positions and proposed legislative measures of the true anti-gunner does equate to a “slippery slope” in effect; as each measure passes, and then fails to yield the desired effects (cessation of gun crimes), well, then, they just turn around and espouse another piece of legislation in their never ending quest to capture the chimera of “no more gun violence.”
What is truly boggling is that somehow, the pro-gun position has been equated to a “zero-control” position; and that we currently have (in the United States) a zero-control, situation. It has reached a state such that any reservation as to the possible efficacy of a proposed gun-control legislation automatically makes the reluctant a cold-blooded, heartless bastard who revels in the death and carnage of the millions of innocent victims of the Evil Gun Lobby ™.
And yes, there are a few groups (extremely small) who do espouse a desire to return to a previouis state of almost no gun-control laws whatsoever; these people are not evident in the NRA, as they feel the NRA is a bunch of whimpy sell-outs.
blowero: what Machetero said.
And a narrow-minded pro-gun asshole I may very well be; at least I am not an ignorant one, nor a violent one, which still puts me at least a step ahead of the vast majority of narrow-minded anti-gun assholes.
Considering that, as a gun owner, I have never committed an act of armed violence outside of uniformed service, while having been physically assaulted by anti-gunners, I believe that I am also one step ahead of the anti-gunners morally as well.
enipla nailed it pretty squarely on the head; the anti-gunners are vastly ignorant of anything about guns, from their common descriptions, their true capabilities (Robert Rodriguez, John Woo and other Hollywierd nonsense aside), or the current state of affairs vis-a-vis gun crime statistics, and the demographics of of violent crime.
Or, if they are at all aware of these things in a factual sense, then they deliberately twist them to purport a half-truth of an even grimmer, less savory picture of gun owners and the average gun criminal in order to further their agenda, thus substituting dishonesty for ignorance in their arsenal.
Ignorance, as long as it is not willfull, at least has the cachet of honesty until it is dispelled.
That makes no sense. You are an idiot.