What's With The Guns?

[Arwin]

@catsix

I said that because it, like so many other sites of its nature, tries to imply that firearms are the problem. They are not. Criminals are the problem, and laws do not stop criminals.

So, basically, the U.S. is a failed state that has no functional justice system. And not only that, but laws are pointless too. That’s what you’re saying, right?

What the fuck are you on about now? The point I’m making is that there is no law that’s going to stop a criminal from leaving a gun he or she already illegally owns under a mattress where some other criminal’s kid will find it.

Yes, there is. One that makes it harder for her to have a gun in the first place. All those ‘responsible’ gun-owners are, like it or not, making this easier.

The implication that their criminal activity and irresponsibility are my problem is insulting.

Insulting? To you? That is surprising, because I was starting to get the impression that you really don’t care what people think. But you do of course, as long as it is about you. You just don’t care about other people. And me saying that is probably not an insult to you either.

Honestly, the ‘but I don’t *care * about other people’ argument is the lamest defense of gun possession I’ve ever heard. Though probably the most honest one.

Exactly. The only statistics that are relevant when discussing whether or not to abridge the freedoms of those who legally own guns are statistics that pertain to legal gun owners, and Arwin’s statistics are meaningless because they don’t make that distinction.

On the contrary, as I said before in a previous post, the distinction is meaningless. The presence of guns in society means that criminals will get their hands on them.

Lawful owners like myself are tarred when a crack addict leaves her kid in a crack house where he finds an illegally owned gun under a mattress and shoots a classmate. These are people who already do not obey the laws. Making more laws will not affect them.

Yes, they will, the whole Western world shows it and you just look away.

And unless you were in fear for your life, you just committed a crime. If that person has a gun or a knife pointed at me, it’s a different story.

Yes, a completely different story. But the person’s still dead. What, in all the criminal aspects of this story, do you think has the most impact …

He’ll go rob a shop where the proprieter is not armed.

And by that theory, every proprietor should be armed, or he just demands to get robbed all the time.

Again you need to separate out the eighty million of us who lawfully own firearms and look at what we’re doing with ours.

Nope, it’s irrelevant. Not only do you responsibly get people killed by accident (accidents happen, even to responsible people), not only can you not guarantee that you’ll be responsible during your complete gun-owning life, but more importantly you’re making guns part of a society that is clearly too volatile for them to be part of that society ‘responsibly’.

I don’t know of anywhere that you’re going to get a gun on the street for $20.

Well you’d be surprised:

Lorcin boasts that it produces “the world’s most affordable handguns.” The Mira Loma, Calif., company’s guns wholesale for as little as $38.

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/guns/part2/gunsring.html

[blowero]

@UncleBeer

Since you’re quick to pick the nits, I’ll not that you only wanted claims of governtmental figures who wanted to ban “guns.” Handguns, obviously, are guns. You have made no distinction anywhere in this thread between the varieties of firearms until this very minute.

I don’t understand. Are you saying that if I didn’t make some sort of opening statement about which varieties of firearms I’m talking about, I’m barred from doing so for life?

You aksed for guns - you got guns.

This came about because of Johnny L.A.'s statement that the government wants to “take away people’s guns” (which he now says he didn’t mean anyway). If it’s vague, it’s because he stated it vaguely. That’s why I asked for a cite, because I wanted to know exactly what point was being made. Perhaps you would like me to build a time machine, go back before your post, and state whether or not we are talking about all guns, or just some guns, before I even knew myself? Do you really think the difference between banning certain types of guns, and banning all guns is a “nitpick”?

[Arwin]

@FinnAgain

That’s just not correct.

Once someone is going to do you physical harm and/or rob you, it’s no longer a non-zero sum game.

Attempting to recast it as if it isn’t a zero sum game is false to facts.

You’re going to have to explain this, because right now it does not make sense. Can you give some concrete examples?

[Malthus]

@FinnAgain

That’s just not correct.

Once someone is going to do you physical harm and/or rob you, it’s no longer a non-zero sum game.

Attempting to recast it as if it isn’t a zero sum game is false to facts.

I don’t understand.

[Crafter_Man]

@Rebekkah

I cannot imagine why in the world someone would need or want to own a gun.

Guns can be used for the following:

• Hunting
• Leisure (target shooting, etc.)
• Personal protection
• Protection of home
• Protection of liberty

@Rebekkah

Do you own a gun solely for hunting?

No. I also use guns for leisure shooting, personal protection (handgun), protection of home (12 gage shotgun), and protection of liberty (FAL assault weapon).

@Rebekkah

What’s the facination?

I don’t know if “faciniation” is the right term. But I must admit it’s pretty cool to be able to exert power over a disatance of 500 yards.

@Rebekkah

IMHO, guns are completely unecessary…

I think lawn ornaments are completely uneccessay. Maybe we should ban those, too? In all seriousness, it (fortunately) doesn’t matter to me what you think on this issue.

Here’s the bottom line: I believe I have a natural, inalienable right to keep and bear any kind of firearm I desire. When it comes to my right to own firearms, I couldn’t care less what you think, what the government thinks, or what the law says.

[blowero]

@Crafter_Man

I think lawn ornaments are completely uneccessay. Maybe we should ban those, too?

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl2-10.xls (Warning - Microsoft Excel format)

9,638 out of 14,408 murders in 2003 were by guns. Only 651 were by blunt objects. It’s possible that one or more were from lawn ornaments, but I would say it’s pretty safe to assume that lawn ornaments are almost never used to kill people. So what would be the point of banning them?

[UncleBeer]

I don’t understand. Are you saying that if I didn’t make some sort of opening statement about which varieties of firearms I’m talking about, I’m barred from doing so for life?

No, not at all. But an attempt to discount, or disqualify entirely, the citations I provided by placing additional restrictions or qualifications on them after the fact, isn’t kosher either. How would I know in advance exactly what information you’re seeking in advance of your asking?

But I do take your point and have no wish to incite you. Fair enough?

[Jillyvn]

@Crafter_Man

I think lawn ornaments are completely uneccessay. Maybe we should ban those, too? In all seriousness, it (fortunately) doesn’t matter to me what you think on this issue.

Here’s the bottom line: I believe I have a natural, inalienable right to keep and bear any kind of firearm I desire. When it comes to my right to own firearms, I couldn’t care less what you think, what the government thinks, or what the law says.

Banning lawn ornaments seem like a flippant remark to me, especially in light of the fact that, while I did say I find guns to be unnecessary in personal usage, I never once suggested they be banned. And, in fact, I don’t think they should be.

[THespos]

@blowero

This came about because of Johnny L.A.'s statement that the government wants to “take away people’s guns” (which he now says he didn’t mean anyway). If it’s vague, it’s because he stated it vaguely. That’s why I asked for a cite, because I wanted to know exactly what point was being made. Perhaps you would like me to build a time machine, go back before your post, and state whether or not we are talking about all guns, or just some guns, before I even knew myself? Do you really think the difference between banning certain types of guns, and banning all guns is a “nitpick”?

Oh, come off it, blowero. You asked for citation and you got it, albeit from UncleBeer rather than Johnny L.A.

All handguns are guns, so Johnny L.A.'s original statement stands, even if he didn’t feel like doing the research. He never said “all guns.” Quit backpedaling and admit he was right.

[blowero]

@UncleBeer

No, not at all. But an attempt to discount, or disqualify entirely, the citations I provided by placing additional restrictions or qualifications on them after the fact, isn’t kosher either. How would I know in advance exactly what information you’re seeking in advance of your asking?

I don’t believe I did “discount” them. In fact, I believe I went out of my way to compliment you on your research and said “Good job.” Did you not see that? I then went on to make further points. Unless you think every discussion ends with you, I’m not sure what your beef is.

[blowero]

@THespos

Oh, come off it, blowero. You asked for citation and you got it, albeit from UncleBeer rather than Johnny L.A.

All handguns are guns, so Johnny L.A.'s original statement stands, even if he didn’t feel like doing the research. He never said “all guns.” Quit backpedaling and admit he was right.

You too? Again, I made a specific point of noting that he did provide cites. How am I backpedalling?

[THespos]

@blowero

You too? Again, I made a specific point of noting that he did provide cites. How am I backpedalling?

How about avoiding nitpicking about which types of guns we’re talking about and admitting that Johnny L.A.'s original assertion was correct. You seem to want to avoid that.

[catsix]

Arwin said:
So, basically, the U.S. is a failed state that has no functional justice system. And not only that, but laws are pointless too. That’s what you’re saying, right?

You’re good with the straw men. There are thousands of gun laws already on the books. What good have they done? Why do we need more?

One that makes it harder for her to have a gun in the first place.

And what law will that be? How are you going to make it harder?

Honestly, the ‘but I don’t care about other people’ argument is the lamest defense of gun possession I’ve ever heard.

Well here’s a fucking clue: I don’t have to defend gun possession. You need to show me a reason why I shouldn’t own them.

Yes, they will, the whole Western world shows it and you just look away.

You mean like in Britain where firearms crimes are actually rising?

Not only do you responsibly get people killed by accident

Prove it.

not only can you not guarantee that you’ll be responsible during your complete gun-owning life,

Yeah? Well how about you prove that you’ll never drive drunk in your entire life so that I don’t have to take your car away.

[FinnAgain]

Arwin and Malthus:

The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a classic example in Games Theory of a non-zero sum game. That is, unlike games like chess where there can be only one winner and one loser, (ie. zero sum games).

In general, in a zero sum game, one “player’s” advantage is another “player’s” loss.

However, in a non-zero sum game, like the Prisoner’s Dilemma, it is possible to cooperate and achieve a mutually beneficial solution. Or, in Bucky Fuller’s terminology, it is a solution with is to the advantage of all without disadvantaging any.

In the case of robbery or physical violence, it is a zero sum game. That is, either your money gets taken, or it does not. Either you are injured, or you are not. As such, applying non-zero sum game logic to a zero sum game is false to facts. The Prisoner’s Dilemma is not applicable in situations where there is always going to be someone who wins, and someone who loses.

[blowero]

@THespos

How about avoiding nitpicking about which types of guns we’re talking about and admitting that Johnny L.A.'s original assertion was correct. You seem to want to avoid that.

I didn’t think I was avoiding anything. Did you feel as though I doubted the veracity of UncleBeer’s quotations? Because I thought I was pretty clear that I accepted them. I’m not sure what your point is with regard to Johnny L.A., since he was adamant that he never intended to say that the government wants to ban guns. You want me to admit a point that was never made?

So anyway, if we can get past that little bit of posturing, what exactly is it that you folks are saying? Is it that you don’t want the government to regulate any kinds of guns, and you want to have your machine guns and missile launchers and armor-piercing bullets and what not? Or is it that you are o.k. with banning certain kinds of guns, and only object to a ban on all guns? Or is that too nitpicky for you?

[Crafter_Man]

@blowero

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl2-10.xls (Warning - Microsoft Excel format)

9,638 out of 14,408 murders in 2003 were by guns. Only 651 were by blunt objects. It’s possible that one or more were from lawn ornaments, but I would say it’s pretty safe to assume that lawn ornaments are almost never used to kill people. So what would be the point of banning them?

Let’s pretend for the sake of argument that all murders & unjustifiable homicides involved the use of a firearm, and that banning firearms would eliminate all murders & unjustifiable homicides. Guess what? I still would not want firearms banned.

When it comes right down to it, crime statistics have absolutely nothing to do with my inalienable right to keep and bear arms. In other words, I couldn’t care less about any causational relationship between firearms and crime; I have a right to keep and bear any kind of firearm I want, crime stats be damned.

[Arwin]

@FinnAgain

Arwin and Malthus:

The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a classic example in Games Theory of a non-zero sum game. That is, unlike games like chess where there can be only one winner and one loser, (ie. zero sum games).

In general, in a zero sum game, one “player’s” advantage is another “player’s” loss.

However, in a non-zero sum game, like the Prisoner’s Dilemma, it is possible to cooperate and achieve a mutually beneficial solution. Or, in Bucky Fuller’s terminology, it is a solution with is to the advantage of all without disadvantaging any.

In the case of robbery or physical violence, it is a zero sum game. That is, either your money gets taken, or it does not. Either you are injured, or you are not. As such, applying non-zero sum game logic to a zero sum game is false to facts. The Prisoner’s Dilemma is not applicable in situations where there is always going to be someone who wins, and someone who loses.

Ok, you understand the distinction. But I think you’ve failed to realise that there is the possibility of death complicating the injured or not and money taken or not (not to mention that these last two can get mixed up). Therefore, the Prisoner’s Dilemma is in fact more applicable than you might think.

[Arwin]

@Crafter_Man

Let’s pretend for the sake of argument that all murders & unjustifiable homicides involved the use of a firearm, and that banning firearms would eliminate all murders & unjustifiable homicides. Guess what? I still would not want firearms banned.

When it comes right down to it, crime statistics have absolutely nothing to do with my inalienable right to keep and bear arms. In other words, I couldn’t care less about any causational relationship between firearms and crime; I have a right to keep and bear any kind of firearm I want, crime stats be damned.

Thanks … for proving my point about ‘responsible’.

[FinnAgain]

@Arwin

Ok, you understand the distinction. But I think you’ve failed to realise that there is the possibility of death complicating the injured or not and money taken or not (not to mention that these last two can get mixed up).

Um… what?

Tell me how, exactly when someone comes to take something that’s yours or injure you, it becomes a non-zero sum game? Obviously if he suceeds, you lose. If you stop him, he loses. This is a classic zero sum game. Simply because you escalate the stakes to include death does not make it a non-zero sum game.

Honestly, I’m baffled by your train of thought here… how on earth do you propose you reach a mutually beneficial deal with someone who is trying to use force to take your property or do you physical harm?

[Crafter_Man]

@Arwin

Thanks … for proving my point about ‘responsible’.

Care to elaborate? :dubious: