No Germans Allowed

[Algarn]

You show how little you know. Combat shooting is extremely hard. Most people can't hit the side of a barn with a shotgun, from inside the barn, because of the mix of fear and adrenaline.

There are no "better weapons." A pistol is many times preferable to a rifle in a city. Especially in LE duties where you have to clear rooms.

Your rhetoric is extremely confused in any case; if anyone was able to operate any gun effectively "in a crowd," then guns would matter even less - just 360 noscope everyone in the head with an air gun. And "firearms have a role in these deaths", no shit, so what? How many of them are because "he had a level 76 assault rifle and I only had a level 12 pistol"?

The stats don't show the exact circumstances of the death, so what ? I fail to see how can a compact (easy to carry/conceal), medium-high caliber weapon (->high stopping power), with automatic fire on, operated by a  trained,fearless and completely insane terrorist (doesn't suffer from the "I can't hit the side of a barn" syndrom you described), be less effective than the regular cop with a pistol when it comes at killing people. Oh and,

"Most people can't hit the side of a barn with a shotgun, from inside the barn, because of the mix of fear and adrenaline. "

Good to know we're allowing civilians to buy guns in US then ! Must be useful when a terrorist who doesn't fear to shoot or to be shot pops up right in front of you, knowing you won't kill him anyway no matter what. Damnit, PEPE must be true when he says that a large part of the gun users are just fearful guys, scared to pull the trigger.

Let's face it, auto-defense groups or whatever you want to call them are a joke. There has been a link posted some time ago that clearly showed that the amount of terrorists killed by civilians and the amount of terrorists killed by cops are kinda different, but whatever.

[Xant]

The stats don't show the exact circumstances of the death, so what ? I fail to see how can a compact (easy to carry/conceal), medium-high caliber weapon (->high stopping power), with automatic fire on, operated by a  trained,fearless and completely insane terrorist (doesn't suffer from the "I can't hit the side of a barn" syndrom you described), be less effective than the regular cop with a pistol when it comes at killing people. Oh and,

"Most people can't hit the side of a barn with a shotgun, from inside the barn, because of the mix of fear and adrenaline. "

Good to know we're allowing civilians to buy guns in US then ! Must be useful when a terrorist who doesn't fear to shoot or to be shot pops up right in front of you, knowing you won't kill him anyway no matter what. Damnit, PEPE must be true when he says that a large part of the gun users are just fearful guys, scared to pull the trigger.

Let's face it, auto-defense groups or whatever you want to call them are a joke. There has been a link posted some time ago that clearly showed that the amount of terrorists killed by civilians and the amount of terrorists killed by cops are kinda different, but whatever.

Yes, exactly, the stats don't show the circumstances of their death, hence you're doing something called making shit up. Why are you linking to statistics that have nothing to do with what you were saying? "Look, I told you ice cream is responsible for all these deaths! *links to how many people die in the US every year*"

I have no doubt you "fail to see that" since you've probably never even seen a firearm. Especially since you think "automatic fire on" is somehow a positive when it comes to killing people.

Good to know we're allowing civilians to buy guns in US then ! Must be useful when a terrorist who doesn't fear to shoot or to be shot pops up right in front of you, knowing you won't kill him anyway no matter what. Damnit, PEPE must be true when he says that a large part of the gun users are just fearful guys, scared to pull the trigger.

Because terrorists aren't people? Idiot.

Let's face it, auto-defense groups or whatever you want to call them are a joke.

What the fuck are auto-defense groups?

There has been a link posted some time ago that clearly showed that the amount of terrorists killed by civilians and the amount of terrorists killed by cops are kinda different, but whatever.

... And? I think EVERY mass shooting in the last dozen or so years has taken place in a Gun Free Zone.

[Sir_Hans]

I don't think you understand how the Mexico-USA border trafficking works.

Works like this:
USA smuggles firearms into mexico because they sell for much higher than they do in the U.S. because of mexico's strict gun laws which drives up demand.

Cartels smuggle drugs into the U.S. because they are cheap/easy to grow/manufacture in Mexico because cartels own large swaths of land and most of the law enforcement on said land. Because demand is high in the U.S. since drug enforcement is much more strict in the U.S.
And Mexico smuggles immigrants into the U.S. as well.

Your point?

[Paul]

Works like this:
USA smuggles firearms into mexico because they sell for much higher than they do in the U.S. because of mexico's strict gun laws which drives up demand.

Time for Mexico to start a "War on Guns", raiding and bombing US arms factories.

Game theory wise, having a gun is always superior to not having a gun.

There are examples of fucked up nash-equilibria. This is one of it. Individually it might be reasonable to carry a gun to have an edge in most situations but on a grander scale(society-wise) the less weapons people run around with every day the better. This is in my opinion at least true in reasonably safe societies where the occational robber just wants your money and not just to murder you.* Central Europe is still relatively safe after all even with the terror threat. The threat that would come from arguments turning into shootouts instead of brawls or club entrance rejects pulling a gun is still bigger in my eyes.

*It might be different in Finnland because of the Mongol blood of the people there.

[Rhekimos]

There are examples of fucked up nash-equilibria. This is one of it

Yup, basic prisoner's dilemma situation.

[Algarn]

Yes, exactly, the stats don't show the circumstances of their death, hence you're doing something called making shit up. Why are you linking to statistics that have nothing to do with what you were saying? "Look, I told you ice cream is responsible for all these deaths! *links to how many people die in the US every year*"

I guess I can't be arsed to look for hours for the exact causes of death. Sorry about that. And yet it does prove my point, since firearms aren't a danger only for civilians, but armored cops as well, since they are wearing ballistic vests : some of these weapons were probably bought legally, and were powerful enough to kill policemen in duty.

I have no doubt you "fail to see that" since you've probably never even seen a firearm. Especially since you think "automatic fire on" is somehow a positive when it comes to killing people.

I'm sure of some things, because it's theorically true. Prove me that careful trigger discipline with automatic fire on isn't deadlier than a gun locked in semi auto.

Because terrorists aren't people?

They are people who want to kill other people, and do not give a shit or two about dying. Proves my point that they won't fear to pull the trigger.

Idiot.

Ad hominem as hell.


What the fuck are auto-defense groups? Don't know how to call these associations of patriots proudly "defending" their country with guns, claiming they're the real "thing" when it comes to safety. Cops and the military will ALWAYS be superior to random fat rednecks with shotguns.

... And? I think EVERY mass shooting in the last dozen or so years has taken place in a Gun Free Zone.

My point, since the beginning, is that terrorists and murderers can PURCHASE military-grade weapons as long as they've got the money for it, it's like if France was handing directly AKs to Paris attackers.

Xant, pls.

[Xant]

Yup, basic prisoner's dilemma situation.

And the rational way to act in prisoner's dilemma is that both defect, meaning both carry a gun..

Xant, pls.

http://forum.melee.org/general-off-topic/ad-hominem-you-3-things-you'll-be-perplexed-and-amazed-by-on-a-forum/msg1174601/#msg1174601

[Rhekimos]

And the rational way to act in prisoner's dilemma is that both defect, meaning both carry a gun..

Well, it's generally held up as an example of when applying classical rationality to the problem does not result in the good outcome.

And the game is completely different when it's not a one-off, which would mean that the people play the game once and absolutely never meet or interact again, making it somewhat different from our usual existence with other humans.

[Xant]

Well, it's generally held up as an example of when applying classical rationality to the problem does not result in the good outcome.

No, it's not "held up as an example" of that. It's simple logic. And on top of that, it even holds up when taking human nature into consideration. It only supports my argument, so it makes no sense for you to go "yup, basic prisoner's dilemma situation" if you understood PD.

And the game is completely different when it's not a one-off, which would mean that the people play the game once and absolutely never meet or interact again, making it somewhat different from our usual existence with other humans.

So let me get this straight: you introduce prisoner's dilemma into the conversation saying it's a "basic prisoner's dilemma situation", then backpedal as fast as you can to make it have nothing to do with the conversation at all and adding all kinds of additional rules that have nothing to do with the basic prisoner's dilemma? Ok.

[Rhekimos]

No, it's not "held up as an example" of that. It's simple logic. And on top of that, it even holds up when taking human nature into consideration. It only supports my argument, so it makes no sense for you to go "yup, basic prisoner's dilemma situation" if you understood PD.

So let me get this straight: you introduce prisoner's dilemma into the conversation saying it's a "basic prisoner's dilemma situation", then backpedal as fast as you can to make it have nothing to do with the conversation at all and adding all kinds of additional rules that have nothing to do with the basic prisoner's dilemma? Ok.

Basic as in how hard it is to recognize as a prisoner's dilemma type situation. It would be quite mad to claim that most people out there will never meet someone twice.
The problem in game theory is but a model, and models and reality never quite fully meet, but if we want to gain useful solutions that we can gainfully apply in real life, we should try to at least come close.

The real world is complex and messy, not simple, pretty and clean like a game.

But you're probably the first one I've met to celebrate the classical self-interest outcome of prisoner's dilemma. That's something.

[Xant]

Basic as in how hard it is to recognize as a prisoner's dilemma type situation. It would be quite mad to claim that most people out there will never meet someone twice.
The problem in game theory is but a model, and models and reality never quite fully meet, but if we want to gain useful solutions that we can gainfully apply in real life, we should try to at least come close.

The real world is complex and messy, not simple, pretty and clean like a game.

But you're probably the first one I've met to celebrate the classical self-interest outcome of prisoner's dilemma. That's something.

How do you think the reciprocity, reputation, and "meeting someone later" aspects of non-basic PDs translate into gun ownership? The basic form of PD is the most accurate analogy. When you add "gang affiliations" and "meeting someone again" (lol) it makes zero sense when you're talking about gun ownership...

[Paul]

If you think about it, it's the state's responsibility to move the nash equilibrium away being armed. Harsh penalties for owning, carrying or even using a gun is the way to go. Combined with effective controls it will make it a high risk to bring a gun into the game that at some point outweights the advantages it gives in certain situations.

Non-murder crimes involving firearms should be penaltized much harsher than without. This will hopefully make a burglar, mugger or rapists not bring one to work, effectively reducing the lethality rate. A knife kills you just as dead as a gun but at least you can try to run.
I think everything I wrote is already done so by the more sensible governments.

[Xant]

If you think about it, it's the state's responsibility to move the nash equilibrium away being armed. Harsh penalties for owning, carrying or even using a gun is the way to go. Combined with effective controls it will make it a high risk to bring a gun into the game that at some point outweights the advantages it gives in certain situations.

Non-murder crimes involving firearms should be penaltized much harsher than without. This will hopefully make a burglar, mugger or rapists not bring one to work, effectively reducing the lethality rate. A knife kills you just as dead as a gun but at least you can try to run.
I think everything I wrote is already done so by the more sensible governments.

Pretty sure this is already the case everywhere. Many burglars DON'T bring a firearm with them in the US because if they get caught with one they'll get much harsher sentences.

[Rhekimos]

How do you think the reciprocity, reputation, and "meeting someone later" aspects of non-basic PDs translate into gun ownership? The basic form of PD is the most accurate analogy. When you add "gang affiliations" and "meeting someone again" (lol) it makes zero sense when you're talking about gun ownership...

How would social interactions work in real life with regard to guns? Is that a hard question?

Anyhow, the "basic" one-off prisoner's dilemma would basically be the equivalent of meeting a stranger in a dark alley in a foreign city.

Actually living in a society would be closer to hundreds or more of repeating games.

And repeating games are not exotic in game theory.

[Xant]

How would social interactions work in real life with regard to guns? Is that a hard question?

Anyhow, the "basic" one-off prisoner's dilemma would basically be the equivalent of meeting a stranger in a dark alley in a foreign city.

Actually living in a society would be closer to hundreds or more of repeating games.

And repeating games are not exotic in game theory.

What are you talking about? I bet you don't even know yourself anymore.