dig this

hvaclover · 03-23-2009, 10:16 PM

micromind · 03-23-2009, 11:36 PM

Agree completely!!

If I can keep my guns (and ammo), and keep my money (so the government doesn't have it), I'll be able to keep my freedom.

Take away my guns, or my money, and I cannot defend my freedom.

Hmmmm..... Anyone else see the true intent of our government here?!??

Rob

hvaclover · 03-23-2009, 11:51 PM

Come over to the "Funny" thread. Good debate.

brokenknee · 03-24-2009, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hvaclover

I see you edited your post, were you asked to remove something?

I agree.

Scuba_Dave · 03-24-2009, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brokenknee

I see you edited your post, were you asked to remove something?

I agree.

No, he has picture posting problems

Quote:

Originally Posted by hvaclover

Come over to the "Funny" thread. Good debate.

And it was the "Funnier" thread
Which seems to be gone

Yoyizit · 03-24-2009, 09:39 PM

"Each person" is better off having a gun. "Society" in peacetime is better off without armed citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_trap

I don't believe there is a solution.

gma2rjc · 03-24-2009, 10:05 PM

Some people may have already seen this video,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA

but if you haven't, and if the link doesn't work, go to youtube.com and type in 'We The People Stimulus Package' or 'Thomas Paine'.

hvaclover · 03-24-2009, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brokenknee

I see you edited your post, were you asked to remove something?

I agree.

you mean this

brokenknee · 03-24-2009, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hvaclover

you mean this

How can they argue with that?

brokenknee · 03-24-2009, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yoyizit

"Each person" is better off having a gun. "Society" in peacetime is better off without armed citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_trap

I don't believe there is a solution.

Sorry, I don't get it?

gma2rjc · 03-24-2009, 10:33 PM

...............

Yoyizit · 03-24-2009, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brokenknee

Sorry, I don't get it?

"a group of people act to obtain short-term individual gains[a gun makes a person safer relative to unarmed people], which in the long run leads to a loss for the group as a whole" [gunfights can kill people and injure bystanders; fistfights don't usually have these drawbacks].
This is also called Tragedy of the Commons.

In an arms race, everyone is the same relative to each other [they are equally heavily armed] but both societies are worse off.

The situation in reverse: a guy with a six-shooter holds 20 people hostage.
As a group they'd be better off rushing the guy (a group benefit) but, as individuals, the first six get shot (a bad outcome for those six).

More Game Theory: having a gun is a Dominant Strategy. Whether your opponent is armed or not, you're in better shape. You don't have to use a gun but it is there if you need it.
"In game theory, dominance (also called strategic dominance) occurs when one strategy is better than another strategy for one player, no matter how that player's opponents may play."

Cheating and lying may be dominant strategies, but some games are probably set up so that they are not dominant. And politicians change their tune when they are under oath.

brokenknee · 03-24-2009, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yoyizit

"a group of people act to obtain short-term individual gains[a gun makes a person safer relative to unarmed people], which in the long run leads to a loss for the group as a whole" [gunfights can kill people and injure bystanders; fistfights don't usually have these drawbacks].
This is also called Tragedy of the Commons.

In an arms race, everyone is the same relative to each other [they are equally heavily armed] but both societies are worse off.

The situation in reverse: a guy with a six-shooter holds 20 people hostage.
As a group they'd be better off rushing the guy (a group benefit) but, as individuals, the first six get shot (a bad outcome for those six).

You make the assumption that both societies are morally equal. (Hitler, Ahmadinejad, Chivas) most likely spelling errors on the names, but I am pretty sure you know who I am talking about.

I most definitely want to have more fire power than any of them. If not they would not hesitate to destroy us.

hvaclover · 03-24-2009, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brokenknee

You make the assumption that both societies are morally equal. (Hitler, Ahmadinejad, Chivas) most likely spelling errors on the names, but I am pretty sure you know who I am talking about.

I most definitely want to have more fire power than any of them. If not they would not hesitate to destroy us.

No. You got Hitler right.

brokenknee · 03-24-2009, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hvaclover

No. You got Hitler right.

They should all have good american name a person can spell.