Why am I no longer an anarchist

[teo123]

usions are statistically absurd.[/quote]
Well, they were cited as one of the most important pieces of evidence in the pro-2nd-Amendment Supreme Court decisions. That would strongly suggest you are missing something if it seems absurd to you.

You'd have to speculate that people somehow knew to have their guns nearby when in mortal danger to ward it off

That doesn't seem to be like "speculation" to me. Let's say somebody threatens you that he will come to your house and rape you. You think such situations are rare? Why?

that they almost never fire it in doing so

Well, according to the Gary Kleck's study, in around 20% of DGUs, the gun was actually fired. I wouldn't call "20%" "almost never".

that virtually all criminals flee rather than using their own weapons.

That's what one would expect under the "soft target" theory of violent crime.

I suggest you find some known statistics that make it seem remotely plausible that the opposite of what is indicated by game theory is the dominant behavior.

The fact that mass shootings happen at all suggests that game theory doesn't predict violent crime correctly. What possible incentive (in the game theory sense) does one have to commit a mass shooting?

The only time a gun is realistically useful is in an extended situation of infrastructure breakdown due to disaster or war wherein you're defending your hoard of resources (if you're a prepper) against neighbors who are life or death desperate for them -- they will choose the house without the armed protector if you make it known you are armed.

And what makes you think a war in Croatia is unlikely? I can think of two scenarios of how a war might break out in Croatia that both seem plausible to me.
Scenario 1:
1) Some Russian-supporting person gets elected as the president of the USA.
2) The military aid to Ukraine stops.
3) Putin wins the war against Ukraine.
4) Putin doesn't stop there and proceeds to attack Hungary.
5) Putin wins the war against Hungary and proceeds to attack Croatia.
Scenario 2:
1) Serbia stops tollerating the abuse of the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina and attacks Bosnia and Herzegovina.
2) Croatia stands with Bosnia and Herzegovina and attacks Serbia.
I am not feeling safe from war here in Croatia. Sure, I feel safer than I would feel if I were in Serbia or Bosnia and Herzegovina, but far from perfectly safe.

A gun used by a woman against an unarmed adult male assailant at close range will likely be taken from her simply because it's very easy to do so (given the safe assumption that the man is significantly stronger physically).

Oh, come on! How often do women use guns in self-defense each year in the US? Hundreds of thousands of times, if not millions of times, if Gary Kleck's study is remotely correct. How often do they have guns taken away from them and used against them? It's so rare it makes it into the news when that happens.

You're probably less likely to have your wallet stolen, in exchange for a drastically higher chance of dying.

What makes you think that? I'd expect your chances of dying to be slightly lower, rather than drastically higher.

This is all very silly, and I don't know why "pro-gun" is the next conspiracy theory train you've hopped on Teo.

And where is there a conspiracy?

[brimstoneSalad]

Well, they were cited as one of the most important pieces of evidence in the pro-2nd-Amendment Supreme Court decisions. That would strongly suggest you are missing something if it seems absurd to you.

What do you think you're saying here?
Citing political ideology is not an argument. Refrain from doing so, and stick to studies and reasoned logic.

That doesn't seem to be like "speculation" to me. Let's say somebody threatens you that he will come to your house and rape you.

Yes, that is the definition of you doing speculation dummy. Stop it and provide some evidence for why the normal reaction contradicts game theory.
If gun carrying were response to threats, those are crimes and there would be more broad evidence of them: that's what the police are for. Threats of violence should be reported.

Well, according to the Gary Kleck's study, in around 20% of DGUs, the gun was actually fired. I wouldn't call "20%" "almost never".

Firing into the air, or firing to scare somebody away is common for trespassing where the gun user is not threatened. Firing for any reason but to kill is not supported by game theory in situations of threat.
If you're speculating that these people are just terrible shots, gunshot wounds still have to be reported, and untreated otherwise non-fatal gunshot wounds are more dangerous than Hollywood depicts.

Your speculation doesn't hold up.

that virtually all criminals flee rather than using their own weapons.

That's what one would expect under the "soft target" theory of violent crime.

That would be the effect of open carry prior to target selection. Not actual gun use. The question was gun use in self defense, not speculation that you were never attacked in the first place only because you had a gun visible.

If somebody is planning to rape and murder you and has a gun his or herself as conservatives believe, then the correct game theory response is to shoot you when you reveal after target selection that you have a gun to minimize personal risk of being shot to death. This person was already planning to murder you, so there's not a moral factor compelling him or her to take upon personal risk to protect your life.

The fact that mass shootings happen at all suggests that game theory doesn't predict violent crime correctly.

Mass shootings are products of mental illness, these people are normally already suicidal with sociopathic impulses.
Game theory predicts precisely that these people will kill as many as possible on their ways out.

You need to look at the motivations involved.

And what makes you think a war in Croatia is unlikely? I can think of two scenarios of how a war might break out in Croatia that both seem plausible to me.
Scenario 1:
1) Some Russian-supporting person gets elected as the president of the USA.
2) The military aid to Ukraine stops.
3) Putin wins the war against Ukraine.
4) Putin doesn't stop there and proceeds to attack Hungary.
5) Putin wins the war against Hungary and proceeds to attack Croatia.

I didn't say it was unlikely. I'm arguing against your specific take, and saying it does make sense in those cases.
Teo, if you want a bunch of guns, then get whatever permits you need and buy them. Just keep them locked up, and in a time-delay safe so you don't shoot yourself with them. You'll have plenty of advanced notice if Russia invades.

I'm not arguing against gun ownership, or that it should be banned, or anything like that. I'm saying your particular argument was stupid and that "study" is bad.

Oh, come on! How often do women use guns in self-defense each year in the US? Hundreds of thousands of times, if not millions of times, if Gary Kleck's study is remotely correct.

It's not, and this is an asinine argument Teo.

How often do they have guns taken away from them and used against them? It's so rare it makes it into the news when that happens.

Why do you think that would be known or newsworthy?

You're probably less likely to have your wallet stolen, in exchange for a drastically higher chance of dying.

What makes you think that? I'd expect your chances of dying to be slightly lower, rather than drastically higher.

That's not what game theory or the extant evidence says (limited as it is).

[teo123]

Citing political ideology is not an argument.

Well, ideally, SCOTUS shouldn't have a political ideology, it should be following the evidence. Do you think that's not what happens?
And please keep in mind that the Gary Kleck's study is not the only such study. There are dozens of studies with slightly different methodologies arriving at similar results. The NCVS'es study is an outlier, not the Gary Kleck's study.

Firing for any reason but to kill is not supported by game theory in situations of threat.

Well, that's what the evidence indicates. And nearly all studies on DGUs suggest that, in around 20% of DGUs, the gun is actually fired. The only outlier, as far as I'm aware of, is the John Lott's study, which suggests it happens in around 5% of DGUs.
Look, if you want to trust a-priori reasoning (game theory) over evidence, then go into philosophy, don't try to do social sciences that way.

Mass shootings are products of mental illness

Well, it's way more complicated than that. Having a diagnozed mental illness is not a good predictor of being a mass shooter. And don't take that from me, take that from a left-leaning website called Psychiatric Times: https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/m ... ntally-ill

get whatever permits you need

Well, good luck with that. I have a diagnozed mental illness (a psychotic disorder), and lawmakers here in Croatia believe that myth that having a diagnozed mental illness is a good predictor of being a mass shooter.

Just keep them locked up, and in a time-delay safe

You need to realize that safe storage laws are unconstitutional precisely because they make guns much less useful for self-defense.

It's not, and this is an asinine argument Teo.

Look, having your gun taken away from you and used against you is rare, and will become even more rare in the future with the advent of smart guns with fingerprint sensors.

[brimstoneSalad]

Well, ideally, SCOTUS shouldn't have a political ideology, it should be following the evidence. Do you think that's not what happens?

You have no idea.
There's ambiguity, plus different theories of law (originalism, textualism, living constitutionalism), and the choice of interpretation is highly subjective.

Conservatives and liberals are inconsistent in opposite ways: favoring individual rights when convenient to their ideologies and opposing them when not.

And please keep in mind that the Gary Kleck's study is not the only such study. There are dozens of studies with slightly different methodologies arriving at similar results. The NCVS'es study is an outlier, not the Gary Kleck's study.

It's bad quality evidence with bad methodology with implausibly high numbers Teo. NCVS's has better methodology, which is why it's an "outlier".
Those doing most of these self defense studies are pro-gun, they're not motivated to use reliable information, they're motivated to find large numbers.
Quantity does not override quality.

And nearly all studies on DGUs suggest that, in around 20% of DGUs, the gun is actually fired. The only outlier, as far as I'm aware of, is the John Lott's study, which suggests it happens in around 5% of DGUs.

That's an absurd number of discharges.
Both absurdly low as a percentage in legitimate scenarios of life threatening self defense, and absurdly high as a total number if the claims are remotely accurate.

Objective evidence like the statistics on justifiable homicide using a gun are more useful as a floor.
That's a little over 200 a year.
Since 90% of so of violent crimes are not committed with guns, it's reasonable that gun self-defense would not result in shooting the perpetrator.
That gets us to at least 2,000 crimes defended against with a gun.

Start there.

Look, if you want to trust a-priori reasoning (game theory) over evidence, then go into philosophy, don't try to do social sciences that way.

Are you trying to get banned again by misrepresenting my argument?

Mass shootings are products of mental illness

Well, it's way more complicated than that. Having a diagnozed mental illness is not a good predictor of being a mass shooter. And don't take that from me, take that from a left-leaning website called Psychiatric Times: https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/m ... ntally-ill

There you go misrepresenting my argument again.

Just keep them locked up, and in a time-delay safe

You need to realize that safe storage laws are unconstitutional precisely because they make guns much less useful for self-defense.

And this is the third time you've misrepresented my argument. No more posting on this issue for a month Teo.
Also, you do not understand the U.S. constitution. Read first before talking about it. You have a month to do so.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The wording explicitly refers to the point of it being for allowing well regulated militias. Nothing in requiring certain forms of storage infringes on that. When a would-be dictator is gathering forces to take over the country, you definitely have a few hours notice to unlock your guns and assemble your militia.

[teo123]

By the way, @Red, it is kind of creepy that, if you ask today's artificial intelligence something nontrivial about computer science or linguistics, it will talk gibberish you can't imagine a human being writing, and yet, when asked something nontrivial about politics (such as about the Gary Kleck's study), it basically passes the Turing Test. My guess is that it has something to do with this: