= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Gun Control: How would we know? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (167)
I don't think it makes you a horrible person, though it does seem to be surprisingly difficult to make a lot of money fast by making people's lives better. Perhaps it's not surprising that there's a lot of money in supernormal stimuli.
I've been reading *Antifragile", so.... what's the downside? Would you be better off just getting an option on a bunch of scary-looking weapons?
Why do you assume that this doesn't make people's lives better? You know perfectly well that the vast majority of those assaulty-looking guns are just going to wind up with collectors who already own enough firepower to conquer Hawaii. But owning banned stuff makes them happy, and what's wrong with that?
Ruby Ridge. Even occasional enforcement can have high costs.
What does Ruby Ridge have to do with turning a profit on ban arbitrage?
I was disagreeing with your idea that the ban makes people's lives better.
The two of you seem to be talking past each other, so I think it would be useful if you both stepped back and stated in specific, concrete terms, what position you're actually arguing for.
I did not mean to assert that. I meant to assert that being able to buy guns despite the ban makes people's lives better if you take the ban as an exogenous fact. I can understand the confusion though, my original comment was somewhat ambiguous.