You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Peterdjones comments on Gun Control: How would we know? - Less Wrong Discussion

11 Post author: rlpowell 20 December 2012 08:14PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (167)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Peterdjones 05 January 2013 04:55:28PM -2 points [-]

If they are predominant amongst agressors and victoms alike, that obviously cancels through. In fact, if one had ones druthers, no ratioanl individual would want to be sitting at the end of an arms race.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 05 January 2013 08:55:03PM 2 points [-]

If they are predominant amongst agressors and victoms alike, that obviously cancels through.

My point is that it doesn't. Aggressors are the ones who have an advantage in combat, e.g., those who are stronger or have the free time to train. Guns reduce the "strategic inequality" between those in the biggest advantage in combat and those with the smallest.

Comment author: Peterdjones 05 January 2013 09:58:34PM -1 points [-]

In a way that increases the chance victims will die or be injured in a confrontation. It's choosing to stand at the end of an arms race.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 06 January 2013 06:45:35AM 1 point [-]

In a way that increases the chance victims will die or be injured in a confrontation.

It also increases the chance the aggressor will die or be injured, thus reducing the motivation to become an aggressor and decreasing the chance that a confrontation occurs in the first place.