Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Women are nearly half of new gun buyers, study finds

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 1001 posts

Re: Women are nearly half of new gun buyers, study finds

#241

Post by jmeister »

blacktriangle wrote: post #183
bananabreakfast wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's absurd. The Bill of Rights is literally a list of changes to the constitution. Any one of them can be changed at any time by a majority of states. You're essentially saying that if the majority of the country votes to change one of the rights, then what? You'll no longer recognize the government as real?

Take that argument to an extreme. If the majority of the country votes to suspend democracy, would you stick around? If not, then doesn't that imply that there exists a set of underlying principles that you believe are fundamental to a government? That's exactly what the Bill of Rights is, an enumeration of what were viewed as the fundamental rights for which the point of government is to preserve. The mistake so man…

Hayek’s “cosmos” and “taxis” dichotomy captures this well.

Re: Women are nearly half of new gun buyers, study finds

#242

Post by xdennis »

jvanderbot wrote: post #172
bm3719 wrote: post #106

Excellent. There's no reason defensive gun buyers should be demographically different from the general population. It's understandable that gun sales for hunting or other activities might show differences, but we all have the same personal security needs. Side note: I'm one of the people here with a large collection of firearms. One thing to realize when you see the statistic that the US has more firearms than people…

Your standard of combat is obscenely high. Any weapon that can kill an animal can be used quite well against humans in defense. Would they be standard issue arms for a modern army? Irrelevant.

I've never touched a gun, but as far as a know hunting weapons are not optimal for self defense.

When you hunt a deer you try to hit from far away and if you miss, well, you'll find another.

When someone is trying to harm you (even with a knife), you want to shoot multiple times and as fast as possible. If you shoot once and miss, by the time you manually reload, the attacker can get to you. If you do hit, but with a small caliber, that doesn't have stopping power. You might seriously injure the attacker, but he'll also injure/kill you.

Re: Women are nearly half of new gun buyers, study finds

#243

Post by 01100011 »

rossdavidh wrote: post #221

Hypothesis (which I have given about 30 seconds' thought): buying a gun was formerly a way to feel masculine, or to feel potent, or for use in a sport such as hunting or target shooting. In these situations, women found them to have little appeal. Recently, buying a gun is more often because of an actual concern for safety. Women are about as likely as men to feel concern about that. Hence, the numbers are now more e…

> a way to feel masculine, or to feel potent

This smacks of the modern left's derision for self defense tools. It's a nicer way of saying someone has a gun to compensate for their genital insecurities. Guns are largely a tool to the people purchasing them. They are also mechanical objects which give pleasure to people who appreciate craftsmanship.

I generally agree with your post, but I think it would be better without that biased(intentional or not) take.

For what it's worth, marginalized groups have often armed themselves when they feel the state is unwilling or unable to protect them.

Re: Women are nearly half of new gun buyers, study finds

#244

Post by no-dr-onboard »

monoideism wrote: post #184
sofixa wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the U.S. murder rate is not all that remarkable, really The US is at 4.96/100,000 for 2012. For reference, Angola is better at 4.85. Bulgaria and Romania, the poorest countries in the EU, are at 1.3. France is at 1.2. If by not remarkable you mean 3 as bad as other developed countries, sure. The numbers are only for intentional homicide, not even counting accidents and suicides which are also made worse by the…

> their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided Taliban? Vietcong?

Excellent examples that will undoubtedly be shushed away.

Re: Women are nearly half of new gun buyers, study finds

#245

Post by Clubber »

igetspam wrote: post #186
Throwawayaerlei wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've payed no attention whatsoever to US gun culture 2.0, we welcome women and minorities with open arms, and women were always welcome, every heard of Annie Oakley?? Seen the NRA celebrating on the front page of their membership magazine women who won all gender national championships? You completely misunderstand our motivations for keeping and bearing arms, and thus your hope is doomed to not come true.

As an unfortunate life member of the NRA, I get the magazines. I also don't agree with you. I think the NRA is what's wrong with gun culture. There are much more sane organizations in the US who support both gym ownership AND common sense gun laws. The NRA is a lobbying group and they're soulless. They fight against any reasonable change that isn't purely for show (and they fight the useless laws too that try and ban…

>They fight against any reasonable change that isn't purely for show

Like what?

Re: Women are nearly half of new gun buyers, study finds

#246

Post by SnowProblem »

A wonderful book that covers the history of the 2nd amendment along with its modern interpretations is The Second Amendment Primer: https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Primer-Authorities-C.... It has useful and interesting information regardless of where you stand.

Re: Women are nearly half of new gun buyers, study finds

#247

Post by reducesuffering »

monoideism wrote: post #202
yongjik wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have trouble understanding how guns would defend an American's freedom. See, it's as if the US military trains soldiers how to hide in the Appalachian, raid local villages, and steal food and ammunition from trucks, because if a non-specified enemy conquers the US and its troops are marching down the streets from Sacramento to Boston you need these skills to hide and keep fighting. Except that, if you're at this st…

> See, it's as if the US military trains soldiers how to hide in the Appalachian, raid local villages, and steal food and ammunition from trucks, You should hang out near Fort Bragg sometime. The Special Forces train exactly as you describe. Also of note: most of them are very unhappy with the way things are going in the US. I disagree with them frequently, but they also have some good points.

What are their complaints with "the way things are going in the US?"

Re: Women are nearly half of new gun buyers, study finds

#248

Post by pseudalopex »

jvanderbot wrote: post #164
AustinDev wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The whole point is that the government Can Not take away guns, not that they "would not". Inalienable rights preceed government, they are not granted by it. In fact, the government is supposed to exist to safe guard them. The National Firearms Act would like to have a word it is unconstitutional on it's face despite what the Supreme Court says. 'Shall not be infringed' hasn't been the law of the land since the 1930'…

Genuine legal interpretation question: Why does everyone quote "Shall not be infringed" but ignore "Well-regulated"? If the goal is a "well regulated militia", and therefore gun rights "shall not be infringed", why do we interpret that as "everybody should have largely unfettered access to weapons" rather than "If part of a well-regulated armed force, access to weapons should be allowed during militia activities"? or…

The US Supreme Court held "The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."[1]

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Re: Women are nearly half of new gun buyers, study finds

#249

Post by dirtyoldmick »

bananabreakfast wrote: post #167
blacktriangle wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Bill of Rights cannot be. This is the fundamental difference between the US and other Western democracies. Consent to be governed rests upon said government respecting those inalienable rights that we have. Those rights are not granted us by the government, they are the rights that we created a government to preserve. Any government violating those rights no longer has the consent of the governed and should be ab…

That's absurd. The Bill of Rights is literally a list of changes to the constitution. Any one of them can be changed at any time by a majority of states. You're essentially saying that if the majority of the country votes to change one of the rights, then what? You'll no longer recognize the government as real?

Good luck getting a majority of states to agree on something....anything really.

Re: Women are nearly half of new gun buyers, study finds

#250

Post by jvanderbot »

pseudalopex wrote: post #248
jvanderbot wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine legal interpretation question: Why does everyone quote "Shall not be infringed" but ignore "Well-regulated"? If the goal is a "well regulated militia", and therefore gun rights "shall not be infringed", why do we interpret that as "everybody should have largely unfettered access to weapons" rather than "If part of a well-regulated armed force, access to weapons should be allowed during militia activities"? or…

The US Supreme Court held "The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."[1] [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Perfect answer. Thanks!
Post reply on HN