Women are nearly half of new gun buyers, study finds • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by tablespoon » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 5:04 PM UTC

sofixa wrote: post #102

Throwawayaerlei wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Furthermore, i find US fascination with their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided. So did our Deep State as they lost a twenty year fight against the Taliban. Who immediately started seizing the people's guns upon capturing Kabul. not even counting accidents and suicides which are also made worse by the high availability of guns for everyone The suicide statistics from…

> So did our Deep State as they lost a twenty year fight against the Taliban. Who immediately started seizing the people's guns upon capturing Kabul I sincerely doubt the average first world person has what it takes to sacrifice their comfortable life and go live in caves to resist a tyrannical occupation. And there's no need for them to do that, realistically.

> I sincerely doubt the average first world person has what it takes to sacrifice their comfortable life and go live in caves to resist a tyrannical occupation.

Why are you talking about the "average first world person"? IIRC, Afghanistan is a country of ~30 million people, and the most recent estimates I saw said the Taliban only had ~75 thousand fighters. That's 0.25%. So not even the average Afghan did that.

Also, guerilla warfare isn't so much about living in caves as melting into the population.

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

#122

Post by Throwawayaerlei » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

tablespoon wrote: post #120

the_only_law wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IIRC, gun rights groups like the NRA want black people and women to buy guns. Whoops: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

> Whoops: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act So? That was in 1967 . Do you think nothing has changed since then? IIRC, I don't even think the NRA was even much of a gun rights organization until later. You need to work on your gotcha skills. Look at this: Here's the featured video on the (now defunct) NRATV youtube page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84A_fRQfTAE tl;dr: black guy criticizing Biden for gun con…

That was in 1967, do you think nothing has changed since then? IIRC, I don't even think the NRA was even much of a gun rights organization until later.

They were fighting it then, I've read many membership magazine issues from the 1960s, but lost so comprehensively starting in the next year with the Gun Control Act of 1968 and through the high point of gun control in the 1970s that the leadership decided to surrender this issue and retreat to hunting and target shooting and move their headquarters from D.C. to Colorado.

In the 1977 annual meeting in Cincinnati this leadership was ousted and people with a focus that included even having the right to hunt and target shoot with guns replaced them. Fast forward another ten years and the nationwide sweep of "shall issue" and better concealed carry regimes started in Florida with help from the NRA. Now 42 states and ~75% of the population, for all but Illinois done legislatively.

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

#123

Post by nradov » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 5:23 PM UTC

pope_meat wrote: post #119

nradov wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just that police forces have been reduced. In some major cities police abandoned certain areas to anarchy. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53218448

I live in the PNW, I've been to the area. If spray paint on a police building is lawless anarchy, alright, I guess, but my best friends girlfriend works literally across the street from the police station depicted, and you know what? It's fine. These stories are bullshit meant to rile you up because fear gets clicks. Some folks have a different opinion, but these folks seem to be afraid anytime they see a houseless p…

Do you consider this fine? I don't think anyone benefits from a breakdown in civil order and the rule of law.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/7/2/21310109/ch...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53491223

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

#124

Post by sharklazer » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 5:40 PM UTC

laverya wrote: post #97

sharklazer wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawful use: 600k-2.5m per year. Gun deaths per year: ~40k. A lot of those being suicide.

600k-2.5m/year is specifically lawful defensive uses. If you count "shot skeet", or "went hunting", or "went to the range", the number of lawful uses goes up a LOT.

Yes, technically you are correct.

But I hesitate to bring that up, because I don’t believe there is ANY moral ambiguity for the use of firearms for sporting purposes. Ambiguity only arises in the face of human conflict.

I will defend the ownership, possession, use and carry of firearms on the specific grounds that they ARE tools with the express purpose of hurting, maiming and killing. The specific justification in the US Constitution for citizen ownership of arming of a militia. I also oppose the use of professional militaries as I believe they are corrupt. Fundamentally professional armies have an incentive misalignment: fight for pay, not, fight for something “virtuous”. Therefore “don’t bite the hand that feeds”.

Moreover, the rights of the first amendment can only ensured by the use of force, ultimately, by those exercising said rights. The first amendment is meaningless without the second.

We can count the rounds fired this year alone probably number great than the whole conflict in Afghanistan, all lawful use, but I want to highlight that a GUN is useful being a GUN, not a hobby tool for target practice. If it’s merely a sporting device, well then you should be happy when they take away the guns as we still have airsoft and crossbows for sporting purposes.

No, we defend firearms for what they are and justify them on that use: Force, or the threat of force.

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

#125

Post by a_conservative » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 6:02 PM UTC

igetspam wrote: post #111

My wife (and many women) has felt that the only way to effect change in our gun laws would be for white men to feel like targets. I used to do iss that idea somewhat but as I've paid more attention to things over th last few years, I no longer dismiss the notion. I don't wish many people dead but if women and minorities start buying up a lot of guns, maybe they'll start shooting back. Then we'll see how many times th…

Making people feel like targets will persuade them to give up self-defense?

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

#126

Post by phendrenad2 » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 6:44 PM UTC

seneca wrote: post #79

chmod600 wrote: post #73

There's something admirable about the idea that a government would not take away all the guns. The idea that people should not have to give up all of their ability to fight. The idea that people should not be entirely dependent on police for their defense. And the idea that physically weaker people (often women) can defend themselves against the strong. Does this idea work? Surprisingly well. If you had to guess the…

I agree with most of your post. One small quibble though: > There's something admirable about the idea that a government would not take away all the guns. 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. I think that's an important philosophical p…

The US Constitution can be changed, never forget that.

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

#127

Post by jonp888 » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

sharklazer wrote: post #87

ryandvm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strange take. In 40+ years, I've never needed a gun to defend myself. Nor do I even _know anyone_ that needed to use a gun to lawfully defend themselves. So why should we all have something that A) the lawful uses of such are exceedingly rare, and B) ends up involved in a lot of unlawful or unintentional killings.

1. Most people don’t even understand how a gun mechanically functions. It lives in the realm of magic for most people, despite being mechanically very simple. This base ignorance of the function of a firearm is one of the biggest reasons why firearm-related accidents happen. You might not want a gun, and fine—that’s your stance—but you should know how it works and how to use it. 2. We don’t nuke each other all the ti…

Guns are evil and disgusting machines that exist only for murder.

Guns for no-one.

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

#128

Post by phendrenad2 » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

sofixa wrote: post #96

chmod600 wrote: post #73

There's something admirable about the idea that a government would not take away all the guns. The idea that people should not have to give up all of their ability to fight. The idea that people should not be entirely dependent on police for their defense. And the idea that physically weaker people (often women) can defend themselves against the strong. Does this idea work? Surprisingly well. If you had to guess the…

> 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…

3x a small number is still a small number. Your chances of getting struck by lightning increase if you live on a hill, but no one is basing home buying decisions on that.

The real argument is that guns enable acts that, while rare, and while they affect few people, are so egregious that we as a society will go to great lengths to ensure they never happen (school shootings).

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

#129

Post by jonp888 » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 6:48 PM UTC

Throwawayaerlei wrote: post #77

ryandvm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strange take. In 40+ years, I've never needed a gun to defend myself. Nor do I even _know anyone_ that needed to use a gun to lawfully defend themselves. So why should we all have something that A) the lawful uses of such are exceedingly rare, and B) ends up involved in a lot of unlawful or unintentional killings.

So I guess you don't have fire extinguishers in your house, car or place of work, only buy car liability insurance because it's the law, or home insurance because it's required by your mortgage holder? No insurance for your personal property? I've owned guns for self protection in the same 40+ years and have never needed them for self-protection, but I also haven't needed any of the other above forms of insurance exc…

Not a great comparison.

I've never heard of a toddler accidentally murdering someone with a fire extinguisher, yet that's an everyday occurrence with guns.

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

#130

Post by clon » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 6:52 PM UTC

sofixa wrote: post #102

Throwawayaerlei wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Furthermore, i find US fascination with their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided. So did our Deep State as they lost a twenty year fight against the Taliban. Who immediately started seizing the people's guns upon capturing Kabul. not even counting accidents and suicides which are also made worse by the high availability of guns for everyone The suicide statistics from…

> So did our Deep State as they lost a twenty year fight against the Taliban. Who immediately started seizing the people's guns upon capturing Kabul I sincerely doubt the average first world person has what it takes to sacrifice their comfortable life and go live in caves to resist a tyrannical occupation. And there's no need for them to do that, realistically.

Still, one of the first signs of a society approaching tyranny is the government cracking down on guns. So if nothing else, it serves as a great canary in the mine.