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

131–140 of 1001 posts

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

#131

Post by GiorgioG »

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…

The murder rate varies widely by state/area. Chicago's murder rate is significantly higher than its suburbs.

The murder rate in the town (37k residents) I live in (in the south) is effectively zero. I wouldn't doubt that all of my neighbors around me (most of us are originally from a northern state) have guns and we've managed not to kill each other.

Do you think the French revolution didn't require violence?

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

#132

Post by thebean11 »

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.

Sure, it won't happen if everyone's life is still comfortable, that's the point. It's a safeguard against life becoming so extremely uncomfortable that the people started fighting.

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

#133

Post by sofixa »

clon wrote: post #130
sofixa wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Still, one of the first signs of a society approaching tyranny is the government cracking down on guns

In a dictatorship, yes.

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

#134

Post by aidenn0 »

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…

> 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?

GP said he didn't know anybody who needed to use a gun.

- My wife has used a fire extinguisher

- I have been reimbursed by car insurance

- I have several friends who have been reimbursed by homeowners and renters insurance.

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

#135

Post by watwut »

Throwawayaerlei wrote: post #99
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…

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…

Comparing Taliban to individual gun owners is next level absurd.

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

#136

Post by aidenn0 »

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…

> 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.

I don't know; roller-delayed blowback took me a long time to wrap my head around.

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

#137

Post by tantalor »

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…

Semantics

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

#138

Post by AdrianB1 »

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…

Living in Romania, the thing I miss mostly when hiking in the mountains is a long rifle. This is for self defence against huge populations of bears and boars, not for anything else. Guns in the country side are also tools, not just weapons.

Homicide rate is low in Romania because we don't have violent criminal gangs, almost at all. It is a small country with different policing system. But there are plenty of guns in the hands of criminals, having a very restrictive gun policy does not help the ordinary citizens, just the criminals. Opening up would be leveling the conditions.

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

#140

Post by blacktriangle »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #126
seneca wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 abolished.
Post reply on HN