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

161–170 of 1001 posts

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

#161

Post by ch4s3 »

sharklazer wrote: post #88
nradov wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of firearm use is 100% lawful for target shooting, hunting, and self defense.

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

I don't have any particular interest here, as I'm quite ambivalent about guns but the 600k-2.5m is hotly debated and comes from phone surveys. The CDC cites Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence (2013)[1] when reporting that number. The source says it may actually be as low as 100k uses per year.

[1] https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3?term=defensive#15

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

#162

Post by leephillips »

jonp888 wrote: post #129
Throwawayaerlei wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Really? Show us the link for yesterday’s occurrence.

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

#163

Post by autoliteInline »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #148
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…

Also, how come we always only count murder, as opposed to gun violence? How many times is a gun pointed at somebody, or fired at somebody, or accidentally discharged, vs somebody actually dead? I don't only fear for my life; I fear for my limb and safety and all the other good stuff too :) (mind you, FWIW, and hopefully lateral to above questions, I'm not necessarily in the full "prohibit guns" camp, more of a "regul…

it's easier to count dead people. it's harder to obfuscate the numbers. One value is that you can see increases/trends/etc. and they are actually meaningful.

Generally, you do find this:

. Include suicide in stats...is against guns

. Block suicide from stats...is for guns

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

#164

Post by jvanderbot »

AustinDev wrote: post #86
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 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 something similar.

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

#165

Post by Hamuko »

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.

Australia doesn't seem that tyrannical to me.

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

#166

Post by starik36 »

advisedwang wrote: post #151
ajay-b wrote: post #64

The entire police force can do nothing for you on the phone. I think it is the reductions in police that are convincing more women to purchase.

What reductions in police? Basically no location has actually defunded their police depts, despite all the talk.

True, but lots of police have moved departments to safer places, e.g. suburbs.

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

#167

Post by bananabreakfast »

blacktriangle wrote: post #140
phendrenad2 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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?

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

#168

Post by jvanderbot »

blacktriangle wrote: post #140
phendrenad2 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ab…

Ah, well, you've gone down a philosophical path on the role of government.

Strictly mechanically speaking, the constitution can be amended by a certain majority of voting in a national campaign, and those amendments can override any other amendment as the voters see fit.

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

#169

Post by Someone1234 »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #148
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…

Also, how come we always only count murder, as opposed to gun violence? How many times is a gun pointed at somebody, or fired at somebody, or accidentally discharged, vs somebody actually dead? I don't only fear for my life; I fear for my limb and safety and all the other good stuff too :) (mind you, FWIW, and hopefully lateral to above questions, I'm not necessarily in the full "prohibit guns" camp, more of a "regul…

> Also, how come we always only count murder, as opposed to gun violence?

Because other countries use different definitions for those things. The definition of a "firearm death" is consistent, someone was shot they're now deceased.

The definition of "gun violence" could be a gun that wasn't even loaded or fired in some countries (e.g. pointing it menacingly), bullet-injury in others, pistol-whipping in yet others, for one example.

Crime statistics are a complex topic, with politics, collection methods, and definitions playing a major part. For one example, richer countries often have higher "crime" because they're better at collecting and recording crime statistics, not because crime doesn't occur in poorer countries. Even richer countries like the US have a "crime gap" if you compare recorded crime with victim crime surveys (e.g. NCVS).

Post reply on HN