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

221–230 of 1001 posts

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

#221

Post by rossdavidh »

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 equal.

If this is the actual underlying reason, then these new gun buyers will be less likely to buy a second, third, fourth, etc. gun. Like someone who just buys a car to get around, and thus is less likely to have an urge to get a new one every year, the new gun buyers of 2019-2021 will be more likely to only buy another gun if there is something wrong with the old one.

Again, I gave it about 30 seconds' thought, but that's my guess.

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

#222

Post by easton_s »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #207
AdrianB1 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not so violent compared with US gangs.

And the US gangs aren't so violent compared to the Brazilian gangs in the favelas or the Mexican drug cartel gangs; what does this have to do with it?

Where does a gang end and a militia begin?

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

#224

Post by thebooktocome »

natmaka wrote: post #61
onethought wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the countries that have greater gender equality have strict control of firearms. (Sorry for the inconvenient facts down voters) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Inequality_Index

Doesn't 'strict control' imply that few legally detain guns? Gender Inequality Index: #1 (best nation) is Switzerland. This country is shock-full of firearms, there is an assault rifle in many (most?) homes (a weird way to 'control', in my opinion). #2 is Norway, where 9% of the population legally owns 1.3 million guns (population: 5.4 million) #3 Finland. 12% of Finns legally detain a firearm

Switzerland's famous assault rifles are not kept with ammunition, and are mostly useless. (I suppose you could bludgeon a home invader with one.) Firearms are more heavily regulated there than in most of Europe.

"He shakes out the gun holster. "And we don't get bullets any more," he adds. "The Army doesn't give ammunition now - it's all kept in a central arsenal." This measure was introduced by Switzerland's Federal Council in 2007."

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912

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

#225

Post by Clubber »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #68
smoldesu wrote: post #21

I wonder if part of the driving force behind this is simply that men have purchased more guns in the past. Firearms are heirlooms in most families, and a hunting father is always want to expose their son to the craft. Men simply have more avenues to get guns from, with the strange way our social structure is organized. It will be interesting to watch the concept of weapon ownership be emasculated over the next few ye…

>Firearms are heirlooms in most families, I assume that cheap stuff outnumbers nice stuff by a few orders of magnitude, just like every other consumer facing industry.

>I assume that cheap stuff outnumbers nice stuff by a few orders of magnitude, just like every other consumer facing industry.

Depends on when it was made. Stuff made in the 70s and earlier are very high quality. Probably just like every other consumer facing industry. Even today, you can find cheap guns, but they're still made mostly of steel and they have to survive an explosion, so they're pretty sturdy.

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

#226

Post by ghufran_syed »

kube-system wrote: post #215
bingohbangoh wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they were armed? do you have a source for that? The gun charges were dropped.

A couple examples here, before, during, and after the attack: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/stun-guns-stinger-whips... If you pop their names into a search engine you can see the DOJ indictments with more info.

How many of those weapons were discharged? And how many were “seized” is not as interesting as how many were being held illegally? The government can illegally seize all sorts of things from citizens, including cash, but the process of doing so doesn’t make the original possession a crime

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

#227

Post by xadhominemx »

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…

Agreed with all of the above, but it addition, isn’t it obvious gun owners in the United States are much more likely to support any likely authoritarian government? They are mostly right wing, and the right wing in the US increasingly leans authoritarian.

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

#228

Post by yongjik »

tablespoon wrote: post #194
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…

> Except that, if you're at this stage, you have failed. The whole freaking point of having a military is to not let it happen. So the US military instead trains its soldiers to fly bombers and read satellite photos, because these are the skills that make you win wars before it runs you over. Eh, not so much. I believe the term is "defense in depth." There's also the saying "don't put all your eggs in one basket." If…

> For instance: someday, the enemy may be the US military itself.

That's exactly what I mean when I say "if you let it happen then you have already failed to defend your freedom." The US military is not a band of invaders, it's made of your fellow Americans. What were you doing while it turned into your enemy?

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

#229

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

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…

Well-regulate here means well armed. So, theoretically, this means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should include all weapons useful to a militia. So machine guns, mines, grenades, rocket launchers, tanks, helicopters, etc.

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

#230

Post by beerandt »

sofixa wrote: post #133
clon wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Australia?
Post reply on HN