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

261–270 of 1001 posts

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

#261

Post by brodouevencode »

KorematsuFredt wrote: post #239
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…

PS: I am strong supporter of Gun rights and proud gun owner. I fully agree with anti-gun crowd that having vast majority of guns in hands of citizens (legally or illegally) leads to more deaths. USA's comparison with Angola is actually more serious than the numbers tell you because you need to realize that USA has far better medical response and doctors trained to handle gunshot wounds. So to truly compare Angola and…

> face a 5/1000 chance of dying of gunshot wound

Isn't that a very high estimation?

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

#262

Post by tablespoon »

01100011 wrote: post #243
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 witho…

> 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.

One of the biggest issues I have with the modern left is their tendency to let their prejudices dictate their perceptions like that. It's annoying and repulsive, and it should be embarrassing for people who say stuff like they "believe in science."

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

#263

Post by greenie_beans »

clairity wrote: post #255
greenie_beans wrote: post #160

i live in the american south, where everybody owns guns. i own a gun for hunting. but for self defense, i have pepper spray and bear spray instead of guns because i don't want to kill somebody regardless of their intentions. i'd be curious to see the stats of self-defense/firearms, because it seems like self-defense gun owners are LARPing over imagined intruder situations. they're definitely not about to take up arms…

it's interesting that you criticize owning guns for self-defense, but claim it as a (partial) reason for owning your own guns. perhaps you mean self-defense against wildlife rather than people, since you use pepper/bear spray to avoid chancing murder? but yes, there's is roughly a 0% chance that using a gun defensively in a hostile situation will result in successful self-defense, where only the perpetrator is incapa…

maybe i'm sleep deprived today, but i'm missing where i claimed owning guns for self-defense? i own for hunting, so i can hunt wildlife. not for self-defense, but for food.

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

#264

Post by ceejayoz »

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…

> The Bill of Rights cannot be.

Sure it can. The "Bill of Rights" is just a term for the first ten amendments. The 21st Amendment reads:

"Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."

Nothing in the Constitution forbids doing the same to the First, Second, or any other, should enough Americans agree on the point.

The 28th Amendment could read "The President shall be selected by the Prime Minister of Canada, and all redheads shall be put to death" and it'd not only be the law of the land once ratified, but there'd be no legal recourse except another amendment. Even more fun; include a "The Constitution may no longer be amended" as an additional provision.

(Of course, you have to get that through the amendment process, which is fairly obviously unlikely.)

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

#265

Post by clairity »

yongjik wrote: post #228
tablespoon wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> "What were you doing while it turned into your enemy?"

netflix and facebook apparently. my whole lifetime has been a slow-motion monopolization of power and money, and we've yet to resist/deter/reroute any of it meaningfully. power has been slowly turning against the populace, and we're not paying any attention to it. rather, we're debating distracting culture topics like abortion, racism, and even covid mandates.

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

#266

Post by clairity »

greenie_beans wrote: post #263
clairity wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's interesting that you criticize owning guns for self-defense, but claim it as a (partial) reason for owning your own guns. perhaps you mean self-defense against wildlife rather than people, since you use pepper/bear spray to avoid chancing murder? but yes, there's is roughly a 0% chance that using a gun defensively in a hostile situation will result in successful self-defense, where only the perpetrator is incapa…

maybe i'm sleep deprived today, but i'm missing where i claimed owning guns for self-defense? i own for hunting, so i can hunt wildlife. not for self-defense, but for food.

apologies, i must have misread that the first time around.

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

#267

Post by flyingfences »

clairity wrote: post #255
greenie_beans wrote: post #160

i live in the american south, where everybody owns guns. i own a gun for hunting. but for self defense, i have pepper spray and bear spray instead of guns because i don't want to kill somebody regardless of their intentions. i'd be curious to see the stats of self-defense/firearms, because it seems like self-defense gun owners are LARPing over imagined intruder situations. they're definitely not about to take up arms…

it's interesting that you criticize owning guns for self-defense, but claim it as a (partial) reason for owning your own guns. perhaps you mean self-defense against wildlife rather than people, since you use pepper/bear spray to avoid chancing murder? but yes, there's is roughly a 0% chance that using a gun defensively in a hostile situation will result in successful self-defense, where only the perpetrator is incapa…

> there's is roughly a 0% chance that using a gun defensively in a hostile situation will result in successful self-defense

The evidence that I've seen does not support such a bold claim at all.

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

#268

Post by philwelch »

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 US is not that bad compared to other New World countries. From your link we see Brazil at 27, Mexico at 29, Argentina at 5, Uruguay at 12, Greenland at 5, Panama at 9, and Costa Rica at 11. Canada is the biggest outlier, but the US still has less homicide than even relatively nice New World countries.

If you’re going to tout France’s low homicide rate of 1.2, I’d invite you to observe that Japan’s homicide rate is 0.26. Does this mean that France should adopt some aspects of Japanese law, for instance, by readopting the death penalty? Or does it simply mean that France and Japan are different countries?

In fact, I would posit that the arrow of causation can point the other way. If you live in a country with higher rates of homicide and violent crime, you will be more interested in defending yourself.

> Protests and revolutions in France have done more to guide government power than anything ever that happened in the US.

This seems like a bizarre and dubious oversimplification. France had an outright military coup in 1958 when the democratically elected government didn’t want to hold onto Algeria. While both democracy and Algerian independence worked out in the long run, the mere possibility of a military coup—something that French military officers will occasionally make threats to repeat—seems to be a major distinction that is not in France’s favor here.

Meanwhile, popular protests in the US led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and ultimately even withdrawal from Vietnam. It’s not like the American public is politically powerless compared to that of any other democracy.

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

#269

Post by greenie_beans »

clairity wrote: post #266
greenie_beans wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

maybe i'm sleep deprived today, but i'm missing where i claimed owning guns for self-defense? i own for hunting, so i can hunt wildlife. not for self-defense, but for food.

apologies, i must have misread that the first time around.

no worries! it's partially my fault for unclear writing.

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

#270

Post by xmprt »

KorematsuFredt wrote: post #239
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…

PS: I am strong supporter of Gun rights and proud gun owner. I fully agree with anti-gun crowd that having vast majority of guns in hands of citizens (legally or illegally) leads to more deaths. USA's comparison with Angola is actually more serious than the numbers tell you because you need to realize that USA has far better medical response and doctors trained to handle gunshot wounds. So to truly compare Angola and…

The US government probably seems less corrupt than the EU because of its laid back approach to a lot of policies. However, that's exactly the type of corruption that a lot of people are talking about.

The country needs a lot of change to tackle big problems like climate change and increasing wealth inequality however the government is sitting back doing nothing because many representatives are lobbied by big interests to let the big interests continue doing what they're doing.

Post reply on HN