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

411–420 of 1001 posts

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

#411

Post by clipradiowallet »

bingohbangoh wrote: post #190
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. Didn't a couple of unarmed protestors take the capitol building on January 6th?

> Didn't a couple of unarmed protestors take the capitol building on January 6th?

Yes, you are correct.

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

#412

Post by Glyptodon »

asdff wrote: post #313
Glyptodon wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To begin with you're creating a premise that the only reason gun legality can be justified is self defense, particularly against other people. I do not accept this premise. There are many other premises for gun legality. That said, when I was very young my grandfather had to shoot a number of stray dogs out his car window while driving through a rough pasture because they'd killed a couple calves and were attacking h…

Most people would have just called animal control

Even in a city I don't really think someone would sit and wait for animal control while a pack of strays attack a pet or try to break into a chicken coop (or something else similar) rather than try to save their animal(s) somehow.

(Though in a city I imagine that means things like throwing rocks or using a shovel.)

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

#413

Post by KorematsuFredt »

slg wrote: post #290
KorematsuFredt wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What evidence do you have for suggesting that a citizenry with guns serves to protect other freedoms? The US generally isn't among the top countries on the various international freedom indexes[1] despite our prevalence of guns. We are usually behind Canada, New Zealand, the Scandinavian countries, and a few other European countries depending on the specific criteria being evaluated. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…

I have a very simple litmus test. In how many countries can you openly (with lots of publicity) organize "Draw a Muhammad" or "Burn the bible" events.

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

#414

Post by foofoo4u »

onethought wrote: post #11
rubyist5eva wrote: post #4

Guns are the great equalizer. Women don’t have equal rights until they are equally capable of defending themselves.

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

Ironically Switzerland is #1 on that list — a country with one of the most liberal policies on firearm ownership. This video shows what a typical store in Switzerland is like and what is available for purchase https://youtu.be/UOErri-3Z5E?t=538.

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

#415

Post by Throwawayaerlei »

bananabreakfast wrote: post #167
blacktriangle wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's absurd. The Bill of Rights is literally a list of changes to the constitution.

Which were the price the Antifederalists demanded to accept the Constitution as a whole.

Any one of them can be changed at any time by a majority of states.

Supermajority, and only after a supermajority of the Congress starts the process or a supermajority of states calls for a constitutional convention. Even then, abrogating any of the Bill of Rights also abrogates the original deal, making the rest of the Constitution and its additional amendments null and void.

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

#416

Post by rpmisms »

chmod600 wrote: post #90

I've only known one person to use a gun in self defense. She didn't fire it.

Anecdotal as well, but I stopped an attempted home invasion with a 1911. I walked out with it in my hand, pointed at the ground, and they left. Fast. That was it.

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

#417

Post by Fogest »

standardUser wrote: post #274
bm3719 wrote: post #106

Excellent. There's no reason defensive gun buyers should be demographically different from the general population. It's understandable that gun sales for hunting or other activities might show differences, but we all have the same personal security needs. Side note: I'm one of the people here with a large collection of firearms. One thing to realize when you see the statistic that the US has more firearms than people…

For decades I have lived deep in the heart of some of the densest cities in the country (SF and NYC). These are places with serious and obvious crime problems that I have seen up close and personal, day in and day out. Yet to me, despite these experiences, the entire concept of "personal security needs" involving firearms is absolutely absurd. It sounds like a Monty Python sketch. Silly to the point of absurdity. But…

> Even though they mostly live in vastly, vastly safer zip codes.

Do they though? Not sure where you got this information from. And are we talking legal gun ownership or guns in general? Because even in the "hood" and the "projects" it's quite common for people to be "strapped". Those guns may often not be legal, but they are also still carrying them for self-defense in most cases. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if these communities had a much higher percentage of weapons. I am sure you'd feel a lot safer walking at night in a low income neighbourhood if you had that kind of protection and I could definitely understand why someone would want to walk around armed.

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

#418

Post by salex89 »

2AThrowaway wrote: post #171
chmod600 wrote: post #90

I've only known one person to use a gun in self defense. She didn't fire it.

throwaway for the obvious reasons... take this as you wish. I am a person who has drawn their licensed handgun in self-defense, twice, separated by ~25 years and hundreds of miles. One an attempted robbery or interrupted break-in in a rear parking lot by two men who probably thought I had access to the building, the second by a group of three that split and approached quickly from two sides on a city street. In neith…

From what you are saying, it looks like you also practice drills, at least semi-regularly. I think that is key, no matter the caliber. Hell, even using pepper spray should be exercised once or twice a year.

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

#419

Post by Throwawayaerlei »

beerandt wrote: post #282
pseudalopex wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Supreme Court held "The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."[1] [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Separately, "regulate" didn't mean the same thing then as it does today. Think about the phrase "well-regulated". When has modern regulation ever been described as "well"? And what would that even mean? The meaning was intended to be somewhere between well-supplied and well-prepared. Similar to how "regulate interstate commerce" was intended as to encourage and provide-for, not to limit or restrict.

Well regulated as in a steam engine, which wasn't far on the horizon.

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

#420

Post by Throwawayaerlei »

majormajor wrote: post #320
pseudalopex wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Supreme Court held "The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."[1] [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

A 5-4 decision in 2008 that was along predictable lines. Let's not pretend it's a long-settled or non-controversial interpretation.

The two relevant decisions changed no facts on the ground outside of D.C. and Illinois. Reversal won't change anything except maybe the facts on the ground in Illinois, and will further inflame the divisions in the country.

Although you should double check your assertions, some of the details of the decisions were not 5-4.

Post reply on HN