Women are nearly half of new gun buyers, study finds • Hacker News Board

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

#521

Post by alienthrowaway » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 10:41 PM UTC

Fogest wrote: post #410

thisiscorrect wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"[M]arginalized groups have often armed themselves when they feel the state is unwilling or unable to protect them." An example of this is calling to reduce policing, which probably would have the biggest (and very negative) impact in high crime areas. I believe gun sales increased rapidly starting last summer.

I have watched a lot of videos from Peter Santenello [1] on YouTube. He takes a somewhat deep dive into a lot of communities that the traditional media typically fails to highlight or fails to do it properly. He has quite a few videos where he speaks with people in the "hood" or the "projects" in various places across America. In many of these videos he asks some of the people in these communities what they think abo…

> These communities never seem to actually say they want less policing in them.

They do! They've been saying it a long time, but no one paid them any attention until George Floyd's life was slowly and casually extinguished by a police officer on camera. Go ask any black male from New York in their 20s or 30s what they think about "Stop and frisk" and the sense of being violated by over policing.

Before you accuse me of having a "white saviour" complex, I'm black. Speaking of "saviour", I'm curious to know if you have experienced american policing, outside of youtube? No snark at all, this is a legitimate question.

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

#522

Post by mike00632 » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 10:41 PM UTC

mmmpop wrote: post #368

redstripe wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's admirable about it? This is just a fiction that you Americans tell yourselves about the next revolution. Name one, just one way, that ease of gun ownership has protected Americans from their government in a way that citizens of other western democracies have suffered? There is no scenario in which any citizen with a gun in any country defeats their government. Your gun will keep you safe about as well as your…

If you were an officer of the law pressed to go door-to-door to say, purely hypothetically, take the oldest child by force to inscribe them in some dystopian military program, you'd probably be a lot more hesitant if you knew that there was a chance you'd get shot in the process right? I believe that's the security that us Americans (I imagine your sneer with that) feel by being armed. Isn't it that the Swiss are all…

There is a reason why you have to resort to "pure hypotheticals" and you should dwell on that.

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

#523

Post by nverno » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 10:41 PM UTC

Jedd wrote: post #499

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…

> PS: I am strong supporter of Gun rights and proud gun owner. I don't understand the pride bit. It seems like a regrettable situation where your distrust of your fellow citizens is so strong that you are comforted by the ability to kill them with minimal effort. (I'm in Australia, where we have some truly horrendous legislation, but I totally agree with our gun ownership laws here, and echo other people's observatio…

> It seems like a regrettable situation where your distrust of your fellow citizens is so strong that you are comforted by the ability to kill them with minimal effort.

It's usually the opposite sentiment for gun owners- I trust my fellow citizens with arms.

Guns are seen as an integral part of self-reliance by many. They provide you with a reasonably effective defense. One way to significantly erode individual's/citizen's power, and in turn give power to government, is take away their ability to defend themselves. People worry that as government becomes more powerful and citizens more reliant there is greater likelihood of oppressive government, in other words disarming populace is step down a slippery slope

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

#524

Post by qball » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 10:42 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #447

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 do not at all accept that guns empower the weak. We can see all over the world they are a massive force multiplier for criminals, the violent and the murderous. Guns are only potent in the hands of those willing and able to use violence. For those unwilling to do so, they are massively disenfranchising. They essentially tilt the balance of power in society decisively in favour of those most willing to kill, and mos…

>Speech are only potent in the hands of those willing and able to say destabilizing things. For those unwilling to do so, they are massively disenfranchising. They essentially tilt the balance of power in society decisively in favour of those most willing to do this, and most enthusiastic about preparing to do so.

It's really not that different; speech, much like guns, is capable of bringing an entire nation to its knees and setting neighbor against neighbor (every Western country is a blatant example of this, for obvious and recent reasons), to say nothing about its general life-ruining applications. Is it really right to hand an implicit veto on opinion to those that speak?

>Is it really right to hand an implicit veto on opinion to the violent?

Is it really right for the [pick your favorite minority] to do violence to the [member of society that is coming to do some nasty thing to them]?

And if so, at what point does that change?

Is it when they're about to seize your children and make sure any culture you gave them is beaten out of them? Is it they're about to bulldoze your ancient burial grounds to make room for a new golf course? Is it when the Grain Commissioner takes the food you needed to survive? Is it when your neighbors have come to kill you for wearing glasses, or [insert your favorite characteristic here]? How about just levying usurious taxes for the same crime, or enforcing the law unevenly against them, or a state-sanctioned "just let these two groups fight it out since we hate both of them anyway"? (and the list goes on)

Once you take that implicit veto away, these abuses happen (of course, society has investigated itself and found that it has done nothing wrong). It's not a bulletproof defense, of course, and it's certainly less likely to work unless properly coordinated, but it doesn't hurt your chances. And unless you think society should get away with everything just because it's society (which is the majority view, so nobody will hold you accountable for it)...

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

#525

Post by d12345m » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 10:42 PM UTC

Jedd wrote: post #499

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…

> PS: I am strong supporter of Gun rights and proud gun owner. I don't understand the pride bit. It seems like a regrettable situation where your distrust of your fellow citizens is so strong that you are comforted by the ability to kill them with minimal effort. (I'm in Australia, where we have some truly horrendous legislation, but I totally agree with our gun ownership laws here, and echo other people's observatio…

Welp, I guess it’s time to finally give the Culture series a go.

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

#526

Post by agensaequivocum » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 10:42 PM UTC

8note wrote: post #335

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…

In america, are you allowed to shoot a police officer who is violating your rights?

Yes!

> In December, a jury in Corpus Christi, Tex., acquitted a 48-year-old man who spent 664 days in jail after being charged with attempted capital murder for wounding three SWAT officers during a no-knock raid that targeted his nephew. The jury concluded that the man, Ray Rosas, did not know whom he was firing at through a blinded window.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/18/us/forced-ent...

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

#527

Post by bootsz » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 10:43 PM UTC

Jesus H Christ, this comment section. What has happened to HN? I think I'm done for good this time. Peace.

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

#528

Post by aidenn0 » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 10:43 PM UTC

Zababa wrote: post #395

aidenn0 wrote: post #134

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? 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…

I don't know anyone who ever had a fire at their home, but I know a few people that were attacked on the street. Anecdotes are just that, anecdotes.

I think there's going to be two major sources of differing experiences on this:

1. Where you live. If you live in the suburbs and drive everywhere, there are just very few opportunities for you to get "attacked on the street" as you are hardly ever walking down the street.

2. Disagreement on what situations necessitate a gun. I know a lot of people who think that e.g. robbery is insufficient reason to defend yourself with deadly force.

Similarly I've seen people astonished that someone might choose to defend themselves from an unarmed man with a gun, even when that man is larger and is not allowing them to leave.

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

#529

Post by lowkey_ » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 10:45 PM UTC

greenie_beans wrote: post #399

gorwell wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"they're definitely not about to take up arms against the state, and if they think they would do that, then they're certainly LARPing and live in a fantasy world." Didn't the Taliban prove otherwise? That would suggest an armed citizenship can be a counter to tyranny.

good point, but i'm speaking from a US-centric point of view. and so is this article. so i don't think the your taliban argument is a strong counterpoint to my claim.

The Taliban was fighting against the US though, with all their high-tech drones and such, which are usually cited as the reason that guns are futile against the state.

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

#530

Post by qball » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 10:47 PM UTC

garmaine wrote: post #465

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…

> The idea that people should not have to give up all of their ability to fight. Fight...whom? How? A gun is a very blunt instrument. If you want to learn how to defend yourself, take a self-defense class and buy something non-lethal like mace. Why is a gun necessary for self-defense?

Because "in case of emergency, press button" works when issued from the hands of a 5' 110-pound woman against a 7' 250-pound man in a way that the other options simply do not.