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

701–710 of 1001 posts

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

#701

Post by jonfromsf »

onemiketwelve wrote: post #692
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…

Seriously, I feel like recent history has shown so many flaws in the theory of guns protecting citizens from the government. I remember during the tsarnaev brother's attacks the crazy amount of APCs and armored vehicles that were in the arsenal of just the police. What the fuck is 5.56 in the hands of some regular Joe going to do against even the lightest armor. Not to mention the fact that it's not the fairytale tyr…

Haven't the Taliban just taught us a 20-year lesson on how some guys with rifles and pickup trucks can humiliate a superpower? Low intensity warfare isn't about winning battles but disrupting governance. The guns in US citizens hands would easily be enough to disrupt governance in rural areas.

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

#702

Post by betwixthewires »

wittycardio wrote: post #497
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…

There is nothing admirable about it . If the military actually turns against its civilians then the civilians stand no chance despite whatever guns they own. All it does is increase the total violence in American society and all the neighbouring countries

As has been replied to this exactly fallacious point multiple places in this thread, 75,000 men in Afghanistan just defeated the US military.

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

#703

Post by smichel17 »

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…

> i find US fascination with their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided.

There's a difference between "fight" and "defeat". Anyone who thinks that a motley band of citizens with small arms is going to force the government to surrender is delusional. What they can do is make martial law very costly, by turning the country into a war zone (see also: Afghanistan).

The government really does get its power from consent of the governed. It may not seem that way, but most people are happy enough just to have stability, that they're going to stand by and keep their head down. But with a sufficiently armed populace, maintaining stability becomes simply impossible, which makes maintaining political favor an impossibility. The idea of a military coup is that you take control of a nation, not that you inherit a war zone.

Small arms aren't about winning, they're about making certain actions too politically costly. I have a tough time imagining the CCP's recent actions in Hong Kong, or the Uighur genocide, working so well if they were armed like the US. Arms necessitate boiling the frog.

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

#704

Post by kelnos »

tablespoon wrote: post #262
01100011 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

As a member of the "modern left", I, too, found the OP's characterization to be cringe-worthy.

While I do know a few people who fit that description ("guns make me feel manly"), they're in the minority. I don't have many friends who own guns, but those who do mostly derive their enjoyment from them by going to the range for target practice (I've tried it and found it fun, too). One acquaintance owns some fairly old weapons and appreciates their construction & design as well as their possible future resale value.

I'm fairly anti-gun, and don't own any myself, but I'm just as tired of the "compensating for something" trope as I'm sure y'all are. It's tired and juvenile, and I assume the only reason it's pulled out is to make the name-caller feel better about themselves.

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

#705

Post by glangdale »

teakettle42 wrote: post #423
standardUser wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You live somewhere with strict gun laws, and in your own words, serious and obvious crime problems. You think the people living in much safer places have a viewpoint that’s “silly to the point of absurdity”. Yet, they’re the ones living somewhere with much lower crime and murder rates. How is this an argument for the efficacy of your preferred policies?

I always enjoy watching Americans accuse other Americans of living in places "with strict gun laws", as if nearly all of the US isn't a moderate drive away from a place with lax gun laws.

It's also fairly absurd to refer to places with few gun laws as "much safer". The only way of making that trick work is to compare big cities in areas with stronger gun control with rural areas and small towns elsewhere. The worst US cities for murder rates show no real pattern of being in anti-gun jurisdictions (or the opposite).

St Louis has the highest homicide rate in the US. You figure Missouri is anti-gun? New Orleans, Kansas City, Memphis and Las Vegas also make the top by murder rates.

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

#706

Post by trident5000 »

cratermoon wrote: post #277
monoideism wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided Taliban? Vietcong?

VC was supported by China. Taliban is supported by Pakistan and Russia. They don't have "small arms", they have the backing of major powers.

Who cares if they are backed. Are they fighting with small arms or not? The answer is yes.

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

#707

Post by betwixthewires »

panopticon wrote: post #695
betwixthewires wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It takes a lot more than a Glock and a few boxes of ammunition from the sporting goods store to befuddle the US military Which is exactly why we resist laws that ban rifles. > You’re not going to get that in appreciable quantities in the middle of the US without Uncle Sam and several three letter agencies noticing. I don't think you fully grasp the extent to which the US population is armed.

> Which is exactly why we resist laws that ban rifles. s/Glock/AR-15/, point still stands regardless of what common legal firearm you want to replace Glock with. > I don't think you fully grasp the extent to which the US population is armed. You have entirely missed the point. The existence of small arms is not what lead the Taliban to success against the US. They had billions of dollars from the opium trade, donatio…

> point still stands regardless

No it doesn't. The rhetoric of "remove weapons of war from America's streets" does not jive with the "small arms are not good enough weapons of war" argument.

> The existence of small arms is not what lead the Taliban to success against the US.

Okay, but Americans have more than that, they have everything you mentioned. They have the largest economy in the world from which to draw the wealth needed for those things. They have militias, they have state governments with treasuries, a significant portion of the population is trained by way of service in the military.

But even beyond all that, I think you're underestimating the importance of small arms in waging an insurgency. All of those other things exist only to ensure that bullets can be fired.

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

#708

Post by modriano »

booleandilemma wrote: post #481
csours wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if more Texas liberal women were armed, they would still have the right to choose to get an abortion?

If they can shoot the men trying to rape them maybe they won’t have to?

A) most abortions aren't in response to rape. [0] B) most rapes aren't surprise attacks in a darkened alley or parking garage; it's by an acquaintance or intimate partner of the victim. [1]

[0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-a... [1] https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics

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

#709

Post by gok »

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…

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

Sorry are you saying that the French Revolutionary Wars were not fought with guns?

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

#710

Post by betwixthewires »

amelius wrote: post #679
betwixthewires wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As mentioned elsewhere, the pride usually stems from self reliance.

If you want self-reliance, then get a medical degree. This will bring you further than owning a gun, especially in the US.

Don't be ridiculous.
Post reply on HN