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

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

#771

Post by NoImmatureAdHom » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 2:22 AM UTC

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #765

qeternity wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> France is quite heterogenous. Paris, yes. France, no. France as a whole is very homogenous.

Immigrant populations in both France and the United States are in the mid-teens, percentage-wise. [1] Japan's immigrant population stands at 2.0%, and Guatamala's is 0.5%. I'm aware that there are other measures of diversity, but many of the comments here were mentioning the United States's border with Mexico specifically as a reason for its high murder rate, which doesn't seem to hold up once you dig into the number…

I think the other measures of diversity are the ones that are important. For instance, an influx of Canadian immigrants to the U.S. would, I expect, cause no problems at all because Canada is by and large very culturally similar to the U.S.

The border is important in my thinking mainly because corruption and organized crime are endemic to Mexico, though immigration of people from a significantly different ethnicity+culture is also important in the U.S. picture.

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

#772

Post by King-Aaron » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 2:23 AM UTC

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…

Americans really don't get it. Guns aren't the issue. Americans are.

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

#773

Post by King-Aaron » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 2:24 AM UTC

betwixthewires wrote: post #702

wittycardio wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is such a shitty reductionist argument.

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

#774

Post by kelnos » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 2:25 AM UTC

Glyptodon wrote: post #233

ryandvm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strange take. In 40+ years, I've never needed a gun to defend myself. Nor do I even _know anyone_ that needed to use a gun to lawfully defend themselves. So why should we all have something that A) the lawful uses of such are exceedingly rare, and B) ends up involved in a lot of unlawful or unintentional killings.

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…

> you're creating a premise that the only reason gun legality can be justified is self defense

What other premise is there, when we're talking about a device that is designed to seriously injure and kill others? It's either a defensive weapon, or, worse, an offensive one.

I think hunting is a totally legitimate use for a gun. I think your grandfather's case is as well, though there certainly are other solutions to his problem, if more difficult and less efficient ones.

Sure, you might want a gun as a collector, or because you enjoy shooting one at a gun range. But I'm not convinced these "recreational" reasons are good justifications for allowing general ownership of a device designed for its lethality.

You hunt? Fine; get a license for that, and you can own guns made for hunting. You need to a weapon as a part of your job (like your grandfather, perhaps)? Fine; same deal: be licensed and restricted to types of guns appropriate for your job. A gun for fun? No, not fine (let the properly-licensed gun range own and store guns, and you can go and shoot them for fun). A gun for self-defense? I don't think it's clear that use outweighs the downsides of having a heavily-armed populace.

I think the thing that gets me the most is that you can walk into a gun store without having seen our touched a gun in your life, and walk out with a gun (modulo whatever waiting period your locality might require). No training needed, no license needed. Fork over some cash, and here's your deadly projectile weapon and as much ammunition as you want. That's irresponsible.

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

#775

Post by jacobkg » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 2:26 AM UTC

Bhilai wrote: post #279

A friend of our family recently bought a gun and that made me ask them why. Their response was of course personal safety at which point I asked them some more questions and turns out they keep the gun in a gun safe and bullets in another location so as to not cause any accidents as they have kids. But this practice seemed utterly useless if their home was being actively being robbed/attacked since they wont have the…

Is it a handgun?

My understanding is that the best firearm for home defense is a shotgun because it has high stopping power, doesn’t require as much accuracy, and is less likely to penetrate walls.

Therefore I don’t particularly take people seriously if their home defense choice is a handgun

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

#776

Post by kelnos » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 2:26 AM UTC

belorn wrote: post #631

nradov wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most US counties animal control responds late or not at all. Obviously you can't seriously expect farmers to just wait around while feral dogs kill their livestock.

The cost of gun education in public education would be pretty higher than simply increasing funding to animal control in order to improve response times.

Farms are large and spread out. It could take animal control 15 minutes just to drive from one end of your farm to where you are, let alone from wherever their office is.

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

#777

Post by orangepurple » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 2:29 AM UTC

_carbyau_ wrote: post #744

ashtonkem wrote: post #625

The personal safety issue is being covered a lot here, but I think some people are missing something else; guns are a lot of fun. In an era where bars and movie theaters were closed due to pandemic, you could safety go to an outside range and ring steel instead. This is particularly relevant if you consider the ongoing shortage in 22lr, a cartridge which is woefully underpowered for self defense, but ideal for killin…

I largely agree with your comment. I am curious about the 22lr being "woefully underpowered for self defense" bit though. I mean, it will put holes into peoples bodies. And I thought the idea was self defense and keeping peoples heads down/awayFromYou. I know it won't put big holes in doors/tables etc. I guess I haven't really considered what the real requirements are for self defense in a country where so many peopl…

A firearm used for self defense needs to provide a balance of bullet energy transfer (correlated with threat cessation effectiveness), ease of use, ability to make attempts to fire on target successfully given extreme stress, little or no notice to prepare, and operating while thoroughly disoriented due to surprise.

Bullets which do not halt upon impact with the body but go through it with minimal damage do not stop the threat. The chances of this occurring decrease with caliber size increases and benefit from hollow point ammunition. Larger ammunition cartridges are heavy and bulky and you can't fit many bullets (=attempts) in a convenient cartridge.

The decision to use a firearm is never taken lightly by a normal person, and normal people can not fire on target under stress. It's a balance between bullet energy transfer which is correlated with threat cessation and ergonomics.

It's important to remember that a single shot will not stop most assailants. It's normal to have to fire 3-6 times with normal 9mm ammunition to stop someone intent on killing on you. Sometimes you get lucky with one, but it's not true most of the time. Many times gunshots are enough to subdue the threat without killing them.

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

#778

Post by seanmcdirmid » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 2:29 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #268

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…

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 i…

You are comparing the USA, a developed country, purely to developing countries. I mean, ya, the USA does better than much poorer countries, but can’t compare to any other developed ones. And just because all developed countries don’t have a unified homogenous homicide rate doesn’t really provide any excuse why America does so much more poorly.

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

#779

Post by kelnos » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 2:30 AM UTC

Throwawayaerlei wrote: post #77

ryandvm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strange take. In 40+ years, I've never needed a gun to defend myself. Nor do I even _know anyone_ that needed to use a gun to lawfully defend themselves. So why should we all have something that A) the lawful uses of such are exceedingly rare, and B) ends up involved in a lot of unlawful or unintentional killings.

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? I've owned guns for self protection in the same 40+ years and have never needed them for self-protection, but I also haven't needed any of the other above forms of insurance exc…

By that logic, we should also have grenades, missiles, and perhaps a tactical nuclear weapon at home, just in case. Probably won't need them, but who knows.

> I've owned guns for self protection in the same 40+ years and have never needed them for self-protection, but I also haven't needed any of the other above forms of insurance except the last which came in really handy when my apartment was hit by a natural disaster.

So what you're saying is that you don't need your guns, but the insurance did come in handy after all. Got it. I feel like you're making the parent's point for them.

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

#780

Post by seanmcdirmid » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 2:31 AM UTC

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #714

stefan_ wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's doubly ironic because of course a large swath of the guns in what is bordering on civil war in Mexico are supplied by the US, made possible through the (lack of) gun ownership regulation.

> made possible through the (lack of) gun ownership regulation. The US has plenty of gun ownership regulation. Criminals choose not to follow that though.

The USA also has plenty of gun production capacity. Unless you really believe 25% of Americans own 20 guns each, there is a lot of winking and nudging that guns are going south for drugs coming north.