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

831–840 of 1001 posts

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

#831

Post by hcurtiss »

zarzavat wrote: post #795
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…

> you might guess that people would be dropping like flies. But the U.S. murder rate is not all that remarkable, really. Murder is not a major concern outside of a handful of dangerous areas. In the US. But look at the effect it has on your neighbours. The most violent and dangerous countries in the world are in Central America, and that is a direct result of the US being awash with guns.

So, if guns are in both places, what accounts for the different outcomes? Could it be something other than guns?

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

#832

Post by _carbyau_ »

ashtonkem wrote: post #769
_carbyau_ wrote: post #744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The standard of a defensive caliber is that it needs to be capable of immediately halting an attacker with the kinds of shots a scared defendant can pull off [0]. Not killing them immediately or eventually, but halting the attack. Plenty of gun shot wounds are capable of killing eventually even if they’re not immediately disabling, and it does you no good if your assailant eventually bleeds to death after they’ve fin…

Thank you for the detailed response. I guess my dreamed up scenarios were more vague "shooter/assailant in the area" whereby I figured I'd want to "make myself less desirable to bother with". Hence small caliber, lots of noise/attempts and if - god forbid - anything connected it would still hurt/slow them.

I never really contemplated a "someone intent on killing you" scenario. It isn't something I think of much and I appreciate that clearly people have.

From your comments it seems clear that "stopping power" holds more of a place in conversations.

It is interesting that 22lr hasn't really been technologically updated. But I guess there would be interoperability issues and a "chicken(gun) and the egg(ammo)" scenario to overcome from a commercial point of view.

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

#833

Post by tablespoon »

stefan_ wrote: post #669
sillysaurusx wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I winced when you started the comparison with Brazil and Mexico. Those countries may be New World, but anybody who's visited Mexico knows not to go random places alone. In other words, if Brazil and Mexico are our points of comparison, we're... not in a situation I'd want to be in, to put it diplomatically. Reddit's running joke is that every gunfight happened in Brazil. In fact, I often wonder if most of the gunfigh…

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.

> 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.

If the cartels can ship large amounts of highly illegal cargo transnationally and setup infrastructure like their own private cellular networks, I think they'd be able to acquire all the guns they need even if the US had strict gun control. It's not like they're that hard to make, especially if you're not above kidnapping some machinists.

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

#834

Post by [deleted] »

_carbyau_ wrote: post #825
orangepurple wrote: post #777

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thank you for the detailed response. I guess my dreamed up scenarios were more vague "shooter/assailant in the area" whereby I figured I'd want to "make myself less desirable to bother with while I exit the area". Hence small caliber, lots of noise/attempts and if - god forbid - anything connected it would still hurt/slow them. I never really contemplated a "someone intent on killing you" scenario. It isn't something…

[deleted]

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

#835

Post by NoImmatureAdHom »

smegger001 wrote: post #597
Jedd wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

As another gun owner its not necessarily people that my gun can defend me and my family from. I grew up living out side of town out in the country. I have in my yard seen bear, cougar, coyotes and while hiking/camping/fishing also come across wolves and various snakes. Around age 12 I started carrying a .22 caliber pistol loaded with snake shot when fishing in case of rattle snake.

Obviously anecdata, but on point: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/25/us/feral-hog-death-trnd/index...

Woman in Texas was killed by feral hogs.

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

#836

Post by cratermoon »

oaktrout wrote: post #311
cratermoon wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Presumably in a war where the US government fought its citizens there would be world powers that would support the citizens, whether they wanted to help the citizens or simply weaken the US government.

I don't necessarily see that happening. No other country came in on the side of the Confederacy during the US Civil War.

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

#837

Post by hcurtiss »

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…

But literally nobody is proposing removing all guns from a society. Rather, even the most aggressive proposals merely confine them to government actors, usually a standing army. Confining guns to government actors means lethal violence is monopolized by the government. And there are many, many examples of how terribly that can go. Yes, if we could eliminate humanity’s ability to inflict lethal violence, the world would be a better place. We cannot do that because we’re humans.

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

#838

Post by wittycardio »

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.

They didn't defeat the us military lol , there was just no political will to continue a war on the other side of the world with no real value to the American establishment. But in your scenario where the American establishment goes rogue and decides to launch a punitive campaign against its own population that won't be a problem

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

#839

Post by NoImmatureAdHom »

enchiridion wrote: post #405
Maarten88 wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my experience USA lot less corrupt than most other countries. Lobbying overall is a net good thing for a democratic society. You rightly mention lobbying and corruption together. But somehow you miss that they are on the same continuum. From my EU perspective lobbying in the US is corruption, as the lobbying comes with money and paid-for political promotion. The situation around guns itself is a clear example: a…

With regard to your gun control points, there is a bit of nuance you missed that people (like me, if I wasn’t trying to help you steelman your argument) will criticize. Specifically, there are already heavy restrictions on automatic weapons, which are basically never used in criminal acts. Every automatically gun in the US has to be registered with the federal government for $200 and a lot of paperwork. In effect it…

Just to clarify, fully automatic rifles ("machine guns") in the U.S. cost tens of thousands of dollars (and have, thanks to gun control legislation, been an absolutely amazing investment). For instance, an M-16 would cost you maybe $30-35k plus the regulatory hoops.

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

#840

Post by wittycardio »

bequanna wrote: post #568
wittycardio wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have lived in developed and developing countries and have never felt that my family or property were at risk. The real question is why you think they are when we live in the safest time in human history.

That’s great! This whole civilization thing is working pretty well. Just because you haven’t personally encountered violence, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Yes exactly I'm trying to continue living in a world without violence, the way to do that is to reduce easy access to guns.
Post reply on HN