It's a pain knowing I'm not the only one who's experienced this pearl-clutching from others when I casually say I want to get a gun license. Holding keys when I walk at night won't keep me safe. Putting a gun in my purse is a liability issue.
It's almost like people think women are just gonna shoot themselves they moment they get a gun.
This is a tangent completely unrelated to guns but it's one of my Big Ideas so I have to soapbox
> “Your risk goes up just by having a gun in the house”,
This is one of the dumbest classes of argument that people have ever come up with. You see it happen a lot and it seems to specifically happen in the 'professional managerial class', the white collar bureaucrats and corporate people who run most stuff.
They're always reading this or that social science study, and taking the conclusions way too seriously. They'll read a study that shows (assume for sake of argument it's real; I assume it's not) that, _correlatively_, people with guns in their houses have a higher risk of gun violence than people who don't. And then they'll commit the fallacy of division and assume that the results of that study are applicable to their situation.
But they literally never are! Because that's not how statistics work. The study is aggregating over all Americans. But the hypothetical woman saying that line in this example is not _all_ Americans. She is _one_ American. She has additional information that gives her a better picture of her risk than is possible for the study to have, namely, knowledge about herself.
Assume for sake of argument that whatever study that shows that gun ownership = increased risk, is _true_. That's a statistical aggregate. It will _always_ be overridden by the direct information that you have about the specifics of your situation.
To frame it another way: Let's say hypothetically that there is a study that shows that gun ownership = increased risk of suicide. Maybe the average suicide rate in gun-free households is 1% and the average rate in gun households is 2%. YOUR PERSONAL RISK OF SUICIDE IS NEITHER OF THOSE NUMBERS. Your _personal_ risk of suicide is either 0% or 100%, and, critically, you know (or should know) yourself well enough to know which bucket you fall into. No study should ever change your mind on this.
It seems pretty reasonable to me that, on a statistical-aggregate level, your risk of cirrhosis goes up with proximity to alcohol, since obviously drinking to excess causes that, and drinking to excess is going to correlate with alcohol being around.
But, any specific person knows how much they drink, and so when they're evaluating their own personal cirrhosis risk, "the statistical contribution of having alcohol in the house" is a rounding error compared to "drinking too much", which is a thing they will already know about themselves, if it's the case.
Adding on the Taurus new exclusive caliber for Brazil: it is speculated that Taurus actually lobbied for the current gun control adaptations to the law that happened in the new 2023 government.
Atempting to not be politically biased, but the current Taurus CEO was an active member and organizer from the Labor Party (the ones in charge at the moment). New legislation was passed 2 days after taking charge, restricting guns with projectiles tested to have around 400J of energy out of the muzzle (not the actual firearm, but a reference table of nominal calibers is created and the whole caliber is deemed restricted or not based on this table). This left basically every caliber above 9mm restricted (technically really hard to adquire legally for civilians).
Information of the Taurus caliber were made public days after the legislation, showing that they already had the project and production line in the works in an unfathomably quick pace, with it being only a few Joules below the new requirement. It didn't take long for the speculation surrounding the legislation requirements being written and lobbied by Taurus themselves, so they would get a tight grip again on the small arms market.
For context: in 2018 the import of firearms for civilians and local security forces was drastically simplified (this event could be a whole essay, will leave it for later), and despite having imported goods and firearms being taxed over 100%, Taurus was still losing a lot of contracts for the likes of Glock, Beretta and CZ.
So, currently, imports are getting harder again, a new caliber is made exclusively by a national company as a "legal workaround" (that they created) and we get closer and closer to only having Taurus as a manufacturer option...
Some politicians seems to be fighting back, but for the forseeable future it looks really dire here. The initiatives supposed to support and represent civilians and shooters seem to only want to have a piece of the pie and our biggest domestic manufacturer seems to be anti-gun, so who knows what the brazilian people await
Women’s gun rights should be limited, because gun ownership encourages them to live alone and also go out late at night to go clubbing and have sex with random men while drunk or high. Ideally nobody would be allowed to own guns but obviously some people will get their hands on guns so other people have to be prepared
> There’s a simple reason she doesn’t get targeted ads for guns: all the big ad networks ban guns. But they allow fake self-defense tools, so that’s what women see. So if you make an effective self-defense weapon and want to use industry-standard ad tools to tell new people about it, you’re stuck
The fact that this statement is true feels like it hides some deep truths about the differences between the genders, but I'm not quite sure what those truths are
(This is not a snide, "oh I wonder what it could be, _wink_" comment. I legitimately don't know what I think this speaks to, but I think it speaks to _some_ fundamental difference. Perhaps "women stick with the herd more than men" such that men can be advertised through from alternate channels but women will never see them? I don't know)
It's just inertia, no? If you consume media where guns have historically not been marketed, inertia will tend to make guns continue to not be marketed there.
It's a pain knowing I'm not the only one who's experienced this pearl-clutching from others when I casually say I want to get a gun license. Holding keys when I walk at night won't keep me safe. Putting a gun in my purse is a liability issue.
It's almost like people think women are just gonna shoot themselves they moment they get a gun.
This is a tangent completely unrelated to guns but it's one of my Big Ideas so I have to soapbox
> “Your risk goes up just by having a gun in the house”,
This is one of the dumbest classes of argument that people have ever come up with. You see it happen a lot and it seems to specifically happen in the 'professional managerial class', the white collar bureaucrats and corporate people who run most stuff.
They're always reading this or that social science study, and taking the conclusions way too seriously. They'll read a study that shows (assume for sake of argument it's real; I assume it's not) that, _correlatively_, people with guns in their houses have a higher risk of gun violence than people who don't. And then they'll commit the fallacy of division and assume that the results of that study are applicable to their situation.
But they literally never are! Because that's not how statistics work. The study is aggregating over all Americans. But the hypothetical woman saying that line in this example is not _all_ Americans. She is _one_ American. She has additional information that gives her a better picture of her risk than is possible for the study to have, namely, knowledge about herself.
Assume for sake of argument that whatever study that shows that gun ownership = increased risk, is _true_. That's a statistical aggregate. It will _always_ be overridden by the direct information that you have about the specifics of your situation.
To frame it another way: Let's say hypothetically that there is a study that shows that gun ownership = increased risk of suicide. Maybe the average suicide rate in gun-free households is 1% and the average rate in gun households is 2%. YOUR PERSONAL RISK OF SUICIDE IS NEITHER OF THOSE NUMBERS. Your _personal_ risk of suicide is either 0% or 100%, and, critically, you know (or should know) yourself well enough to know which bucket you fall into. No study should ever change your mind on this.
Yep. It's like saying that your risk of cirrhosis goes up when you bring a bottle of whiskey into your house.
Have written a little about this:
- https://x.com/opensrcdefense/status/1673932201480552449
- https://www.opensourcedefense.org/blog/lessons-from-the-lebanese-civil-war#:~:text=That%27s%20the%20frame,bottle%20of%20Glenlivet%3F
Yeah that's a great example
It seems pretty reasonable to me that, on a statistical-aggregate level, your risk of cirrhosis goes up with proximity to alcohol, since obviously drinking to excess causes that, and drinking to excess is going to correlate with alcohol being around.
But, any specific person knows how much they drink, and so when they're evaluating their own personal cirrhosis risk, "the statistical contribution of having alcohol in the house" is a rounding error compared to "drinking too much", which is a thing they will already know about themselves, if it's the case.
Hey! JM here, thanks for the mention!
Adding on the Taurus new exclusive caliber for Brazil: it is speculated that Taurus actually lobbied for the current gun control adaptations to the law that happened in the new 2023 government.
Atempting to not be politically biased, but the current Taurus CEO was an active member and organizer from the Labor Party (the ones in charge at the moment). New legislation was passed 2 days after taking charge, restricting guns with projectiles tested to have around 400J of energy out of the muzzle (not the actual firearm, but a reference table of nominal calibers is created and the whole caliber is deemed restricted or not based on this table). This left basically every caliber above 9mm restricted (technically really hard to adquire legally for civilians).
Information of the Taurus caliber were made public days after the legislation, showing that they already had the project and production line in the works in an unfathomably quick pace, with it being only a few Joules below the new requirement. It didn't take long for the speculation surrounding the legislation requirements being written and lobbied by Taurus themselves, so they would get a tight grip again on the small arms market.
For context: in 2018 the import of firearms for civilians and local security forces was drastically simplified (this event could be a whole essay, will leave it for later), and despite having imported goods and firearms being taxed over 100%, Taurus was still losing a lot of contracts for the likes of Glock, Beretta and CZ.
So, currently, imports are getting harder again, a new caliber is made exclusively by a national company as a "legal workaround" (that they created) and we get closer and closer to only having Taurus as a manufacturer option...
Some politicians seems to be fighting back, but for the forseeable future it looks really dire here. The initiatives supposed to support and represent civilians and shooters seem to only want to have a piece of the pie and our biggest domestic manufacturer seems to be anti-gun, so who knows what the brazilian people await
Wow that’s crazy.
I highly recommend Armed and Styled (IG and YT) for concealed carry clothing, holster, and gun-wearing tips for women and men. Tessa does great work.
I was gonna mention phlster but if they watch Tessa they’ll see them as well.
Big +1
Great read. Women would do well to arm up, but certain sectors don't want that...
https://honestlyre.substack.com/p/gun-control-a-weapon-of-oppression?r=7y22h
Women’s gun rights should be limited, because gun ownership encourages them to live alone and also go out late at night to go clubbing and have sex with random men while drunk or high. Ideally nobody would be allowed to own guns but obviously some people will get their hands on guns so other people have to be prepared
They want women to be able to protect themselves and advertise cheap shit that wouldn't scare me, or something I'd take away from them.
However, if a woman were pointing a gun at me, I'd be afraid she'd accidentally shoot someone behind me.
Crap, I'd leave a woman alone who was waving a .22 pistol around. Those things, with hollowpoint ammo, are deadly.
> There’s a simple reason she doesn’t get targeted ads for guns: all the big ad networks ban guns. But they allow fake self-defense tools, so that’s what women see. So if you make an effective self-defense weapon and want to use industry-standard ad tools to tell new people about it, you’re stuck
The fact that this statement is true feels like it hides some deep truths about the differences between the genders, but I'm not quite sure what those truths are
(This is not a snide, "oh I wonder what it could be, _wink_" comment. I legitimately don't know what I think this speaks to, but I think it speaks to _some_ fundamental difference. Perhaps "women stick with the herd more than men" such that men can be advertised through from alternate channels but women will never see them? I don't know)
It's just inertia, no? If you consume media where guns have historically not been marketed, inertia will tend to make guns continue to not be marketed there.