DescentBB

The Anti-gun Male

By

Julia Gorin
As published at JewishWorldReview.com

LET'S be honest. He's scared of the thing. That's understandable --
so am I. But as a girl I have the luxury of being able to admit it. I
don't have to masquerade squeamishness as grand principle-in the
interest of mankind, no less.

A man does. He has to say things like \"One Taniqua Hall is one too
many,\" as a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the
9-year old New York girl who was accidentally shot last year by her
12-year old cousin playing with his uncle's gun. But the truth is he
desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines
and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second
Amendment. And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit
of his self-esteem.

He often accuses men with guns of \"compensating for something.\" The
truth is quite the reverse. After all, how is he supposed to feel
knowing there are men out there who aren't intimidated by the big bad
inanimate villain? How is he to feel in the face of adolescent boys
who have used the family gun effectively in defending the family from
an armed intruder? So if he can't touch a gun, he doesn't want other
men to be able to either. And to achieve his ends, he'll use the only
weapon he knows how to manipulate: the law.

Of course, sexual and psychological insecurities don't account for
ALL men against guns. Certainly there must be some whose motives are
pure, who perhaps do care so much as to tirelessly look for policy
solutions to teenage void and aggressiveness, and to parent and
teacher negligence. But for a potentially large underlying
contributor, psycho-sexual inadequacy has gone unexplored and
unacknowledged. It's one thing to not be comfortable with a firearm
and therefore opt to not keep or bear one. But it's another to impose
the same handicap onto others.

People are suspicious of what they do not know -- and not only does
this man not know how to use a gun, he doesn't know the men who do,
or the number of people who have successfully used one to defend
themselves from injury or death. But he is better left in the dark;
his life is hard enough knowing there are men out there who don't sit
cross-legged. That they're able to handle a firearm instead of being
handled by it would be too much to bear.

Such a man is also best kept huddled in urban centers, where he feels
safer than he might if thrown out on his own into a rural setting, in
an isolated house on a quiet street where he would feel naked and
helpless. Lacking the confidence that would permit him to be
sequestered in sparseness, and lacking a gun, he finds comfort in the
cloister of crowds.

The very ownership of a gun for defense of home and family implies
some assertiveness and a certain self-reliance. But if our man kept a
gun in the house, and an intruder broke in and started attacking his
wife in front of him, he wouldn't be able to later say, \"He had a
knife -- there was nothing I could do!\" Passively watching in horror
while already trying to make peace with the violent act, scheduling a
therapy session and forgiving the perpetrator before the attack is
even finished wouldn't be the option it otherwise is.

No. Better to emasculate all men. Because let's face it: He's a
lover, not a fighter. And he doesn't want to get shot in case he has
an affair with your wife.

Of course, it wouldn't be completely honest not to admit that owning
a firearm carries with it some risk to unintended targets. That's the
tradeoff with a gun: The right to defend one's life and way of life
isn't without peril to oneself. And the last thing this man wants to
do is risk his life -- if even to save it. For he is guided by a
dread fear for his life, and has more confidence in almost anyone
else's ability to protect him than his own, preferring to place
himself at the mercy of the villain or in the sporadically competent
hands of authorities (his line of defense consisting of locks, alarm
systems, reasoning with the attacker, calling the police or, should
fighting back occur to him, thrashing a heavy vase).

In short, he is a man begging for subjugation. He longs for its
promise of equality in helplessness. Because only when that strange,
independent alpha breed of male is helpless along with him will he
feel adequate. Indeed, his freedom lies in this other man's
containment.

silly article full of false dilemmas.

Simple for me -- guns create more accidents statistically than they prevent. Accidents happen to even the most experienced gun owners. Just not worth it to me.

Birdseye wrote:Simple for me -- guns create more accidents statistically than they prevent.

No doubt -- how would a gun even prevent an accident ?

Sorry, it should have read something more like 'create more problems (Accidents) than they solve (burglaries etc.)'

What a pile of crap. The percentage of men that oppose large scale distribution of hand guns because of some unresolved sexual problem is probably equal to or less than the number of people that rabidly espouse universal gun ownership due to penis size insecurity. A trivial number in the whole picture. Perhaps the author is one of the latter when he spends that much time and effort trying to equate gun support or opposition to sex problems. The old takes one to know one thing.

May I suggest you read the article, Ford? The author is a female and makes it very clear in the first paragraph. It's the old \"judge a book by its cover\" thing.

Birdseye wrote:silly article full of false dilemmas.

Simple for me -- guns create more accidents statistically than they prevent.

Well, speaking of false dilemas!
I'll have to point out what should be obvious to all, and more important, that which is also at the root of all the ill-motivated anti-gun policies!
That is the false premise that your statement relies on! That a gun has ever caused an accident...or anything for that matter!!

To focus on the gun would be like saying ballots caused the war in Iraq!

Will Robinson wrote:

Birdseye wrote:silly article full of false dilemmas.

Simple for me -- guns create more accidents statistically than they prevent.

Well, speaking of false dilemas!
I'll have to point out what should be obvious to all, and more important, that which is also at the root of all the ill-motivated anti-gun policies!
That is the false premise that your statement relies on! That a gun has ever caused an accident...or anything for that matter!!

To focus on the gun would be like saying ballots caused the war in Iraq!

PWNED!

Birdseye wrote:guns create more problems (Accidents) than they solve (burglaries etc.)

x2. also arms-races are dumb.

Fusion Pimp sells guns for a living.

-x2, donkey.. Fusion pimp does not sell guns for a living. I would starve.

\"Such a man is also best kept huddled in urban centers, where he feels safer than he might if thrown out on his own into a rural setting\"

What a ridiculous stereotype

SOMEONE sells guns for a living. who

roid wrote:SOMEONE sells guns for a living. who

LOL

Do a google search- I'm sure you'll find SOMEONE who sells guns for a living.

This is ridiculous; unless it were a slow news day.
I presume I don't need to explain to anyone why.

This is ridiculous; unless it were a slow news day.

Translation: 'I sit with my legs crossed and pee sitting down'.

Owned? Heh. Totally misinterpreted, I believe.

Will Robinson wrote:

Birdseye wrote:silly article full of false dilemmas.

Simple for me -- guns create more accidents statistically than they prevent.

Well, speaking of false dilemas!
I'll have to point out what should be obvious to all, and more important, that which is also at the root of all the ill-motivated anti-gun policies!
That is the false premise that your statement relies on! That a gun has ever caused an accident...or anything for that matter!!

To focus on the gun would be like saying ballots caused the war in Iraq!

Whoa, whoa, don't put words into my mouth. I'm talking about *my* choice, based on empirical statistics. Of course people kill people, it's not just a gun's fault. I agree there are tons of whacky, usless gun policies rooted simply in fear.

I'm just talking about not wanting one in my home because it increases the chance myself or someone I know will be injured or killed.

Yes, PEOPLE cause accidents. Guns are involved. But you have absolutely no counter argument to the FACT having a gun statistically will increase your and others chance of being injured/killed.

The common argument is that blah blah blah I know how to use my gun and only idiots cause this problem. Then you of course hear of "responsible" gun owners leaving their gun unlocked that 'one time' and their 6 yr old son finds it and shoots Johnny neighbor.

Let me be clear that I am NOT for banning guns. I am a libertarian. I am for 2nd amendment. I just PERSONALLY CHOOSE not to have one. I think the risk/reward ratio is terrible. I'm not trying to take away your choice!

Wow... This is the only issue I think I am conservative in. I have a gun in my room and I am 13, never shot somebody. My family has a total of 17 guns in my house, never shot someone. I do however think that there needs to be stricter control on gun permits, not the weapons themselves (I still think they should only allow semi-automatic weapons though). I also think it is okay if people don't wanna own guns like Birdseye, like him I want the right to be there, not for you to be forced to use it.

so, you're a dealer?

Birdseye wrote:Whoa, whoa, don't put words into my mouth. I'm talking about *my* choice, based on empirical statistics. Of course people kill people, it's not just a gun's fault. I agree there are tons of whacky, usless gun policies rooted simply in fear.

I'm just talking about not wanting one in my home because it increases the chance myself or someone I know will be injured or killed.

OK, My mistake then. I did misinterpret the intent behind your comments. It's such a common line of poor reasoning that people who want to curb violence choose to focus their proposed solutions on the tool instead of the person responsible for its misuse that I assumed that's where you were going.
And I'd agree that removing the gun from the equation could make people safer in many situations. In my situation that isn't true because I really do keep all my guns locked up so someone extending their anti-gun policy to include taking mine away from me is not making me safer.

Yes, PEOPLE cause accidents. Guns are involved. But you have absolutely no counter argument to the FACT having a gun statistically will increase your and others chance of being injured/killed.

Yes I do unless you are talking about having a gun laying around unattended. So lump my responsible gun ownership in with the people who leave guns out for anyone to get and you are correct but my argument is go after the irresponsible and outright criminal use of the tool and leave my toolbox alone because I'm not increasing anyones chances of being hurt.

It's a risk vs. benefit thing.
I think a reasonable and objective analysis of my gun use would find that only at the very moment I'm poised to shoot the gun at something is there any chance that an innocent person could be hit and then only if I completely miss my intended target could that happpen.

So my contribution to the risk to world at large is very very minimal compared to the benefit of being able to stop a violent aggressor in his tracks by merely putting my hand on the grip and preparing to draw it from my holster which has worked for me twice so far. I don't know exactly what would have happened to me in those two instances but it wasn't going to be good for me. However instead of being a victim those nights, thanks to my gun ownership, they left me alone. I guess I didn't really do the world any favors because they went on to cruise for other prey I'm sure but I recieved some benefit.
People that would have me go unarmed in those instances are asking me to become a victim so the overall statistics come out ever so slightly improved.
I'd suggest to them that they focus on prosecution and education, and proactive citizenship, and improving the opportunity for children to be raised in a responsible household and they could improve the statistics greatly and I would still be able to defend my self in those situations if those punks were even still out on the street instead of at home doing school work or at a job earning an honest living...

I'm tired of people espousing the fear mongering, vote buying, rhetoric of their party as a solution to society's ills instead of demanding common sense real world solutions and letting the party suffer until they realize what the people want.
I'm sorry if I unfairly put that label on you my rant was really aimed at the dumbmasses.

LOL - I just bought a shotgun last Friday. About a month ago some friends took me to the shooting range to do some clay pigeon target shooting and I thought it was a blast. I enjoyed it so much and did so well I bought my own gun.

Birdseye wrote:Sorry, it should have read something more like 'create more problems (Accidents) than they solve (burglaries etc.)'

Ummm...Birdy, just where do you get your "facts"?

May I suggest you read the article, Ford? The author is a female and makes it very clear in the first paragraph. It's the old \"judge a book by its cover\" thing.

Dammit caught skimming again. I will have to revise my diagnosis of the author. Clearly she is a repressed lesbian with penis envy issues. I wager that in spite of her opening paragraph she owns guns and they all have long barrels, if you know what I mean. I'll bet that she has Happiness is a Warm Gun on her MP3 player too.

Ford Prefect, sitting cross legged in front of his computer sipping tepid sassifrass tea while the scented candle fills the room with a charming aroma of honey and cherry blossoms.

Your diagnosis of the author is most likely accurate, thank you.

While I've never heard of sassifrass tea curing vaginitis, the scented candles will most cetainly help mask the smell.

good luck with that.

B-

woodchip wrote:

Birdseye wrote:Sorry, it should have read something more like 'create more problems (Accidents) than they solve (burglaries etc.)'

Ummm...Birdy, just where do you get your "facts"?

Well, according to Michael Moore, who got this fact from The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence "Guns in the Home" fact sheet;

"Among all instances when guns are fired during a break-in while the owner is at home, in only 2 percent are guns used to shoot the intruder. The other 98 percent of the time, residents accidentally shoot a loved one or themselves - or the burgulars take the gun and kill them with it."

TIGERassault wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Birdseye wrote:Sorry, it should have read something more like 'create more problems (Accidents) than they solve (burglaries etc.)'

Ummm...Birdy, just where do you get your "facts"?

Well, according to Michael Moore, who got this fact from The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence "Guns in the Home" fact sheet;

"Among all instances when guns are fired during a break-in while the owner is at home, in only 2 percent are guns used to shoot the intruder. The other 98 percent of the time, residents accidentally shoot a loved one or themselves - or the burgulars take the gun and kill them with it."

Michael Moore? Brady Campaign? HaHaHaHa! Dear me Tiger, those are not facts they are liberal manipulations to make firearms look evil incarnate.
Do a Google and look up John Lott.

\"Among all instances when guns are fired during a break-in while the owner is at home, in only 2 percent are guns used to shoot the intruder. The other 98 percent of the time, residents accidentally shoot a loved one or themselves - or the burgulars take the gun and kill them with it.\"

I cannot understand how people can believe such nonesense.Common sense takes the back seat to emotional sabotage when discussing firearms or firearm owners.

I look forward to the day when Mr. Moore & The Brady's come to my door unarmed to disarm me.

Maybe they'll come through the window as intruders- there is a 98% chance I will shoot myself.

woodchip wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Birdseye wrote:Sorry, it should have read something more like 'create more problems (Accidents) than they solve (burglaries etc.)'

Ummm...Birdy, just where do you get your "facts"?

Well, according to Michael Moore, who got this fact from The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence "Guns in the Home" fact sheet;

"Among all instances when guns are fired during a break-in while the owner is at home, in only 2 percent are guns used to shoot the intruder. The other 98 percent of the time, residents accidentally shoot a loved one or themselves - or the burgulars take the gun and kill them with it."

Michael Moore? Brady Campaign? HaHaHaHa! Dear me Tiger, those are not facts they are liberal manipulations to make firearms look evil incarnate.

I was actually rather aware of that, but it was the only survey result on this matter that I had actually seen.

TIGERassault wrote:

woodchip wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Birdseye wrote:Sorry, it should have read something more like 'create more problems (Accidents) than they solve (burglaries etc.)'

Ummm...Birdy, just where do you get your "facts"?

Well, according to Michael Moore, who got this fact from The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence "Guns in the Home" fact sheet;

"Among all instances when guns are fired during a break-in while the owner is at home, in only 2 percent are guns used to shoot the intruder. The other 98 percent of the time, residents accidentally shoot a loved one or themselves - or the burgulars take the gun and kill them with it."

Michael Moore? Brady Campaign? HaHaHaHa! Dear me Tiger, those are not facts they are liberal manipulations to make firearms look evil incarnate.

I was actually rather aware of that, but it was the only survey result on this matter that I had actually seen.

So what was your point then?!? Satisfying a desire to be wrong?