- Joined
- Jul 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,644
- Reaction score
- 34
- Points
- 0
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica] The Anti-gun Male
By
Julia Gorin
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.[/FONT]
By
Julia Gorin
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.[/FONT]
How MANY times do you see the areas with the least gun control, have the lowest crime and the most gun control the highest crimes? Hmmm, DC?
