The Real Gun Guys

On Anti-Rights Men

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.

Found at GOA

Share/Save

What Planet is this Guy From?

In the comments on his blog Cliff Lyon has this to say in response to a comment about why the commenter needs his sidearm:

I’m sure his premise is that we should have the right to defend ourselves (with guns).

Certainly that seems reasonable. But I would ask at what cost.

Do we all accept that individuals should have the right to decide when and if their life is in danger and who the danger is?

Do we want to demand the right to kill someone who is merely trying to steal our money?

Do we want to live in a world where our justification for arming everyone is based upon the assumption that one needs self-protection?

Aren’t we supposed to insist that America is a pretty safe place where the chances of dying from criminal attack are almost zero?

If the proliferation of hand-guns is a deterrent to would-be criminal, wouldn’t the banning of hand-guns reduce violent crime?

How else would he have someone decide if their life was in danger? Are we supposed to hold a committee meeting or postpone the conflict until an authority on lethal force has had a chance to review the assault? The idea is preposterous. Who else, but the person being assaulted, would know better whether their life was in danger. Can someone afford to wait until the crooks intentions are clear before defending themselves? We always hear the advice, “Give them what they want!” spouted off, but what if what they want is to kill you and rape your wife and daughter. There was a news story I read not long ago where a man did just as he had been told. He gave the crooks his money when they demanded it, and they shot him several times in the side as they turned to go. Trying to guess the intentions of a crook is the height of stupidity. Only an idiot would do so before attempting to defend themselves. And no Cliff, America is not a “safe place where the chances of dying from a criminal attack are almost zero.” Whoever told you this is lying. If a law were passed tomorrow banning all sidearms in public possession, and assuming everyone obeyed the law and turned their’s in, it would do nothing to reduce violent crime. You’re assumption is that criminals would obey the law and turn theirs in as well. As with what happened in England, nothing could be further from the truth. All it would do is embolden the criminals because they would be the only ones with guns, their victims would no longer be able to stop them. You see, you forgot criminals don’t obey the law. That’s why their called criminals.

Some peoples kids…

UPDATE: Seems like he just can’t get enough. He continues his attack, along with a picture I guess he thinks typifies the average gun owner, here. What a buffoon! I could posit that all hoplophobes such as him are girly men, like the picture below, but that wouldn’t be correct.

Share/Save

David Codrea Debates in the NYT

Go here for updates and feel free to leave comments.

Share/Save

Cliff Lyon Loves Me

I think I pissed him off.

May I assume Yuri is your real name and as such, if I returned your invective, I would be calling Yuri Orlov a Jackass? …which I am not doing yet, but certainly can if you prefer to go down that road.

I’m not one for an elitist standard of decency in dealing with authoritarian tribalists with selfish, narrow, rednecked paradigms.

You know, sticks and stones…

I’m happy to go toe to toe with you if you like, as long as I don’t have to smell you. From your picture on Technorati, I’m guessing the pile of flesh you carry around is commensurate not only with the strength of your conviction, but also the myriad of odors one finds in a meat packing plant.

You may assume whatever you like, I really don’t care. Your opinion is of no consequence to me. I find it ironic when you say “You know, sticks and stones…” and then stoop to calling me a redneck and close with a fat joke. You are soooooooooo funny. You must be the funniest person you know. Tell me, when you tell jokes at parties, do people laugh and smile nervously and then sneak away when you’re not looking? What’s next, dick jokes? I do find the notion of me as as an “authoritarian” hilarious however. Seriously though, isn’t that more the province of you statists?

Aren’t name calling and personal attacks the last refuge of those without a leg to stand on?

Just asking…

Sticks and stones Cliffy…

You must know that the need to cite unscientific polls conducted by mindless, gun toting zealots to defend an absurd position (people need and guns to defend themselves in America) reflects the very desperation that position.

The claim that 400,000 people per year use a gun to save their lives, is on the order of a statistic that would have been implausible even in World War II. Thats why no one has bothered to prove the “professor” wrong.

But since you like dealing with absolutes, like when my bullet enters your brain, you are definetly (spelling! -ed) dead, lets do the same here.

Was that a threat? I guess that explains the difference between you and I. I would never, even in jest, suggest that I’d shoot you. Why are you anti-rights bigots so violent? Regardless of the reason, you seem to think that everyone has as little self control as you, as evidenced by your comments.

Let’s get one thing straight. Nothing I say is going to change your mind. You are one of those people who are so invested in their belief system, Jesus himself could come down off the cross and tell you I am right and you still wouldn’t believe him. Still, I’ll give it a shot.

The estimated US population (July 2008), according to the CIA World Fact Book is 303,824,646. 400,000 of 303,824,646 is .13%. What do you find so unbelievable about .13% of the population defending themselves with firearms?

There is a saying, “If it isn’t written down, it didn’t happen!” This is why if someone defends themselves with a firearm and doesn’t file a police report, there’s no record. Obviously. This is why there’s no exact number, only an estimation. If no one is hurt, and the bad guy runs away, why is there a need to file a police report? Most people don’t.

In any case, there are at least three sites I can think of that make a habit of archiving DGU’s (the ones that make the papers). You’ve been pointed to them before, but here they are again:

Civilian Gun Self Defense Blog
The Armed Citizen
Gun Watch

You’ll probably sneer at these, but the paper of record these came out of are all listed, so someone of your great intelligence should be able to track them down to verify their authenticity if you’re so inclined.

Can you give me ANYTHING more bankable than some professor did a poll? How about a link to the poll, or the questions asked or the methodology used. How about some peer review (do you know what that is)?

I think your statement, “totally pwned in the process by people who rely on facts and statistics instead of blind emotion.” is a bit pre-mature.

IOW, saying it, doesn’t make it true. True to me is something on the order of, you know, a bullet to the brain.

There’s that shooting thing again, you really need to chill out.

If you refuse to believe you’ve been “pwned” by the good professor and other commenters on your blog, then you haven’t been reading the comments. Try reading them again, and pay attention this time.

Google is your friend, but to show my charity, here’s a short reading list for you:

• “Targeting Guns”, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, 1997
• James Wright and Peter Rossi, “Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms”, New York: Aldine, 1986
• FBI, “Crime in the United States”, 1998
• U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Federal Firearms Offenders study, 1997. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, “The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons,” Research Report, July 1985
• Dr. Gary Kleck, “Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force”, Social Problems, February 1988
• Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
• “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws” by John R. Lott

One more, this from the Department of Justice. You do read your comments, right?

Read these and get back to me if you have any questions.

Share/Save

You’ve got questions? I’ve got answers!

I just got a hit for a search of “how do i register a machine gun federall.” In the interest of educating the public about firearms, I present the following.

The Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 closed the registry for Full Auto firearms, thus limiting the supply to what was already in the marketplace. That’s why the price of Full Auto firearms is so high now. So, unless you’re a LEO or a member of the government or military, you’re not going to be able to register a new machine gun.

The only chance you have is if you live in a state that trusts its citizens enough to allow you to own automatic weapons and are not otherwise prohibited from owning firearms. Oh, and have lots of money. I can’t emphasize that enough!

Here’s how you too can own a Full Auto firearm.

I found a good explanation of the process at Impact Guns:

First a little history: In May of 1986, certain laws went into effect that made it illegal for ‘civilians’ to own fully automatic firearms that were manufactured AFTER THAT DATE. Most fully automatic weapons manufactured and registered BEFORE MAY, 1986, MAY BE OWNED BY AND SOLD TO INDIVIDUALS. The full-auto guns that may be owned by individuals are called ‘transferable’. Some states DO NOT allow machine gun ownership at all, no matter when the gun was made, but most states do.

To purchase a transferable machine gun, you must meet certain requirements (generally the same as when you purchase another gun), fill out special paperwork (called a ‘form 4′), and pay a $200, one-time, transfer tax. Every time a machine gun is transferred, the $200 tax must be paid– usually by the purchaser. The steps to take to purchase a transferable machine gun are:

1. Find a dealer locally who can assist you in all phases of the transfer. This should go beyond helping you fill out the paperwork: they should help you locate the gun if it isn’t in stock and allow you to shoot the gun while your paperwork is being processed by the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms). It will usually take 4-6 weeks for the dealer to get the gun from another dealer if they don’t already have it in stock (due to BATF paperwork delays).
2. Get your fingerprints (either by a police dept. or by a qualified fingerprinter, two imprints are needed) and two passport sized pictures taken. These will be used to perform a comprehensive criminal background check on you.
3. Have your local dealer help you fill out an “Application for Tax Paid Transfer And Registration Of Firearm” for, known as a “form 4″.
4. You must have the signature of the Chief Law Enforcement (CLEO) officer that has jurisdiction over the municipality in which you live on the form 4. This could be the City Chief or the County Sheriff, for example. This is usually not a problem– in machine gun friendly states. The form 4, CLEO signature, 2 fingerprint cards, 2 pictures, and a $200 check (your one-time transfer tax) must all be mailed to the BATF and an approved tax stamp returned before you may take possession of the gun. This may take anywhere from 2 to 5 months.

Share/Save