The Anti Gun Male

[peacefuljeffrey]

I really liked the essay. When I have more time, I'll come back and read some more of the criticisms that are in this thread, but overall I think she made very excellent points, and what she says has MUCH truth in 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).

Yes, the old, "Get yourself an alarm; Get yourself a dog; Protecting you is what the Police are there for; The criminal is just misunderstood, so talk with him about why he's robbing you..." Always good for a chuckle.


-Jeffrey

 

[JohnBT]

"They are proficient at exactly one thing -- that which allows them to earn a living -- and are incapable of anything else."

Let's not get carried away painting with that w i d e brush.

John

 

[XLMiguel]

OK, I made a great leap in logic in a single bound -

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.

1. Negligence & Stupidity - leaving a gun where a dumb kid could get at it
2. Stupidity - 12 y.o. playing with loaded gun
3. Criminality - Columbine & Santee

Blaming the instrumentality for bad stuff rather than the bad behavior that caused it because they don't have the gumption to deal with the bad behavior is just wrong - self-esteem is earned thru accomplishment, not making excuses.

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.

That's the spineless part - he's helpless, but rather than doing someting to improve his situation, he wants to make everyone else helpless, too. Sick, very sick. I chose not to dignify the psychobabble part about overcompensating for whatever.

Though I'm not real sure where the author is really coming from, I still think it's a pretty stupid piece on a rather sorry subject.

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

Mike,

We are definitely looking at the same article yet seeing two very different things. I think you are mistaken in your conclusion, particularly about the author's intent; and at what, specifically, she is poking satire at.

I think the article is well done and is not about a stupid subject. She is trying to explicate the inner workings and motivations of the mind of a male anti-gunner. She does a good job of it, in my view.

I think that what she's talking about in that first part you quoted is that which we've all observed: anti-gunners revel in the mayhem that criminals cause with guns, because it gives them "reason" to hate guns and want them banned. Every further gun crime or mass murder involving guns gives them more of what they view as justification for banning guns. The more tragedies, the "better" their case is made. So the male anti-gunner, who really despises guns because he hasn't the courage to avail himself of them, nor to defend his own life, capitalizes on gun-tragedy as his cover-excuse for why he wants them banned. It's a deception. It's not the real reason he wants them banned -- his own inadequacy is the real reason -- but it's the one he puts forth when he writes to the newspaper, or argues with a pro-gunner.

He will never admit that it's his own fear and pathetically dependent nature that spurs his desire to eliminate guns.

The irony, of course, is that anti-gunners would need to be gun owners, to have guns of their own, in order to effect the confiscation of the last of the guns of the pro-gun gun owners.

-Jeffrey

 

[XLMiguel]

P-Jeff-
I think we're in violent agreement. It is the basic hypocracy of such people that I find so repulsive - they don't like guns, but the first thing they do when they're in trouble is call someone witha gun to come protect them, they expect someone else to do their fighting for them. They are truly parasites.

I guess the subtlety is lost on me, as I allowed as how I couldn't quite see where the author was coming from. I do see your point as satire, so I'll withdraw the 'stupid' comment, though I still maintain that 'the anti-gun male' is a pretty sorry subject that deserves the ridicule.