The Anti-Gun Male

[ArmedBear]

This is the most annoying trait of anti-gunners, IMO.

It's the most annoying trait of "liberals" or "progressives", in general.

We have too many nanny-state laws to list, and the list grows daily here in California.

It's not just about guns; it's about hatred for your neighbor.

Most liberals are smart enough to know that, in general, government power is frightening, but when it comes to specific applications of that power, it seems that there's no end to their support for it.

I can't understand why many in California object to the Federal Government tracking large international banking transactions, but are perfectly happy to make me a criminal for leaving my kid in the car for 2 minutes while I step 10 feet to the ATM, on a mild day.

 

[Gordon Fink]

I believe that any attempt to equate gun ownership to nuclear weapons is the start of a huge “straw man” argument. Any part of this letter that tries to equate the two is therefore automatically invalid as an argument.

I think they equate rather well. As such, I am all for nuclear proliferation. It might just eliminate international warfare as we know it.

~G. Fink

 

[JohnL2]

Wow Colt, forsaking a friend for principal. You are a rare individual indeed.

 

[Colt]

Wow Colt, forsaking a friend for principal.

The way I saw it, if he was willing to strip me of the ability to protect myself and my family, he wasn't really my friend to begin with. After the "incident," I just couldn't stomach to be in his company.

 

[David904]

I agree with you Colt. A person who has little or no regard for your values or safety is NOT your friend.

I believe that I would have done the same.

 

[Eyesac]

Friends grow apart for many reasons, but trying to deprive you of your Constitutional rights is a pretty good reason to drift apart...

 

[greener]

Most people have never been in life-threatening situations. Crime always happens somewhere else. Other people are harmed somewhere else. They can even convince themselves that the victim was a fault somehow. Most of us live that pretty safe, pretty comfortable life. It's easy to be against guns or even self-defense or, believe that you can defend yourself adequately unarmed. After all, about the only thing we hear about guns is the bad things done with them. So, its easy to be anti-gun. A good number of victims discover that it's not always "someone else, somewhere else."

I have a concealed carry permit. I don't carry. Some if it is that most of the places I go don't allow it. Some of it is that I intend to avoid going places I feel I need the protection. My main reason for having the permit is to avoid unintentionally tripping concealed weapons laws on my trips to the range.

I have no possessions I'm willing to kill for. However, if I believe me, anyone in my family or even someone I don't know is being threatened with severe harm or death, I'd have zero qualms about using a firearm. I'm also not about to give away 30-40 years in age and bet I can win unarmed. I'd probably bring a gun to a fistfight, let alone a knife fight.

I don't see the local police stationed outside my house, so who do I expect to protect me from bad guys in a hurry?

 

[ProguninTN]

Article

I have seen that before, but a refresher is good.

 

[G36-UK]

You know, he's right...

Responsibility is a scary thing when you take it seriously.

I think this quote's correct, but not in the way that armedpolak's friend intended.

Most anti-gun people see it as their responsibility to protect people from the "bad guys" who use guns to kill and maim. However, they don't take their responsibility seriously enough to look at both sides of it.

The flipside of their responsibility is that they are also responsible for ensuring that they do not inadvertantly infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens in their quest to disarm the criminals.

That's why all of the laws that they propose can only be considered irresponsible: because they disarm everyone without discriminating between criminal and innocent, something that they would consider if they took their responsibility seriously.

 

[QuestionEverything]

I don't think most urban anti-gun types give nearly as much thought to their position as the "anti-gun male" in the article does. In most cases they weren't raised around guns and saw them only in movies and other media. To them, guns are for bad guys, police and rural mountain men. Few have likely thought about owning guns themselves, because they see firearms as complicated, confusing and dangerous.

The gun community does occupy something of an isolated niche in American society, and the glut of gun-related technical info along with the expense of owning firearms presents a barrier to entry for many people. I remember the last time I tried explaining the nature of different cartridges to a friend. We hit the first big snag when I tried to explain why .357 Mag is more damaging than .45 ACP. Once we got to rifle rounds he was thoroughly confused. ".223? I thought you said .22s were weak. And how can 7.62mm be more powerful than 9mm?" It's unfortunate that I didn't have any visual aids with me.

Most people like this aren't really anti-gun so much as they have no experience with guns and see no good reason for average citizens to own them. If gun owners are willing to sit down and talk with such people and alleviate their perception of guns as confusing and scary, many could end up taking our side. The hardcore anti-gunners for whom banning guns is a top priority are really a tiny minority.

 

[torpid]

greener:

I have a concealed carry permit. I don't carry. Some if it is that most of the places I go don't allow it. Some of it is that I intend to avoid going places I feel I need the protection. My main reason for having the permit is to avoid unintentionally tripping concealed weapons laws on my trips to the range.

I have no possessions I'm willing to kill for. However, if I believe me, anyone in my family or even someone I don't know is being threatened with severe harm or death, I'd have zero qualms about using a firearm. I'm also not about to give away 30-40 years in age and bet I can win unarmed. I'd probably bring a gun to a fistfight, let alone a knife fight.

I don't see the local police stationed outside my house, so who do I expect to protect me from bad guys in a hurry?

As someone who due to location can't easily get a permit, I find your post on the confusing side.

Your intentions and feelings about "safe" areas aside, aren't police also not acting as your personal bodyguards to protect you from bad guys when you and your loved ones are outside your house?

If anyone in your family or someone you don't know was being threatened with severe harm or death, you'd have zero qualms about using a firearm, and you say that you'd probably bring a gun to a fistfight, let alone a knife fight.

But since you choose not to carry, how exactly would you use your (at home) gun to protect you and others from harm if said knife fight happened in the world outside of your front door?

Not trying to bug you, just wondering your rationale.

 

[mbt2001]

No offense, but I have a problem with women trying to define what is male...