Gun Control

[Alexiev]

I haven't noticed that gun-hating men have much testosterone.

Learning and practicing responsible gun-handling, on the other hand, is a rite-of-passage for many confident young men. Compare the whiners to the advocates on the internet, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Just sayin'.

On the contrary. Gun-toters are cowards who are afraid of a fight.

Not in my experience, they're not. In a gunfight OR a fistfight, I'd stand with the guys who aren't afraid of guns against the pansies who whine about them any day. There's no question which side has the testosterone. Go look on the internet: real men aren't afraid of guns. Soy boys are.

Why would a "confident young man" need a gun?

Because confident young men can handle danger responsibly. They can handle motorcycles, ATVs, heavy machinery, light explosives, heavy objects, felling trees, frightening situations...and when everybody in the school or the mall -- all the women, children and soy boys -- are screaming and running, they can stand their ground, coolly pull out that Glock, and put a shooter down before he gets going.

That's part of what it means to be a real man. I actually feel sorry for today's city boys, who have no such opportunities. No wonder they don't know if they're men or not.

But if a stranger enters your house in the middle of the night, the chances are really good that he's a psycho, and either so high on drugs he doesn't feel pain, or he's got pals. Either way, you need a way to make him leave without having to kill him in hand-to-hand. A .347 magnum pointed at a man's chest will make any rational invader back right off. And if he doesn't back off, then you can be very glad you've got the .357 magnum. He's probably a crazed crack-addict, or has his own weapon.

Your arguments are silly. The likelihood of a stranger who has invaded your house killing you is far greater if you own a protection gun. The unarmed burglar might find it and shoot you with it if you surprise him. The armed burglar who means you no harm might shoot you if he sees you with a weapon. The chances of the gun being useful protection (for you, if not for your property) are out-weighed by the chances of it leading to harm.

Bicycles are more manly than motorcycles (and high testosterone levels help you in biking more than in motorcycling).

I actually own a rifle. I keep it well hidden and unloaded up in my rafters, and the shells are hidden elsewhere. It would be of no use as a protection weapon, and when my house was burglarized a couple of months ago the thieves didn't find it (although they did steal two bicycles).

I'll grant that in rare circumstances a protective gun is reasonable. A woman with murderous, abusive ex might want one. So might a mafia drug runner. But for most of us, they are cowardly. Equating machinery (guns, motorcycles) with manliness is, although common, silly. Real men are athletic. They are strong. They don't need guns to protect themselves, or motorcycles to go to the donut shop. They'd be less obese if they rode their bikes.

[Immanuel Can]

The likelihood of a stranger who has invaded your house killing you is far greater if you own a protection gun.

I'll take my chances. And they're my chances to take.

Meanwhile, think of how a couple of people with guns might have prevented recent school shootings, which are breaking out all over the place these days. Psychos don't just rush into schools, you know; they plan. They strategize to maximize their success. And the juiciest thing about a school is that it contains helpless people who are bound to be unarmed. If a shooter knows there could be a teacher or two who was armed, he wouldn't just act cautiously: he'd have to replan his entire approach.

Because even the most psychopathic school shooter wants to succeed. If he's capped the minute he steps in the door, he doesn't succeed. So this makes a very powerful argument for at least convincing school shooters that some people might be armed. Right now, they know there's zero chance anybody will be.

Bicycles are more manly than motorcycles

Yeah, right! Not a chance. Look at motorcyclists, and then look at the pack of soy boys who live for their little bikes. Hilarious.

There's a good reason when somebody says, "Don't go in there, it's a biker bar," they don't mean "It's a bicycle bar."

I'll grant that in rare circumstances a protective gun is reasonable.

That's all I'm saying. And you can be quite sure you haven't foreseen what all such circumstances are.

[Alexiev]

Yeah, right! Not a chance. Look at motorcyclists, and then look at the pack of soy boys who live for their little bikes. Hilarious.

There's a good reason when somebody says, "Don't go in there, it's a biker bar," they don't mean "It's a bicycle bar."

I'm sure the Hells Angels agree with you. Perhaps, however, we should not consider them to be authorities. Some people think muscular athleticism is more manly than flabby, sedentary inactivity. Not you, apparently.

[Alexiev]

One more thing:

My knowledge of The Hells Angels comes from Hunter Thompson's famous book. One cardinal rule: if any Angel gets in a fight, all others are required to join in.

Is this the "manly" behavior of which you approve? Is bullying manly? Of course biker bars are dangerous given the penchant bikers seem to have for bullying and ganging up. But I doubt really manly men (Lancelot or Roland, perhaps) would approve.

[Immanuel Can]

Some people think muscular athleticism is more manly than flabby, sedentary inactivity. Not you, apparently.

My claim is much simpler: men who are not afraid of firearms, and who can handle them responsibily, are better men than those who are more timorous and cannot even be trusted to do so.

[Alexiev]

Some people think muscular athleticism is more manly than flabby, sedentary inactivity. Not you, apparently.

My claim is much simpler: men who are not afraid of firearms, and who can handle them responsibily, are better men than those who are more timorous and cannot even be trusted to do so.

"Better"? Of course such men are more capable in a particular way. So are those capable of riding 100 miles a day on a bicycle. Yet you don't call them "better", despite the value of physical conditioning, which far exceeds the value of familiarity with firearms.

Who is "timorous"? The coward willing to shoot a person threatening his property? Or the bold individual willing to confront the thief unarmed?

The notion that those who eschew firearms are "timorous" is so clearly incorrect, illogical, and directly contradictory to the truth that it hardly merits refutation.

[Immanuel Can]

Who is "timorous"?

You said a man who responsibly handles firearms and provides for the protection of his family is.

I just think that's manifestly untrue.

[Alexiev]

Who is "timorous"?

You said a man who responsibly handles firearms and provides for the protection of his family is.

I just think that's manifestly untrue.

I'll grant it's a stretch. Still, given that the man who has personal protection guns is actually endangering his family (suicides, accidental shootings, domestic violence, or an intruder finding the gun), it is cowardly to irrationally own a pp firearm.

Of course everyone thinks he or she is "responsible" and will not fall victim to the dangers listed above. However, the statistics show many of them are wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

Who is "timorous"?

You said a man who responsibly handles firearms and provides for the protection of his family is.

I just think that's manifestly untrue.

I'll grant it's a stretch.

It certainly is. And a quick scan of the internet will be enough to prove to you that real men are not afraid to manage tools...of which a gun is merely one, and a useful one for all sorts of applications...not the least of which is defending one's home and loved ones against aggression.

Still, given that the man who has personal protection guns is actually endangering his family (suicides, accidental shootings, domestic violence, or an intruder finding the gun), it is cowardly to irrationally own a pp firearm.

You're misrepresenting the situation. I'm talking about responsible gun ownership, and you're talking about irresponsible or abusive ownership.

Nobody's going to defend the latter.

But you are making an old mistake: that of thinking that if we just get rid of the instruments some can use for suicides, or domestic violence, or whatever, that we're going to reduce or eliminate suicides or domestic violence. That's a non-sequitur. If Ia man wants to kill himself, there are bridges, knives, toxins, nooses, tall buildings, pools of water, cars, freight trains and subways...ways to do it aplenty, none of which you can ban or control, and most of which have zero to do with firearms. And if a person wishes to harm their spouse, there are fists, blunt objects, poisons, cutlery, glass bottles, belts...

Social pathologies have to do with what's wrong with people, with their intentions and actions toward themselves and others, and their impulses. Guns are just a tool. Like a bow, a knife, a saw, a rope...they can be used for many things.

[Alexiev]

If we eliminate personal protection firearms we will surely reduce accidental deaths, domestic violence that results in murder, and (probably) successful suicides.

We will probably reduce road rage shootings and any number of other murders and manslaughters. That is beside the point, though. The point is that only a coward is so fearful as to think he needs to protect himself with a gun. Who is that lily-livered? Are red blooded American males really scared of their own shadows?

Good grief! Buck up, Amercan men. Live proudly in your own homes without quaking in terror! Get rid of your guns, security cameras and pit bulls! Life is safer than it has ever been (despite an occasional mass shooting). You needn't buy your manhood at a gun store. You could merely decide not to be afraid.

[Immanuel Can]

If we eliminate personal protection firearms we will surely reduce accidental deaths, domestic violence that results in murder, and (probably) successful suicides.

Ummm...no. None of the above.

There is only the chance that we will change the means to some of these things. There's no reason to suspect we'll change the number.

The point is that only a coward is so fearful as to think he needs to protect himself with a gun.

Do you know what an "ad hominem" fallacy is?

Apparently not.

But the number of real men who have...and even enjoy using...guns puts the lie to any such nonsense.

[Alexiev]

If we eliminate personal protection firearms we will surely reduce accidental deaths, domestic violence that results in murder, and (probably) successful suicides.

Ummm...no. None of the above.

There is only the chance that we will change the means to some of these things. There's no reason to suspect we'll change the number.

The point is that only a coward is so fearful as to think he needs to protect himself with a gun.

Do you know what an "ad hominem" fallacy is?

Apparently not.

But the number of real men who have...and even enjoy using...guns puts the lie to any such nonsense.

The research and common sense support me, not you. Domestic violence is clearly more likely to be fatal when firearms are involved, as are suicide attempts and household accidents involving children. Simply denying the obvious does not constitute an argument. Of course murders and suicides can be committed by other means, but the statistics clearly show guns make such attempts more deadly.

Plenty of "real men" own personal protection guns. Plenty of real men are cowardly. Most real men who own pp guns are craven, faint-hearted alarmists. Why else would they endanger their families?

[Immanuel Can]

The research and common sense support me, not you.

They don't, actually. Empirical facts show what I'm saying is true. Go and look. Bicycle boys are a bunch of nancies in overly-tight pants; you'll find the real mean moving heavy equipment around, doing dangerous jobs, driving motorized vehicles, building things, and using firearms.

[Alexiev]

The research and common sense support me, not you.

They don't, actually. Empirical facts show what I'm saying is true. Go and look. Bicycle boys are a bunch of nancies in overly-tight pants; you'll find the real mean moving heavy equipment around, doing dangerous jobs, driving motorized vehicles, building things, and using firearms.

"Elinor agree with it all, because she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition." Jane Austen. Sense and Sensibility. (from memory)

[LuckyR]

If we eliminate personal protection firearms we will surely reduce accidental deaths, domestic violence that results in murder, and (probably) successful suicides.

We will probably reduce road rage shootings and any number of other murders and manslaughters. That is beside the point, though. The point is that only a coward is so fearful as to think he needs to protect himself with a gun. Who is that lily-livered? Are red blooded American males really scared of their own shadows?

Good grief! Buck up, Amercan men. Live proudly in your own homes without quaking in terror! Get rid of your guns, security cameras and pit bulls! Life is safer than it has ever been (despite an occasional mass shooting). You needn't buy your manhood at a gun store. You could merely decide not to be afraid.

Half truths are as misleading as lies. A huge number of guns in the US are in the groups of hunting, target and offensively killing guns, as opposed to defensive, personal protection guns. Though while your analysis of that particular subset has some merit, I am not aware of a legally binding way to distinguish between the groups. Thus the "ban" idea is impractical since a 100% ban has little to no legislative or even popular support.

Home invasions are a thing, but to the average citizen, they are a vanishingly statistically unlikely thing. Whereas making suicide more deathly is the main risk of gun ownership, though accidental deaths are especially tragic, though nowhere near as numerous. If you live where home invasion might happen, your best bet is moving, not gun buying. If you are living your life where there is a statistical chance of someone trying to kill YOU (specifically), go ahead buy a gun, but you already made your error by living your life that way.

I definitely wouldn't badmouth cameras and alarms, they don't kill folks and have probably thwarted way more crime than all of the guns in existence (since that's what they're designed to do), unlike guns, which generally address crimes (in the unlikely event that they fulfill that function) after they have been committed.