Julia Gorin on anti-gun males — this is a keeper
*This was first published six years ago in Jewish World Review. It
bears reminding. Her last paragraph perfectly describes liberal
The anti-gun male *
*http://www.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.
The Second Amendment IS Homeland Security !