The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[MaryKB]

It's a fact, and I'm not a man.

 

[cardgame]

It's a fact.

No, it's illogical and irrational

 

[Commodore]

It's a fact, and I'm not a man.

You've never seen The Big Lebowski have you?

 

[MaryKB]

I have? What's your point?

You guys sure are defensive about having your death-sticks though ...

 

[Commodore]

You guys sure are defensive about having your death-sticks though ...

Isn't that the drug that one dude tried to sell Obi-Wan in Attack of the Clones?

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: This is getting a little heated (or is about to be). May I ask that you all dial it back before we get a full blown argument? Thank you.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This observation is not being made to turn up the heat on the argument, or to take a side in the argument. It's just something that occurred to me during the argument.

Guns are portrayed as an equalizer. They allow people who are less physically imposing, or less trained, or whatever, to believe that they will "hold their own" in a confrontation should someone else make it necessary for them to do so. I've acknowledged the legitimacy of such thinking before and I will again here. I personally could serve as an example in some people's "why I need a gun" story, and I have never been an advocate of the entire "you gotta fight 'fair'" nonsense. If I'm threatening someone and using size and abilities they just don't have to do it and they shoot me, shame on me, not them.

But it does seem strange that I strongly believe that what Mary said is accurate: the people driving this aspect of the argument seem to almost always be male. If this argument holds intrinsic validity, why is it not widely embraced by women, who are certainly far more widely "in need of equalizers" than most of the people making the argument?

 

[El_Machinae]

When I attended the gun forums, especially the ones devoted to the Second Amendment, I would say there is a fairly strong female presence.

In terms of membership ratio, not very impressive. But with regards to vocalness, I would say that much better than this forum

 

[Commodore]

, why is it not widely embraced by women, who are certainly far more widely "in need of equalizers" than most of the people making the argument

Well, firearm ownership among women is increasing, so while they may not be shouting in the street about it, it does seem like the idea of gun ownership is being more widely embraced by women.

 

[MaryKB]

When I attended the gun forums, especially the ones devoted to the Second Amendment, I would say there is a fairly strong female presence.

In terms of membership ratio, not very impressive. But with regards to vocalness, I would say that much better than this forum

Guys bring their wives? Looking at statistics, it's common for men to be the only death-stick owner in their homes, and the opposite is true for women. The vast majority of women who own death-sticks do so when their husband owns them.

How often do women use a death-stick against a person? Compare to how often men do.

@Timsup2nothin is showing my point above: you can come up with all sorts of "rationalizations," but they're all false. None of it holds up under any kind of scrutiny. It's all just a cover for a (primarily male) emotional need to want to possess something that can kill and destroy.

 

[zxcvbob]

Isn't that the drug that one dude tried to sell Obi-Wan in Attack of the Clones?

I think she's talking about cigarettes.

 

[Farm Boy]

who are certainly far more widely "in need of equalizers" than most of the people making the argument?

Depends. They're smaller, generally, yes. But they're more likely to be hurt by somebody they love, rather than some random *******. Probably impacts, unfortunately here, how willing people are to consider the tools of violence when their use would be appropriate. Sorta that blind spot with the church shooting and nonviolent people you and I covered, back when? Also, I think you're mistaken and El Mac is closer on the ratios.

Either way, we need more hunters. Like for real for stewardship of deer populations. The social stigma against doing the dirty work and letting less civilized or whatever people do it is... unfortunate. Let's call it unfortunate.

I think she's talking about cigarettes.

Probably. It's one of those realms at the moment where you're allowed to be righteous while demanding punitive and regressive taxation. So, perfect.

 

[cardgame]

This observation is not being made to turn up the heat on the argument, or to take a side in the argument. It's just something that occurred to me during the argument.

Guns are portrayed as an equalizer. They allow people who are less physically imposing, or less trained, or whatever, to believe that they will "hold their own" in a confrontation should someone else make it necessary for them to do so. I've acknowledged the legitimacy of such thinking before and I will again here. I personally could serve as an example in some people's "why I need a gun" story, and I have never been an advocate of the entire "you gotta fight 'fair'" nonsense. If I'm threatening someone and using size and abilities they just don't have to do it and they shoot me, shame on me, not them.

But it does seem strange that I strongly believe that what Mary said is accurate: the people driving this aspect of the argument seem to almost always be male. If this argument holds intrinsic validity, why is it not widely embraced by women, who are certainly far more widely "in need of equalizers" than most of the people making the argument?

Women are not involved in the violence enough to see this as a motivator, perhaps. Very few people are going to intentionally threaten/intimidate a woman with physical violence, as compared to men - and most rapists are close to the victim, not strangers. It's also not usually done with physical force but rather threats, blackmail, what have you - things guns don't really protect against. There may also be some very broad-level societal agency perception going on? I feel really half-cocked going into that, but there might be something there. Like buying into the societal ideal of 'men are the people who use the guns, men will protect me if it comes to that kind of scenario' deal perhaps. Not consciously involved, but something subsumed by cultural osmosis. The final cherry on this icing is that society does still hold violence against women in taboo, but violence against men is very normal.

How often do women use a death-stick against a person? Compare to how often men do.

I'm sure you're holding this up to paint the picture that men are trigger happy - and to an extent, you're right (certainly obvious when it comes to US policemen). But this can also be turned around against you - there is a US policewoman I am thinking of in particular, IIRC, had a very clear, very justified shooting opportunity that she didn't take, and she paid for it with her life, because she was concerned about being the trigger-happy cop trope as opposed to survival.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm sure you're holding this up to paint the picture that men are trigger happy - and to an extent, you're right (certainly obvious when it comes to US policemen). But this can also be turned around against you - there is a US policewoman I am thinking of in particular, IIRC, had a very clear, very justified shooting opportunity that she didn't take, and she paid for it with her life, because she was concerned about being the trigger-happy cop trope as opposed to survival.

Could be something in this observation that the people least in need of an equalizer are the most trigger happy gun wielders there are...

 

[Berzerker]

Guys bring their wives? Looking at statistics, it's common for men to be the only death-stick owner in their homes, and the opposite is true for women. The vast majority of women who own death-sticks do so when their husband owns them.

How often do women use a death-stick against a person? Compare to how often men do.

@Timsup2nothin is showing my point above: you can come up with all sorts of "rationalizations," but they're all false. None of it holds up under any kind of scrutiny. It's all just a cover for a (primarily male) emotional need to want to possess something that can kill and destroy.

it was a male who touched the monolith millions of years ago and his first invention was a club

 

[Arwon]

This observation is not being made to turn up the heat on the argument, or to take a side in the argument. It's just something that occurred to me during the argument.

Guns are portrayed as an equalizer. They allow people who are less physically imposing, or less trained, or whatever, to believe that they will "hold their own" in a confrontation should someone else make it necessary for them to do so. I've acknowledged the legitimacy of such thinking before and I will again here. I personally could serve as an example in some people's "why I need a gun" story, and I have never been an advocate of the entire "you gotta fight 'fair'" nonsense. If I'm threatening someone and using size and abilities they just don't have to do it and they shoot me, shame on me, not them.

But it does seem strange that I strongly believe that what Mary said is accurate: the people driving this aspect of the argument seem to almost always be male. If this argument holds intrinsic validity, why is it not widely embraced by women, who are certainly far more widely "in need of equalizers" than most of the people making the argument?

The starting point here has to be remembering that the sentiment is not strictly rational. Just from a statistical point of view, the risks and odds don't line up in such a way that it's clear cut safer to have a gun around you at all times, in all the personal safety situations a person might face. There's plenty of times it'll be useless or directly make things worse (most obviously, the numbers say people with a gun in their home are far more likely to see it involved in hurting themselves or a loved one rather than some nasty intruding stranger).

So instead, you're left with, basically, feelings, culture and imagination as the determinants of whether a person buys into that self defence logic. Presumably those subjective factors make men a lot more likely to imagine themselves safer carrying a loaded firearm everywhere. I can think of a few reasons why men in western culture might be more prone to believing themselves to be invincible hyper-capable protagonists than women, I suspect others can too.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I can think of a few reasons why men in western culture might be more prone to believing themselves to be invincible hyper-capable protagonists than women, I suspect others can too.

Sure, but that was kind of the root of my question. I think most men, with their usual testosterone distorted perception of reality, should be pretty easily lead to the conclusion that they are such hyper-capable protagonists that they shouldn't have any need for a gun. In practice though it does not seem to work that way. In fact, it seems the opposite. The more objective evidence accumulates that an individual doesn't need a gun in order to be a jerk, and the more clearly inclined the person is to be arrogant about their capacity to defend themselves, the more it seems they are inclined towards the "I need a gun to keep even" position.

 

[Farm Boy]

It is, indeed, easy to agree that people do not require a gun to be insufferable and aggressive jackasses.

Not so sure about the rest. Get the feeling the worst of the worst are more than happy to demand other people do it for them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Get the feeling the worst of the worst are more than happy to demand other people do it for them.

You mean they call the cops?

 

[Farm Boy]

Demand laws that are draconian, etc. Yes. General yuppie suburbia would be my unfair assessment. Repo men, evictions, condemnations, institutional fun of all flavors.