by Michael
Is there really any rational basis for the idea of gun control? Or is it just adesperate grasping for some kind of symbolic control after an outbreak of massviolence? Or is it something even deeper? On its face the idea of gun control isridiculous. Conservatives, libertarians and gun enthusiasts have been making thesame basic points for years whenever the issue comes up in response to whateverthe latest mass shooting incident happens to be. The fact that therewill be such incidents is a social inevitability atthis point.
The simple argument is that whatever the latest mass murderhappens to be, it was the act of a deranged or vengeful criminal and law abidingfolks ought not be deprived of their means of recreation and self defense forthe crimes of another. Such shooting rampages inevitably happen in areas wherethe shooter is the only armed individual and thus faces no resistance.Criminals, and particularly those driven enough to carry out such a rampage,will find a way to arm themselves one way or the other no matter what the lawmay be. Gun restrictions would only leave the law abiding defenseless againstsuch psychopaths. Some even assert that the proper response ought to be puttingmore guns in more hands rather than vice-versa.
Some of these points have merit, and some may bestretching it, but the fact remains that gun control is just damned impractical.It cannot actually be done with anything close to the degree of effectivenessthat the liberal fanatics would wish. There are hundreds of millions of firearmsin private hands in the US. The culture of gun ownership is a part of the fabricof society in areas outside of the liberal havens of the northeast. Any attemptto ban or restrict guns will inevitably lead to far more social unrest andpotential violence than it would ever solve. Even if one finds this distasteful,it is the only conclusion that can be drawn based on a sober assessment ofreality.
Yet the issue is still pushed with religious fervor by the truebelievers and social crusaders. Gun rights groups and gun owners are cast asevil accomplices to murder by these do-gooders merely for engaging in pro-gunadvocacy. Such was the case earlier today when members of thewomen’s protest group “CodePink” — a sort of liberal, feminist version of the Westboro BaptistChurch — interrupted an NRA press conference by screaming slogans andunfurling a banner accusing the NRA of guilt by proxy in the recent schoolkillings.
How to explain this? Why such hysterics over the NRA, a fairlymoderate and mainstream group by most standards?Do these women really thinkthat they can stop such outbreaks of violence merely by passing some pettybureaucratic measures, all the while continuing to hide their heads in the sandabout the real social roots of the “mass shooter”phenomenon?
The answer is that killings and violence are not reallythe issue as far as the deeper impulses and desires these women have to ban orrestrict access to firearms. The fact that it was a feminist group protestingthe NRA is not an accident. Gun control is an issue that has historically beenpushed by feminist and women’s groups. It comes down to the psychologicalroots of feminism and the desperate need of such women to control, manage andlimit male agency. Essentially gun control is an attempt to perform a symboliccastration of all men in society, in particular those men that would outwardlymanifest strength and a will to power by owning a gun, being committed to selfdefense and engaging in hunting or sportsmanship with firearms.
A gun isan obvious symbol of male power, sexuality and virility. This is the real reasonwhy the gun issue is such an emotional flashpoint for feminists and prompts themto frantic outbursts such as the one at the NRA press conference. Unfortunatelyas our society gets ever more feminized, as masculinity is ever moremarginalized and the traditional male virtues of strength, agency and vitalityare ever more demonized, a growing number of virtually cuckolded liberal betamales can be expected to fall in line with this agenda and willingly castratethemselves on the altar of feminism. And of course in a democracy politiciansare all too willing to indulge this sort of movement in exchange forpower.
In a 1994 research paper titled “Sex and Guns:Is Gun Control Male Control?” Canadian sociologist H. Taylor Bucknerdocumented three surveys he conducted of his undergraduate students concerningtheir attitudes on guns and gun control. He concludedthat:
…students who were pro gun control were also prohomosexual, pro censorship of pornography, and not experienced withguns.
and that:
…men and women havedifferent patterns of motivation for being pro gun control. The men who favorgun control are those who reject traditional male roles and behavior. They areopposed to hunting, are pro homosexual, do not have any experience with orknowledge of guns and tend to have “politically correct” attitudes.The women who support gun control do so in the context of controlling maleviolence and sexuality. Gun control is thus symbolic of a realignment of therelation between the sexes.
One of the exercises in thesurvey invited students to do a sentence completion exercise to express in theirown words their feelings on guns, gun owners, gun clubs and hunting Theresponses are revealing:
When I think of Gun Clubs, Ithink… (female, unfavorable)
People who seek power/control…Boys trying to prove their value… No guns whatsoever should be allowedanywhere… I am totally against those clubs, first of all guns should notexist, only purpose is killing people and animals… Violent men with aviolent pastime… Men collected there to show off their strength and womenwho go along with it… Of heartless men and wonder about why they attendthose clubs; I hate gun clubs… Fear, unacceptable activity… Men whohave something to prove by acting “macho.” They are dangerous tosociety and to themselves… Masochistic people who have to live their livesbehind a gun in fear… Kinky, weird people… Ignorance,uneducated… Power through sick minds. Violence.
Thepsychology here should be apparent. The idea of powerful males or malesexpressing some sort of dominance, even if only in imagination, is clearlydistressing to these women. Their immediate response is to want to control itand shut it down, to appeal to a higher power to enforce the rules on thosenaughty men and boys. The general hostility and suspicion with which feministsregard male only or “boys club” type social spaces is also atplay.
To further hammer home the point that the desire for gun control isessentially irrational and not based on any facts or real world knowledgeBuckner tested the students on their own personal knowledge and experience withguns and then correlated those results with their attitudes on gun control. Hefound:
Less than 1% knew that there is a five year penalty foran unregistered handgun (the most frequent guess was a $500 fine). Only 6% knewthat handguns account for less than 20% of the murders in Canada (most guessedthat it was around two-thirds, as in the U.S.). Only 11% knew the differencebetween a rifle and a shotgun. Thirty-two percent knew that the magazine of agun does not have a trigger. Figure 5 shows,knowledge of the subject is not widespread. Pro gun control attitudes do notappear to depend on knowledge or rationality.
Figure 6 The lessknowledge of and experience with guns a student has the more pro gun controlthey are. In fact, the more experience and knowledge one has of guns the lowerthe support for gun control.
It is clear from these resultsthat the gun control attitude is not an informed opinion that one comes to aftersober reflection and analysis. Rather is a product of ignorance, irrational fearand the desire to control and manage what is perceived as the threat of out ofcontrol male sexuality and agency. Gun control is castration.