Is Gun Hysteria a Guy Thing?

Is Gun Hysteria a Guy Thing?

Posted in the Lewis Center Forum

First Prev
of 32
Next Last

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#1 Jan 30, 2013
From Huffington Post. Excerpted from an editorial by Matthew Chapman:

"I am pretty sure I can predict the outcome of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on guns today. Reason will not prevail. Nowhere in America is anyone proposing a serious ban on weapons, yet gun lovers squeal in hysterical fear and frighten everyone else. It must be a form of Infantile Castration Anxiety. "Please don't take my ickle shooter, daddy." How else can you explain this overreaction to a public health problem that's been solved in so many other places? Looked at rationally, even the most stringent gun proposals barely qualify as circumcision let alone the full snip (or the Big G as they call it in the gelding fraternity). No, this is an irrational fear, and unless it is understood as such, men and boys will keep on shooting people."

----------

"It is interesting -- and supportive of my castration anxiety theory -- that the physically weaker half of the population, women and girls, tend to be much less strident about guns than men. Apart from a few shrieking NRA transvestites (I think), most women seem to be either silent, reasonable, or in favor of more gun control. Perhaps they know that a gun in the house raises the likelihood of their getting shot and killed by a factor of 3.4, and that ninety percent of the time their killer will not be a stranger breaking into their house in the dead of night but someone they know.(To be shot by the man of the house holding the gun that was bought to defend the woman of the house from the stranger breaking into the house... talk about irony.)

"Facing death by man-plus-gun, but at least not feeling their "femismo" threatened by weapon-loss, women appear to view gun violence more calmly and more expansively. They are afraid, naturally, but want more permanent solutions to their vulnerability than the brief, unearned power-rush endowed by the gamble of picking up a gun."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-chapman...

I am certain that there are women who post here who disagree. But, there does seem to be an unaccountable attraction to guns and posturing in response to the merest specter of their regulation that does not respond to logic.

And, it looks to me to be the same factor in operation whether it is otherwise powerless gang-bangers in the hood, or mild-mannered Walter Mitty types in the burbs.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#2 Jan 30, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
From Huffington Post. Excerpted from an editorial by Matthew Chapman...victim of leftist pansi-fication:....
And now, a return to the real word:

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/16/...

Gun sales are booming, and women are a big part of the reason why.

The Daily Beast reports on the National Rifle Association getting in touch with its feminine side at its annual convention. Companies sell all sort of things: pink firearms, guns that are small enough to fit in a small purse, black and pink shooting targets and even a bra holster.

As the inventor of the Flashbang Women's Holster tells The Daily Beast: "Nothing comes between a girl and her gun."

Of course if you're carrying a gun there, you want to be doubly sure the safety is on. The National Sporting Goods Association says nearly 47% more women are shooting today compared with 10 years ago, and a Gallup Poll last year found almost one in four American women own at least one gun.

The number of women at NRA shooting clinics has skyrocketed in the last decade. Gun ranges hold ladies' nights and enrollment in one women's conceal-carry class in Oklahoma is reportedly up 400%.

Female gun enthusiasts give different reasons for the spike in ownership. Some cite security while others say it's an extension of gender equality. The NRA denies it's going after women over any other demographic group. They say they want everyone to be a member of the NRA.

Overall, gun sales are way up in the U.S., with big profits for gun makers such as Smith & Wesson.

Some say the trend is because of fears of a second Obama term and a potential tightening on gun restrictions. Others say a weaker economy makes people feel unsafe.

***

And...as regards that economy...it's not getting any better.
And women continue to buy guns.

Since: Sep 10

wheelersburg

#3 Jan 30, 2013
we the day comes when big brother imposes something
on you that you don't passionately agree with
I hope you have the balls to stand up for yourself,

I WILL STAND UP FOR YOU TODAY!!!

GOD BLESS AMERICA!! PS, HAVE A GOOD DAY.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#4 Jan 30, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
And now, a return to the real word:
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/16/...
Gun sales are booming, and women are a big part of the reason why.
The Daily Beast reports on the National Rifle Association getting in touch with its feminine side at its annual convention. Companies sell all sort of things: pink firearms, guns that are small enough to fit in a small purse, black and pink shooting targets and even a bra holster.
.
Ah, yes. And Nancy Reagan had a ladylike little gun.

I won't go all Freudian on speculating on this stuff as it regards to women.

But, you have to admit. LaPierre is peddling hysteria, and far more men than women seem to be buying.

Why is that?

Since: Sep 10

wheelersburg

#5 Jan 30, 2013
WHEN THE DAY COMES) go out now and be happy!!!!

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#6 Jan 30, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, yes. And Nancy Reagan had a ladylike little gun.
I won't go all Freudian on speculating on this stuff as it regards to women.
But, you have to admit. LaPierre is peddling hysteria, and far more men than women seem to be buying.
Why is that?
And many "ladylike little gun[s]" have been a tool of self-defense in the hands of a grateful woman.

Further, what is termed "hysteria" in Leftist World is simply cause-and-effect in the real world. When government begins to encroach on citizens' rights, citizens respond accordingly.

Remember the run on incandescent bulbs?
Cause and effect.
IonU

Columbus, OH

#7 Jan 30, 2013
FKA are you really that sure?

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#8 Jan 30, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
And many "ladylike little gun[s]" have been a tool of self-defense in the hands of a grateful woman.
Further, what is termed "hysteria" in Leftist World is simply cause-and-effect in the real world. When government begins to encroach on citizens' rights, citizens respond accordingly.
Remember the run on incandescent bulbs?
Cause and effect.
The NRA is fighting a battle against stuff that nobody is proposing. And it remains to be seen how much of what has been proposed can make it into law.

The thing about hysteria is that it is easy to whip up excitement that leads to action. Just not always the wisest action.

Remember Y2K?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#9 Jan 30, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
The NRA is fighting a battle against stuff that nobody is proposing. And it remains to be seen how much of what has been proposed can make it into law.
The thing about hysteria is that it is easy to whip up excitement that leads to action. Just not always the wisest action.
Remember Y2K?
You've been provided links wherein elected officials are proposing and predicting more stringent gun control measures than those currently on the table.

I used the word "encroach" for a reason.

en-croach

1: to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another

Liberties rarely disappear in a day.
The wise prepare.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#10 Jan 30, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You've been provided links wherein elected officials are proposing and predicting more stringent gun control measures than those currently on the table.
I used the word "encroach" for a reason.
en-croach
1: to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another
Liberties rarely disappear in a day.
The wise prepare.
The link(s) indicated that Cuomo allowed for a broad range of possibilities to be put on the table.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#11 Jan 30, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
The link(s) indicated that Cuomo allowed for a broad range of possibilities to be put on the table.
As you know, Cuomo's unconstitutional actions haven't been the sole actions discussed.
But, carry on. I know you will.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#12 Jan 30, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
And many "ladylike little gun[s]" have been a tool of self-defense in the hands of a grateful woman.
Of course, there is a bit of a problem producing data to support that notion.

Meanwhile, Mother Jones has taken on the mythology of good guys with guns being the only thing to stop bad guys with guns in the mass shooting arena:

"As many commentators noted, it was particularly callous of the NRA to double down on its long-standing proposal to fight gun violence with more guns while parents in Newtown were burying their first graders. But more importantly, the NRA's argument is bereft of supporting evidence. A closer look reveals that their case for arming Americans against mass shooters is nothing more than a cynical ideological talking point—one dressed up in appeals to heroism and the defense of constitutional freedom, and wholly reliant on misdirection and half truths. If only Sandy Hook's principal had been packing heat, the argument goes, she could've stopped the mass killer. There's just one little problem with this: Not a single one of the 62 mass shootings we studied in our investigation has been stopped this way—even as the nation has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of recent laws has made it easier than ever for ordinary citizens to carry them in public places, including bars, parks, and schools.

"Gun rights die-hards claim the Portland mall shooter saw an armed good guy—who ran for cover instead of firing—and promptly shot himself dead. Obviously.Attempts by armed citizens to stop shooters are rare. At least two such attempts in recent years ended badly, with the would-be good guys gravely wounded or killed. Meanwhile, the five cases most commonly cited as instances of regular folks stopping massacres fall apart under scrutiny: Either they didn't involve ordinary citizens taking action—those who intervened were actually cops, trained security officers, or military personnel—or the citizens took action after the shooting rampages appeared to have already ended.(Or in some cases, both.)"

"For their part, law enforcement officials overwhelmingly hate the idea of armed civilians getting involved. As a senior FBI agent told me, it would make their jobs more difficult if they had to figure out which of the shooters at an active crime scene was the bad guy. And while they train rigorously for responding in confined and chaotic situations, the danger to innocent bystanders from ordinary civilians whipping out firearms is obvious. Exhibit A: the gun-wielding citizen who admitted to coming within a split second of shooting an innocent person as the Tucson massacre unfolded, after initially mistaking that person for the killer, Jared Loughner."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/n...

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#13 Jan 30, 2013
IonU wrote:
FKA are you really that sure?
About what?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#14 Jan 30, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, there is a bit of a problem producing data to support that notion.
Meanwhile, Mother Jones has taken on the mythology of good guys with guns being the only thing to stop bad guys with guns in the mass shooting arena:
"As many commentators noted, it was particularly callous of the NRA to double down on its long-standing proposal to fight gun violence with more guns while parents in Newtown were burying their first graders. But more importantly, the NRA's argument is bereft of supporting evidence. A closer look reveals that their case for arming Americans against mass shooters is nothing more than a cynical ideological talking point—one dressed up in appeals to heroism and the defense of constitutional freedom, and wholly reliant on misdirection and half truths. If only Sandy Hook's principal had been packing heat, the argument goes, she could've stopped the mass killer. There's just one little problem with this: Not a single one of the 62 mass shootings we studied in our investigation has been stopped this way—even as the nation has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of recent laws has made it easier than ever for ordinary citizens to carry them in public places, including bars, parks, and schools.
"Gun rights die-hards claim the Portland mall shooter saw an armed good guy—who ran for cover instead of firing—and promptly shot himself dead. Obviously.Attempts by armed citizens to stop shooters are rare. At least two such attempts in recent years ended badly, with the would-be good guys gravely wounded or killed. Meanwhile, the five cases most commonly cited as instances of regular folks stopping massacres fall apart under scrutiny: Either they didn't involve ordinary citizens taking action—those who intervened were actually cops, trained security officers, or military personnel—or the citizens took action after the shooting rampages appeared to have already ended.(Or in some cases, both.)"
"For their part, law enforcement officials overwhelmingly hate the idea of armed civilians getting involved. As a senior FBI agent told me, it would make their jobs more difficult if they had to figure out which of the shooters at an active crime scene was the bad guy. And while they train rigorously for responding in confined and chaotic situations, the danger to innocent bystanders from ordinary civilians whipping out firearms is obvious. Exhibit A: the gun-wielding citizen who admitted to coming within a split second of shooting an innocent person as the Tucson massacre unfolded, after initially mistaking that person for the killer, Jared Loughner."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/n...
Sure, Reader. Why don't I provide an opinion from Heritage Foundation supporting the exact opposite?

It's irrelevant.
Every American whose life has been saved by his or her own act of armed self-defense vehemently disagrees with your position -- most recently and notably, the Georgia mom who ably protected her twins and herself from a home invader.

It's a constitutional right.
You and Mother Jones are going to have to get over it.
Catman Dave

Chardon, OH

#15 Jan 30, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You've been provided links wherein elected officials are proposing and predicting more stringent gun control measures than those currently on the table.
I used the word "encroach" for a reason.
en-croach
1: to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another
Liberties rarely disappear in a day.
The wise prepare.
These people just dont get what will happen when the economy collapses and people start robbing other people just to live.It's going to happen.It's happening right now.I am prepared,and if others aren't,thats their problem because there were plenty of warnings here.
NoBama NoBama NoBama

Springfield, OH

#16 Jan 30, 2013
Guns will be needed to oppose Barack Hussein's "final solution" for Whites. Remember that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Barack will not stop until he fulfills the dream of this real father.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#17 Jan 30, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, Reader. Why don't I provide an opinion from Heritage Foundation supporting the exact opposite?
It's irrelevant.
Every American whose life has been saved by his or her own act of armed self-defense vehemently disagrees with your position -- most recently and notably, the Georgia mom who ably protected her twins and herself from a home invader.
It's a constitutional right.
You and Mother Jones are going to have to get over it.
So, where is the data?

Are you arguing with their finding with regard to the outcome of the mass shootings that they studied (as defined by the FBI)? Can you substantiate that the presence of armed citizens (or even armed and trained guards) was responsible for bringing any of them to an end, or limited the carnage in any way?

And what does Heritage have to say?

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#18 Jan 30, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, yes. And Nancy Reagan had a ladylike little gun.
I won't go all Freudian on speculating on this stuff as it regards to women.
But, you have to admit. LaPierre is peddling hysteria, and far more men than women seem to be buying.
Why is that?
http://fuckyeahlibertarian.tumblr.com/image/7...

Reader, the USSR fell in 1991, and I intend on keeping it that way.

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#19 Jan 30, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
The NRA is fighting a battle against stuff that nobody is proposing. And it remains to be seen how much of what has been proposed can make it into law.
The thing about hysteria is that it is easy to whip up excitement that leads to action. Just not always the wisest action.
Remember Y2K?
Proposing?

There are piles of bills filed in Congress, and a reduction to 1836 technology in New York.

This is real

http://membership.nrahq.org/

“Tenured Marxist Radical”

Since: Jan 13

Ivy League-ISIS

#20 Jan 30, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
F Apart from a few shrieking NRA transvestites (I think), most women seem to be either silent, reasonable, or in favor of more gun control.
Yup, disagree with the left, and the "tolerance" goes away...

And that isn't mentioning the bashing of (white) suburban males, because the left does not believe we have the rights to SELF DETERMINATION.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 32
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lewis Center Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Federal lands in America 2 min Seriouslady 51
States to sue WH over Bathrooms debacle 14 min Pope Che Reagan C... 9
News Ward system reduces representation 22 min Contrarian 3
News Port Columbus airport could soon be renamed for... 28 min Reality Speaks 10
News 23-member panel to propose levy amount for Colu... 36 min Reality Speaks 1
Update: Suing Saudis for 9-11 made easier by 11... 38 min Beentheredonethat 2
If I "identify" as a dog, can I use the bathroo... 1 hr haha 4
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Lewis Center Mortgages