Why are men so preoccupied with guns?  Do women have such concerns?

53 responses total.

I think NIN explained it best in "Big Man with a Gun" -- the gun is
the most obvious phallus around.  Shoot shoot shoot shoot Shoot shoot
shoot shoot.

Do you think certain types of men are attracted to guns?  Also, I never knew
any women attracted to guns (although I am sure there are some).  I wonder
what the Male:Female membership ratio is for the NRA.

I dunno, my wife seems to like guns more than I do.  I think it's because it
was was something that her father let her share with him...  He's a shmuck for
the most part, but he liked thaking her target shooting.

The Freudian would say that men who like guns are compensating for a
perceived lack of masculine... ahem... anatomy, but I think that's probly
bull.  Interesting to know what does interest certain men in guns,
though.

A need to control, perhaps?

I know several gun enthusiasts, and they, like most other 
loosely linked "groups" of people are very different from each other:

Once likes guns for their artistic and functional beauty:  he is
a collector first and foremost.

Another sees guns as a necessary self-protection device.

A couple of others see guns as a necessary appendage, like a belt.
They were raised in areas where you have a belt, a gun, and a hat.  Just
like wearing shoes, shirts, and pants.  

I see some of these last group as very insecure people who alos in
other"ways try to overcompensate for perceived inadequacies, so I don't
know if the gun ties into that.

Where are these areas where people wear a belt, a gun, and a hat
instead of shoes, shirts, and pants?  "Perceived inadequacies" are
probably the least of their problems.

(I never said instead of; I said "just like"--of equal 
importance).

<simcha envisions the lone ranger wearing a belt,a gun, and a hat, 
but no pants...as he tries to cover himself by holding his hat like a fig
leaf!>

Men traditionally have evolved from a society in which they were the 
sole providers of food for the family as well as the group protectors.
Wether we like our built-in functions or not it is a fact that men 
perceive motion better than women and women have more color receptors
than men. These traits have evolved from natural selection where 
men stalked game and women were foragers-gatherers. This is the way
we are and only nature and time can change us. Guns represent many
things to many men however they represent a tie to those lifes
activities where male bonding and commaraderie are most often felt.
Men like to be made to feel empowered and strong, especially by
their women.

You contradict yourself.  You say "[men] where the sole providers of
food" and "women were foragers-gatherers".  In fact, in most cultures,
meat was a delicacy and a rarity, and most of the food consisted of
plants, produced or gathered by females.

If they were really "empowered and strong" they wouldn't need
a woman to make them feel that way.  All this macho stuff is
smoke and mirrors.  Authentic men don't need it.

In an early National Lampoon somewhere in my collection, there's
a Henry Beard parody featuring Germaine Spillane, "the feminist
private eye."  Some of the titles of the books about Ms. Spillane
were _My Gun is Cute_, _Knit One, Kill Two_, _Gunnilingus_, and
_Add Lead and Serve_.  I have no idea why this item made me think
of that.

Lemme see if I got this one straight . . . . Men like guns because of
evolution and natural selection!  Do I get an "A"?  

I believe that's the thesis on the table, Marc.
Did you have a more specific criticism, or were you just feeling
generically sarcastic?  :)

I guess it was generally sarcastic for which I owe an apology.  I would have
accepted more readily that we have some sort of society-driven need to
dominate, plus the obvious connection with guns and feelings of sexual
inadequacy.  

To ewhisam - please accept my apologies - the only thing I can use as an
excuse is sleep deprivation.  This subject interests me because a friend of
mine is so involved in guns and hunting, that he told me he likes guns better
than his family.  He was serious!  I think he envisions himself as a western
gunslinger.  Anyway, I thought this was a male-exclusive problem and
appreciate and encourage your insight to the subject.

"Happiness is a warm gun (bang bang shoot shoot)"  -- The Beatles
"And I swear that I don't have a gun" -- Nirvana
"If you want what's under the sun, you should get your fingers 'round 
a gun" -- Infectious Grooves
"Got a big gold gun, got a big gold gun, got a big gold bullet,
And I guess you could say, and I guess you could say, I'm real full of it"
 -- Bush
"I am a big man, yes I am, and I got a big gun"  -- NIN

The last two ("Testosterone" and "Big Man with a Gun") are clear examples
of gun = sexual inadequacy (from the latter, "I'm gonna come all over you
 -- shoot! shoot! shoot! shoot!").  The other three are more or less 
criticisms of the gun = power view (or in the case of The Beatles, evidence
of what happens when you record music while stoned).

But then it's no small wonder this double view exists, since rape is often
the result of a feeling of powerlessness in society channeled into a 
specific form of regaining power -- through proving sexual adequacy.

"Why are their guns bigger than ours?"
"I dunno, it's a phallic thing."
 -- I'm Gonna Get You, Sucka

I wonder if there isnt something geneological about men and guns...
I personally have no love affair with fire arms,  I do hunt with a shot gun,
but here is my point.  My wife and I have always made a point not to allow
either of our children access to play guns, real guns, or even overly
violent movies or television.  We did nothing different with either child in
this respect and yet my son has had this taking to guns.  (We ahve a
daughter"7" and a son"3")  He has no toy guns but he seems to invent them out
of other toys that may even resemble a gun.  Sure he has seen some use of a
firearm on tv.  I think that would almost be impossible today "not to see a
gun on tv"    What is this drive within us to have and use guns.

I did that, too, when I was little.  My mother wouldn't let me have toy guns
of any kind, but I used sticks, and I had a puzzle/map of the US where every
state was one jigsaw piece, and I used the state of Florida as a gun.  I think
it was mostly because I saw them on TV - no one in my family used guns.

So do you think it is something that is inherently present in boys, and men?

   No, I don't think using guns is "inherent".  I do think proclivity toward
aggression IS something some (maybe all?) people are born with; it's a good
trait to have, evolutionarily.  Since guns are the most powerful instruments
of aggression the average man can get his hands on, they have become symbols as
well as tools of violence.
   Though it's not about liking violence, not really.  Someone once asked
Clint Eastwood if he thought people went to see his movies for the
violence in them.  He said "It's not the violence, it's the *vengeance*."
Anyone who thinks all gun use is a result of people wanting to "blow something
up real good" hasn't thought hard enough.
   More likely, aggression in society is a measure of unhappiness.  If everyone
were content with his lot in life, we wouldn't need to kill each other all the
time.

Ok here is this repeal of the ban on assault weapons...I just wanted to get
your views on this matter.  I personally believe it is unwarranted.  I know
also that the President has said that he will veto the decision when it
crosses his desk.  Are Assault weapons really neccesary?  One Congressman
argued that His wife lived in New York and that while he was away She needed
to protect herself.  Now yes She has a right to protect herself, but does she
need and oozie to do so?  Not unless she is being attacked by a group of
mercenaries.  I think a simple hand gun and/or shot gun would surfice.

The proponents for the repeal insist that any erosion of the right to bear
(any type) of arms is a bite out of their constitutional rights.  I read that
they did not expect to have the repeal become come law, but were attempting
to fufill election promises made to NRA constituents.  Are assault weapons
necessary?  Only if you are planning an ASSAULT.  

Good point Audrey!  We are also promised the right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.  Should a freak with an assault weapon be allowed to
take that away from anyone?

I can't think of one reason to have an assault weapon.  Has anyone heard any
of the "Pro" arguements?

All I heard Marc, was a Congressman, a Republican, saying that his wife who
lives alone in New York while he is in Washington has a right to defend
herself.  I think this argument is a crock....come on now is he fooling
anywone here?

My friends at work who would want (and have) assault rifles always get down
to the following argument:  "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have
guns."
The logic seems obvious to them but escapes me.

The whole gun argument once again zips by, just over my head.
For me, guns have always been around. They are tools, just like cooking pots
and chainsaws. I was taught at an early age how/how not and when/when not to
use them. Not everyone wants or needs a gun, but everyone should at least know
how to handle them because they are potentially very dangerous.
As for "assault weapons", what exactly is the definition of the term?

I don't know the technical definition, but the assault weapons are capable
of firing at a VERY rapid rate, they hold a very high number of rounds, and
they can be reloaded with minimal time loss.  

I think the hard to understand thing about guns is a lot of people
subconsciously associate guns with virility, power, & conquest and that makes
them have this otherwise irrational "love" of guns.  

I knew a certain person quite well 20 years ago.  I see him on occasion now.
The last time I saw him, he reached into his pocket and pulled out pictures
of his guns (no kidding).  When I knew him before, he had no interest in guns.
He had laser sighted guns, assault rifles, Pistols of all sorts.  He told me
that when he is "with his guns" he imagines shooting the people he has
conflict with.  He was serious.  He is playing an escalated version of "tin
soldiers."  

It was this experience that made me post this item.

Cooking pots don't kill people, Otter, people kill people.  *g*

The difference between a gun and a cooking pot is that guns were
designed specifically to kill.  Back when we killed our own animals,
there was justification for having guns.  Now the only things we need
guns for are to kill (or scare) other humans (well, except for
the sport hunters).  Given that the criminals have guns, it 
certainly makes sense to keep guns in general legal (Selena has 
a gun -- she lives alone right now, and has had a particular group
threatening her recently, so she needed it, and she *does* know how 
to use it correctly, which is important).  Assault weapons are used
for just that -- assault.  There defensive purpose is dubious, and their
hunting use downright laughable (no, Swiss steak is not called that
because it looks like Swiss cheese).

I think..and i don't remeber if i mentioned this before, that the sad thing
about this ban in the first place was that it really had little affect on the
market.  The only thing it did do was make them a little less accessable to
an average person.  I saw on 20/20 the other nite that an Israeli Assault
Oozie that was sold for about $200.00 before the ban was then sold for about
$2,000.00 after the ban was implemented.  When our government makes decisions
like this they need to learn how to enforce them.

This response has been erased.

<bubu hides in a basket>

I want to see the shop selling Uzis for $200 at any time in history. <g>

My background with weapons is extensive and documented. (email me for details)
Assault weapons are straw dogs that politicians useto garner support. You give
somebody like me a .22 pistol with 5 rounds, it's an assault weapon. You give
Marvin D. Crumshott from the accounting firm of Lye, Robbe and Steele a LAW
rocket and still a pencil neck geek with a fiberglass tube.

The issue isn't the weapon, it's the people. Who would you rather have snap?
Me with my .22 pistol, or an untrained person with a AK-47? Think about that
for a minute. The geek with the AK-47 sprays into a crowd with 30 rounds and
kills 2 and wounds 7, the rest of the rounds go helter skelter because he
can't control the weapon. I fire into a crowd with a .22 pistol with 5 rounds
I'll promise you 5 bodies. ( Be thankful that I'm stable)

The point is this: guns are weapons and as such they are designed to inflict
damage on their targets. A weapon is a tool for combat. Some people are
skilled and responsible with them some aren't. 

I kinda like "oozie" myself :)

Does that though Ken ,mean that we should allow these wepaons of destruction
to be readily available to anyone?  Should we allow Joe Blow accountant to
go out and buy his Uzi?  I think it is good that people be schooled in the
use of guns, and for that fact any other type of wepaon. The unfortunate thing
is though, that the major populatin of Americans are not!!

Well, first of all, the "which would rather have" type of argument sounds like
what you do with kids when you want them to eat veggies.  "which would you
rather have, beans, or corn?"

Neither of these choices appeals to me and I would not want to be in the
position to make that decision.

Second, I buy into the argument that responsible people can and do handle
weapons responsibly.  I am afraid of those who are using the gun as some deep
dark support of their personality.

Thanks

Once again I am amazed at my capacity to be misinterpreted.
re: #34: The point is you can ban weapons all you want, there are still ways
to inflict mass destruction and a skilled person is more effective at that
than an unskilled one. (anyone interested in a list of ways to be MORE
destructive than you can be with a firearm?) Joe Blow with an uzi is a moot
point. If Joe Blow snaps he snaps. Yes, having an uzi may enable him to
inflict more damage, but what if he decides to buy 5 gallons of gasoline, some
soap flakes and a book of matches then saunters down to the mall on a Saturday
afternoon? (or the Gas Company would be better)
I agree with you that people should be schooled in the use of firearms. You'd
be apalled at the number of police officers who are unfamilar, unskilled or
just plain stupid with respect to their weapons.

re: #35: You don't get out much do you?
Think about this: Jethro gets fired from his job at (where?) the post office
and gets his shotgun out. Jethro is unstable and unskilled with that weapon.
He wanders down to the park (to poison some pigeons we presume) and maybe pick
off some cute children on a swingset. He drops the hammer a couple of times
and manages to kill a few children before turning the gun on himself.

Is it a tragedy? Of course. Are there worse things possible with weapons less
powerful than a shotgun? You bet.

Think about this: Evan has just plain had enough of everything. He takes out
his Glock 9mm. Evan is highly trained and skilled and has extensive combat
experience. Evan starts out at the mall on a Search and Destroy mission
fatally shooting 11 women who look like his ex-wife. He moves on to the
Multiplex 60 Screen Cinema across the street and shoots anyone in line to see
'Babe.' Another 20 bodies. He reloads and waits for the cops to come. He
manages to kill a police officer and wound two more before being taken down
by another officer.

Do the math. BTW if you think that a Shotgun isn't more powerful than the
'evil' glock 9mm. I got some more math for you.

It's not the weapon that's evil. It's the unstability of the people that have
them. 

My last post looks kind of in cohenrent due to incessant !writes from certain
users who shallremain nameless. The problem has been solved. If you need any
clarification (I would). Let me know.

re #36:  "You don't get out much . . . ?"   end of conversation!

Yes i did misinterpret what yo uwere trying to say Kenn..My apologies.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss