Gun control as castration

getty+NRA+protestIs there really any rational basis for the idea of gun control? Or is it just a desperate grasping for some kind of symbolic control after an outbreak of mass violence? Or is it something even deeper? On its face the idea of gun control is ridiculous. Conservatives, libertarians and gun enthusiasts have been making the same basic points for years whenever the issue comes up in response to whatever the latest mass shooting incident happens to be. The fact that there will be such incidents is a social inevitability at this point.

The simple argument is that whatever the latest mass murder happens to be, it was the act of a deranged or vengeful criminal and law abiding folks ought not be deprived of their means of recreation and self defense for the crimes of another. Such shooting rampages inevitably happen in areas where the 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 law may be. Gun restrictions would only leave the law abiding defenseless against such psychopaths. Some even assert that the proper response ought to be putting more guns in more hands rather than vice-versa.

Some of these points have merit, and some may be stretching it, but the fact remains that gun control is just damned impractical. It cannot actually be done with anything close to the degree of effectiveness that the liberal fanatics would wish. There are hundreds of millions of firearms in private hands in the US. The culture of gun ownership is a part of the fabric of society in areas outside of the liberal havens of the Northeast. Any attempt to ban or restrict guns will inevitably lead to far more social unrest and potential 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 of reality.

Yet the issue is still pushed with religious fervor by the true believers and social crusaders. Gun rights groups and gun owners are cast as evil accomplices to murder by these do-gooders merely for engaging in pro-gun advocacy. Such was the case earlier today when members of the women’s protest group “Code Pink” — a sort of liberal, feminist version of the Westboro Baptist Church — interrupted an NRA press conference by screaming slogans and unfurling a banner accusing the NRA of guilt by proxy in the recent school killings.

How to explain this? Why such hysterics over the NRA, a fairly moderate and mainstream group by most standards? Do these women really think that they can stop such outbreaks of violence merely by passing some petty bureaucratic measures, all the while continuing to hide their heads in the sand about the real social roots of the “mass shooter” phenomenon?

The answer is that killings and violence are not really the issue as far as the deeper impulses and desires these women have to ban or restrict access to firearms. The fact that it was a feminist group protesting the NRA is not an accident. Gun control is an issue that has historically been pushed by feminist and women’s groups. It comes down to the psychological roots of feminism and the desperate need of such women to control, manage and limit male agency. Essentially gun control is an attempt to perform a symbolic castration of all men in society, in particular those men that would outwardly manifest strength and a will to power by owning a gun, being committed to self defense and engaging in hunting or sportsmanship with firearms.

A gun is an obvious symbol of male power, sexuality and virility. This is the real reason why the gun issue is such an emotional flashpoint for feminists and prompts them to frantic outbursts such as the one at the NRA press conference. Unfortunately as our society gets ever more feminized, as masculinity is ever more marginalized and the traditional male virtues of strength, agency and vitality are ever more demonized, a growing number of virtually cuckolded liberal beta males can be expected to fall in line with this agenda and willingly castrate themselves on the altar of feminism. And of course in a democracy politicians are all too willing to indulge this sort of movement in exchange for power.

In a 1994 research paper titled “Sex and Guns: Is Gun Control Male Control?” Canadian sociologist H. Taylor Buckner documented three surveys he conducted of his undergraduate students concerning their attitudes on guns and gun control. He concluded that:

…students who were pro gun control were also pro homosexual, pro censorship of pornography, and not experienced with guns.

and that:

…men and women have different patterns of motivation for being pro gun control. The men who favor gun control are those who reject traditional male roles and behavior. They are opposed to hunting, are pro homosexual, do not have any experience with or knowledge of guns and tend to have “politically correct” attitudes. The women who support gun control do so in the context of controlling male violence and sexuality. Gun control is thus symbolic of a realignment of the relation between the sexes.

One of the exercises in the survey invited students to do a sentence completion exercise to express in their own words their feelings on guns, gun owners, gun clubs and hunting. The responses are revealing:

When I think of Gun Clubs, I think… (female, unfavorable)

People who seek power/control… Boys trying to prove their value… No guns whatsoever should be allowed anywhere… I am totally against those clubs, first of all guns should not exist, only purpose is killing people and animals… Violent men with a violent pastime… Men collected there to show off their strength and women who go along with it… Of heartless men and wonder about why they attend those clubs; I hate gun clubs… Fear, unacceptable activity… Men who have something to prove by acting “macho.” They are dangerous to society and to themselves… Masochistic people who have to live their lives behind a gun in fear… Kinky, weird people… Ignorance, uneducated… Power through sick minds. Violence.

The psychology here should be apparent. The idea of powerful males or males expressing some sort of dominance, even if only in imagination, is clearly distressing to these women. Their immediate response is to want to control it and shut it down, to appeal to a higher power to enforce the rules on those naughty men and boys. The general hostility and suspicion with which feminists regard male only or “boys club” type social spaces is also at play.

To further hammer home the point that the desire for gun control is essentially irrational and not based on any facts or real world knowledge Buckner tested the students on their own personal knowledge and experience with guns and then correlated those results with their attitudes on gun control. He found:

Less than 1% knew that there is a five year penalty for an unregistered handgun (the most frequent guess was a $500 fine). Only 6% knew that handguns account for less than 20% of the murders in Canada (most guessed that it was around two-thirds, as in the U.S.). Only 11% knew the difference between a rifle and a shotgun. Thirty-two percent knew that the magazine of a gun does not have a trigger. Figure 5 shows, knowledge of the subject is not widespread. Pro gun control attitudes do not appear to depend on knowledge or rationality.

Figure 6 The less knowledge of and experience with guns a student has the more pro gun control they are. In fact, the more experience and knowledge one has of guns the lower the support for gun control.

It is clear from these results that the gun control attitude is not an informed opinion that one comes to after sober reflection and analysis. Rather is a product of ignorance, irrational fear and the desire to control and manage what is perceived as the threat of out of control male sexuality and agency. Gun control is castration.

  • Darth stirner

    “Gun control is thus symbolic of a realignment of the relation between the sexes.”

    very interesting. Good article bud.

    Generally speaking, Gun control advocates are a clueless utopian bunch. Lets just outlaw violence guyz! No gunz anywhere! It’ll be perfect!

    • Sun

      I do not believe anyone is stupid enough to believe you can successfully prevent violence.

      The opposition would argue they want to outlaw guns due to the ability to kill on a wider scale. Punching someone in the face does not equal machine gun killing. Both are violent yet one creates more casualties in both quality and quantity.

      Note there are many to have “self defense (a psychological mean to justify violence…nothing wrong per say) besides owning a gun. However people will point out that a gun is usually the most effective way to bring someone down.

      The right is accurate in noting that violence and atrocities are part of natural law. It embraces such law and the heroic spirit.

  • Sun

    The idea that laws have no purpose is amusing on both the right and the left when it is suited of course.

    One side says you can’t ban people from coming into the country (they’ll do it anyways). You can’t ban drugs (they’ll do it anyways).

    The other side says you can’t ban guns (they’ll do it anyways).

    Laws physically can’t stop anything. However laws are (supposed) to serve as a deterrent as well as a way to justify punishment if such a person was to do it.

    “What it is” battling against “what it should be.”

    • http://allnationsparty.com/ Ryan Faulk

      “One side says you can’t ban people from coming into the country (they’ll do it anyways)”

      – THIS is much easier than banning a substance or a tool like a gun. Substances and tools can be hidden easily. People can only be hidden legally – fake papers, fake documents, fake story – but the actual, physical person cannot be hidden, and empirically we know that states are super-effective at keeping people they don’t want out. Norway, Denmark, Japan, Korea, Australia. Any government that has a will to enforce the borders can easily do so.

  • Philip

    RIGHT-ON masculinist man, RIGHT-ON! Freedom flow from the barrel of a gun. Only an armed citizenry can protect its rights, and the occasional massacre is a small price for liberty.

  • http://snapperheadsoup.blogspot.com/ snapperhead soup

    Actually, guns are not really the symbol of masculine power but geek power. Why does US have the most powerful military? Because of innovations in gun design and weaponry by geeks. Machine guns and bombs were not invented by warrior he-men but by nerdy wizards.

    Even the small Japanese became a major power at one time because it built better weapons. Guns are not masculine but egalitarian. It equalizes a geek with muscular macho man. Even geeky British soldiers could mow down big muscular African tribesmen armed with spears.
    Even an old lady with a gun can destroy a big young male. Even a geek like Adam Lanza could strike fear into a whole community with guns. So, how macho and masculine are guns?
    Bernie Goetz the geek protected himself against big strong blacks.

    Feminists oppose guns because feminism is controlled by the Left and the Western Left happen to be controlled by Jews. Jews wanna take our guns away because guns empower white people against the government that’s controlled by Jews. Feminism is just an arm of Jewish power in America.
    Jewish liberals love guns but only those held by the government. If Jewish liberals really hated guns, they’d call for disarming the government as well, but we don’t hear that. Jews want more guns for the government but fewer guns for us.

    Also, gun control isn’t about castrating all males but about masculinizing Jews and blacks over white males. If guns were taken away from whites, blacks and Jews would gain immense power over white males.
    As Jews control the government, they will control all the guns in the government and use guns to intimidate whites. And as blacks are tougher/stronger than whites, blacks will beat up whites who no longer have guns to defend themselves with. So, gun control is a great boon to Jewish-controlled government power and to the power of the black fist.

    http://snapperheadsoup.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-george-zimmerman-is-best-argument.html

  • http://snapperheadsoup.blogspot.com/ snapperhead soup

    Actually, liberals do love guns… but only in the hands of the government. Whoever heard of liberals calling for disarming the state? Given all the killing of ‘innocents’ carried out by the government–Kent State shooting, police brutality, and Daley’s infamous ‘shoot to kill, shoot to maim’, and statist bloodbaths all around the world–, shouldn’t liberals call for disarming governments? Holocaust and the killing fields were not carried out by adam lanzas but by the state.

    But liberals tell us… HAVE TOTAL FAITH IN THE STATE.
    And “it cant happen here.”
    Funny… during Bush’s reign, liberals were telling us that we are headed toward fascism and a police state. But now they say we should just trust the state.

    • Lev Bronstein

      If a liberal warned me that we were headed towards fascism I would hug him.

  • C Herman

    Sigmund Freud: “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
    General Introduction to Psychoanalysis. (1920)

  • I’d tap that.

    Snapperhead, don’t forgot how hypocrite American Jews love to support Israel’s rifle wielding youth.

  • Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/01/09 « Free Northerner

  • Pingback: Warrior Phobia | The Right Stuff

  • Pingback: The sickening pretense of non-power | The Right Stuff

  • http://flavorchem.com/member/379358/ back yard

    Thanks to simply being a private coach about subject matter. I just really appreciated your overall post significantly and also above all highly valued how you will definitely taken care of your part I actually thought to be questionable. You might be constantly amazingly variety in order to visitors love me and support us inside my life style. Thanks.