Unlike the satire of kaveman, though, one wonders if the author of this piece might not be on to something. Exaggerated, for sure, but does it not describe the exact feeling and motivation of many a gun owner? What do you think?Believe me, I am not a gun person. Oh, sure, I played with cap guns and BB guns when I was a kid, but I never thought I would actually own a real one. But let me tell you, when I first felt the cold steel of this gun against my palm, it made me feel as if I had the strength of 10,000 charging centurions, as if I were capable of moving heaven and earth itself. I just hope I never have to fire the thing.
It is my earnest wish that this beautiful, beautiful gun and the godlike powers it bestows on its owner will stay locked away in a drawer forever, only to be used in the most dire of circumstances.
I will say, though, that this particular firearm is certainly something to behold. It has a mirror-polished stainless-steel finish and a "Python .357" insignia engraved on the chrome barrel that, to be honest, makes me feel invincible, as if the spirit of a warrior prince were flowing through me, urging me to punish all who lie trembling in my path.
Monday, March 1, 2010
The Gun Makes Me Feel like God
In the spirit of kaveman's satire, The Onion published a wonderful article, capturing perfectly the feelings of gun owners. I think when irony and satire are mixed just right, it's difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sorry, but I really don't "feel the magic" here with you. when I put on my pistol or take out a rifle, I am reminded of ones' own mortality. Knowing fully what a firearm is capable of, I generally find such satire in poor taste.
ReplyDeleteYou know ... over the years I've read all kinds of crazy reports of people saying how much power guns have, and in all cases it's been written by someone who's never been around guns handling one for the first time. Usually a reporting stepping over to the redneck side.
ReplyDeleteThings like "the sheer lethal power" or whatever ... and then there was that reality TV show where the anti-gun woman spent a week with the pro-gun guy, and the first time he took her out shooting she just stood there and cried because she couldn't stand the thought of touching a gun.
Of course ... as the show went on, she became quite comfortable with guns and her whole outlook changed. She went from crying and talking about the "famous 10%" to actually having an intelligent outlook.
But in any case ... a gun is like a car to me ... some look better than others, and sometimes I enjoy going out and driving just for driving's sake, but mostly it's a tool that accomplishes something. I do know that I could have a serious accident with either that causes me or someone else harm, though I worry little about that with the gun because I know it's within my power to handle and store it safely.
And I am too aware of the limitations of any gun to think of it as some ultimate weapon of death and destruction -- those of us who know guns also know that they're nothing more than a hunk of metal that uses a small closed chamber explosion to launch a smaller hunk of metal through the air. Nothing magical or mystical there at all.
Stephen said, "You know ... over the years I've read all kinds of crazy reports of people saying how much power guns have, and in all cases it's been written by someone who's never been around guns handling one for the first time."
ReplyDeleteThat may be your opinion, but it's not mine. First of all, how could you possibly know what experience "all cases" who said that had had with guns? You're guessing.
About a year ago we had a big discussion around here over the question of whether shooting a gun is exhilarating or not. I said it was, every one of the pro-gun guys said it was not. That's the brief version of a too-long argument.
The point is you guys naturally tend to down play the exhilaration and excitement, just like you down play the potential danger.
Your mantra that the gun is just another tool is not in the least believable.
...but mostly it's a tool that accomplishes something.
ReplyDeleteMight I inquire: just what does it accomplish?
but mostly it's a tool that accomplishes something. I do know that I could have a serious accident with either that causes me or someone else harm,
ReplyDeleteQuite often, you'll hear this from gunloons--especially when they wish to downplay the emotional attachment they have to their guns.
Of course, this sentiment is disproven when you see there are very few blogs devoted to white males posing with pictures of their t-squares or power drills. You certainly don't see many blogs with pictures of some fat white guy trying to hold as many tools as possible while surrounded by tools.
And let's face it--many guns are marketed on its 'sexiness' or its 'lethal power.'
--JadeGold
Might I inquire: just what does it accomplish?
ReplyDeleteSomehow this question evokes the classic Simpson's dialogue:
Lisa Simpson: Dad, I have a magic rock that keeps tigers away.
Homer Simpson: How do I know the rock actually works?
Lisa Simpson: You don't see any tigers around here, do you?
Homer Simpson: (pauses, looks around) Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
--JadeGold
Let's, for the sake of argument, accept that in addition to the enormous lifesaving and liberty preserving utility offered by firearms, the claim that they do also bring joy in other ways.
ReplyDeleteIs that supposed to be a bad thing, and justification to add to the already insane level of restriction on their ownership now imposed on Americans and the people of most other countries?
I guess it makes sense you wouldn't believe what guys who actually shoot guns say even when they all agree ...
ReplyDeleteAnyway, take a look at what I said. The car comparison is a good one. The vast majority of the time I'm driving my car I'm just using it to get from point A to point B. And in fact I'm never very excited by my daily drivers, because I chose them for MPG and efficiency more than excitement. But for my off-roading truck ... there are times when I'm tackling a big obstacle and the locked tires are clawing at the rocks that it is exhilerating -- but that is the exception, and most of the time I'm just practicing and perfecting skills, which is fun but not exhilerating.
It's the same with guns. When you're lying on your belly in freezing weather trying to get an 8 round clip into a Garand in a timed event and the danged thing just won't go down ... that's not exhilerating. The enjoyment comes from looking at your final score, thinking about what you can do better next time, and hanging out afterward for hot chocolate (not a coffee drinker) with your fellow shooters.
But shooting a gun, any gun, is only comparable to an orgasm by non-shooters who have built up the event in their minds because of their personal fears and phobias that they are having to confront; nothing builds up anticipation to an event than fear!
As for my underwear soiling critics ...
JadeGold:
We don't have to protect our power tools, as there are not enough people with power-drill phobia to try and pass waiting periods and registration schemes and one-drill-a-month laws to seriously affect us. I became a pro-gun blogger when I realized how many were out there who were determined to take the civil right of gun ownership away based NOT on making society better (quite the opposite) but merely on their own paranoia.
and also ... if a gun is like a "magic rock that keeps tigers away" why would you care if I carry one or how many I own? Is the lesson of that simpson's episode that we need to outlaw rocks?
But a gun is not a rock, and there are predators in this country, and a gun properly used will stop them. It happens tens of thousnads of times a year (maybe 2.5 million). duh.
Let me illustrate the truly silly argument here:
BRADY CAMPAIGN: You are all too irresponsible and murderous to be allowed to have a gun, even though American's have owned them for 100's of years, as only people who take a week's training as police officers are worthy of this right. And if we let you have one, you'll shoot your eye out!
(at this point 70% of American's walk away, but Mike B and other anti-gun posters here nod enthusiastically)
JADE GOLD: Yes! You are right! I am too much of a buffoon to be allowed a gun! I will support your fight to pass laws to keep me from buying one, because without those laws there's no telling how many people I might hurt!
I love reading this site and the comments, but my opthomologist has been warning against it because I'm rolling my eyes up so often I'm endangering my optical nerve connection.
Zorro @ the claim that they do also bring joy in other ways.
ReplyDeleteJoy? Please help me understand what 'joy' one derives from his handgun.
If my gun is supposed to make me feel god like, I'm pretty sure it's malfunctioning. My gun does make me feel stuff, like right now it's making me feel pain because I'm wearing a crappy holster that's jamming it into my kidney.
ReplyDeleteMud_rake says:
ReplyDeleteJoy? Please help me understand what 'joy' one derives from his handgun.
Surviving (and indeed, prevailing in) an assault is occasion for joy, is it not? Winning a major IDPA match against quality opposition can be joyful, for the competitive-minded.
Hell--for me, the mere fact that so many people, for whom I have such contempt and loathing, want me to not have a bunch of guns is reason to be joyful for every one of them.
Joy? Please help me understand what 'joy' one derives from his handgun
ReplyDeleteI'd describe the huge smile on the face of every newbie I've brought to the range as "Joy."
It's a sudden realization that despite everything they've been told by the media and anti-gunners, shooting is actually FUN!
Mud_Rake, have you played golf before? The pride and joy of your skills when you get a birdie, an eagle, a hole in one? Or being able to finish a course under par?
ReplyDeleteThat's the same feeling a marksman gets when doing well at shooting targets.
Stephen's rant makes little sense.
ReplyDeleteHe claims fat white males need to pose with guns because the guns need...protection. So, when your typical gunloon blogger poses with an AR-15 in one hand, a 9mm in the other and other firearms tucked into strechpants waistband--it has nothing to do with the gunloon. It's all about the protection of the guns.
Uh huh.
That's new. I'd not heard that before.
One wonders why gunshows are so shy about allowing cameras.
--JadeGold
JadeGold pointed out that, "there are very few blogs devoted to white males posing with pictures of their t-squares or power drills. You certainly don't see many blogs with pictures of some fat white guy trying to hold as many tools as possible while surrounded by tools."
ReplyDeleteThat should put an end to all the nonsense about the gun is just a tool.
And I don't believe if electric drills were reviled in the media and heavily restricted by law they'd generate the blog support we see for guns. That's just a silly rebuttal.
I didn't realize you were so enamored of pictures of people with guns, I thought you were talking about the lack of pro-drill blogs. And I do think we need a few more of those ...
ReplyDeleteDo men post pictures of themselves with their tool belts or standing in front of their expensive tools sets? Oh yeah. Do a search. Men in particular love tools of all kinds, and are appreciative of high quality drills as well as glocks. Duh. Do gun have a higher glitz factor than drills? Yes. But not on the order of magnitude any of you would suggest.
I can't say how people would react if the main stream media and some blog sites were suddenly inundated with anti-tool propaganda and tool phobics.
In any case, though, power drills and hammers aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution as a protected right. And when I look through history I don't see people who were oppressed and could have ended, or at least opposed, their persecution if they'd had access to more woodworking tools. i.e. another hammer would have done nothing for a Jewish storeowner on Kristallnacht, but enough model 1911 .45's might have had an effect on history. Likewise a few more drill presses would not help the Sudanese villagers when the paramatilitary attackers kill and rape, but an AK-47 would.
And in the 1960's when African American's were being hunted by the KKK, it wasn't tape measures the black "rifle clubs" used to protect their neihborhoods or keep more of their kind from being strung up by ropes, it was rifles.
Now this should put an end to all that anti-gunner nonsense about the supernatural thrill of gun ownership.
Yeah, but you do see lots of pictures of people posing with baseball bats and golf clubs. Guns are many things, and one of those things is "sporting equipment" be it for hunting, competition shooting, or just plain old target shooting.
ReplyDeleteOh, MikeB, of course there would. I'm sure there would be a "Carpenters for the Preservation of Electric Drills" and a "Brady Campain to Prevent Pneumatic Hammer Violence".
ReplyDeleteMikeb says:
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't believe if electric drills were reviled in the media and heavily restricted by law they'd generate the blog support we see for guns. That's just a silly rebuttal.
If you are too divorced from reality to realize that a large part of the intensity of gun advocacy stems, ironically, directly from a backlash against efforts to demonize and further restrict guns, you're really too far gone to be helped.
What else is ironic is that Jadegold helped make that very point in a comment made in response to another recent post:
Try "http://www.peopleofthegun.com/"--it is a site by the gunloons. It features many gunloons playing dressup and posing.
People of the Gun was started in direct response to a column by sniveling half-wit Laura Washington. That column was, in fact, the source of the "People of the Gun" title:
The People of the Gun are beating their drums on websites from Keepandbeararms.com in Washington State, to alphecca.com in Vermont.
Like I said--pretty ironic that Jadgold would undermine his own point, but hardly unexpected from someone with so little going on in the old cerebral cortex that he thinks he scores telling rhetorical points against his opposition by pointing out that many of them are white, many are male, and some are overweight. That, according to people with Jadgold's limited faculties, is enough to discredit gun rights advocates' positions.
The fact that there are very few websites and blogs devoted to anti-gun nonsense should also be telling.
ReplyDeleteJade,
You are really pushing infringements on my trademarks using gunloon AND fat white men in the same posts.
Last time I checked, T-squares and power drills weren't protected by the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteZorro said, "If you are too divorced from reality to realize that a large part of the intensity of gun advocacy stems, ironically, directly from a backlash against efforts to demonize and further restrict guns, you're really too far gone to be helped."
ReplyDeleteAllow me to throw the ball back into your court. Have you ever thought what motivates me and people like me? I'll tell you. Two years ago I was a more-or-less apathetic gun control supporter. Then I get to know some of your predecessors on this blog. The more we argued the more I developed my ideas in opposition to theirs. That's not to take anything away from those ideas, it's just to recognize that what were once latent and amorphous arguments have become crystal clear thanks to you pro-gun commenters.
kaveman said, "Last time I checked, T-squares and power drills weren't protected by the Constitution."
ReplyDeleteNeither are guns, except in some distorted fantasy, and according to one, soon to be two, mistaken rulings by the Supremes.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteHave you ever thought what motivates me and people like me?
Some people simply aren't really big fans of liberty, and prefer the comforting embrace of the nanny state collective. I just figured that's the motivation.
Two years ago I was a more-or-less apathetic gun control supporter. Then I get to know some of your predecessors on this blog.
If you were blogging about "gun control," you were already far more zealous than well over 99% of the public.
Besides, even if the scary words of the gun rights advocates really were what pushed you off the cliff of anti-gun nervousness into the abyss of full-blown anti-gun derangement, I submit that you are very atypical in that regard.
Going the opposite direction I can certainly see. That's after all, what happened in my case. I was once such a lukewarm gun rights advocate that I thought the NRA took a strong stand against the scourge of restrictive gun laws. I didn't realize what a politically correct bunch of Neville Chamberlainesque compromisers they were until I really delved into stuff written by David Codrea and a few others.
Neither are guns, except in some distorted fantasy, and according to one, soon to be two, mistaken rulings by the Supremes. Mike apparently believes that he should trust the opinion of someone that is relatively anonymous on the internet without knowing their actual scholarly credentials instead of the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteI am filled with lulz.
I enjoy guns. I guess that means they bring me joy. I would say I have an emotional attachment too, namely the ones I inherited from my father after he passed away. Exhilarating? That is probably too strong a word, but maybe applicable for a first time shooter. Godlike? If anyone thinks an object makes them a god, then they have some serious megalomania issues and could be clinically disqualified for gun ownership. Now why would any of what I feel discount the right to bear arms?
ReplyDelete-TS
Zorro:
ReplyDelete"Hell--for me, the mere fact that so many people, for whom I have such contempt and loathing, want me to not have a bunch of guns is reason to be joyful for every one of them."
And you seriously think that those you consider "anti-gun"--a bullshit label by the way--are contemptible and loathsome, because they don't like the idea of people running around armed to the teeth? So it's really just semantics. I'm "anti-gun" in your estimation. You and your gunnutz pals are pathologically paranoid in my estimation. Obviously you will all be cheering if the SCotUS rules in your favor in the Chicago case. Of course, if they rule the other way you will all start complaining about how "liberal" they are.
It would be nice if you guys were like Larry Flynt and were just honest about how gunz help you get your rocks off.
Democommie: “because they don't like the idea of people running around armed to the teeth?”
ReplyDeleteAre you pathologically paranoid too? Do you think someone is out to shoot you?
Yes, I’ll be happy if SCOTUS rules in our favor and “complain” if they don’t. What does that prove? That I am pro gun rights?
-TS
TS:
ReplyDeleteAm I paranoid? No. That's why I DON'T have an arsenal.
Democommie says:
ReplyDeleteAnd you seriously think that those you consider "anti-gun"--a bullshit label by the way--are contemptible and loathsome, because they don't like the idea of people running around armed to the teeth?
Actually, I agree that "anti-gun" is a less than ideal term--its main advantage is that it's a lot less cumbersome and awkward than "boot-licking, authority-worshiping, liberty-hating, and cowardly." Also, while you're correct that I find people who are disturbed by my possession of a couple dozen guns and tens of thousands of rounds of ammo contemptible, if they stopped at just being disturbed by it, I'll stop short of loathing them.
They don't become loathsome until they start advocating making it more difficult for me to arm myself in this fashion.
I'm "anti-gun" in your estimation.
I suppose, but to be honest, I'm not sure I've seen you lay out a detailed description of your position on rights vs. gun laws.
Actually, my guess is that you're "anti-right-wing," and have come to see gun rights advocacy as being (somehow) a "right-wing cause," and thus unsavory to you by mere association.
I could be wrong. I've not, to be frank, wasted a lot of effort trying to analyze your thoughts and beliefs--can't imagine why they should matter to me.
As for guns helping me "get [my] rocks off"--no, 'fraid not. Gun laws being what they are, the largest bore legally available without jumping through a lot of federal hoops is the .775 inches of a 10 gauge shotgun. I'm not going to try to stick any of my . . . male parts in a dinky little opening like that.
So, I'm also wondering if handling your gun gives you an erection, too?
ReplyDeleteActually, my guess is that you're "anti-right-wing," and have come to see gun rights advocacy as being (somehow) a "right-wing cause," and thus unsavory to you by mere association.
ReplyDeleteZorro, I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. After offering up an opinion on another blog, I was accused of being a 'reichwinger' by Democommie. This was with no evidence of any of my political positions other than gun control.
Mud_rake says:
ReplyDeleteSo, I'm also wondering if handling your gun gives you an erection, too?
When you ask if handling a gun gives me "an erection, too," does that mean it gives you one? How do you even know when I'm handling a gun?
In any case, if the status of my penis is the kind of thing you wonder about, you really need more of a social life--but I don't suppose it's likely you'll get one.
Anyway, mud_rake, I'm very flattered--really, I am--but I'm happily married. There's got to be someone for you out there. Probably way out there.
It can't possibly give him an erection. According to the JG, gun owner's don't have the proper equipment.
ReplyDelete"What dicks FJ? You guys don't have them.
--JadeGold"
February 24, 2010 1:24 AM
Zorro said to democommie: "Actually, my guess is that you're "anti-right-wing," and have come to see gun rights advocacy as being (somehow) a "right-wing cause," and thus unsavory to you by mere association."
ReplyDeleteI don't know if that's what demo does, but it would be understandable, wouldn't it? Aren't gun rights advocates generally "right-wingers?" Sure you've got a small percentage of liberals who own guns and of course you've got the Libertarian types, but the vast majority lines up perfectly with the conservative movement, don't you think?
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteSure you've got a small percentage of liberals who own guns and of course you've got the Libertarian types, but the vast majority lines up perfectly with the conservative movement, don't you think?
I've never done a survey. I know that most of my gun-owning friends would much more accurately be described as libertarians (small "L"). But let's say you're right, and that the "vast majority" of gun owners are "right wingers" (whatever that means). So what? I'm an individual. What do all the people who share with me the superficial characteristic of gun ownership have to do with me, and what do their politics have to do with mine?
By the way, to clarify, I wasn't really condemning Democommie for associating gun rights advocacy with the "right wing" (although I'll never understand what's "liberal" about forcible citizen disarmament and a government monopoly on force--it sure ain't Lockean liberal--I guess the Neo-Libs are a different animal). I was just responding to his "I'm "anti-gun" in your estimation" statement.
ReplyDeleteZorro says, "I'm an individual. What do all the people who share with me the superficial characteristic of gun ownership have to do with me, and what do their politics have to do with mine?"
ReplyDeleteWell, the problem with that is you're not really as much of an individual as you say. I'm assuming you live in the society of your fellows and have a certain amount of interaction with them. Your actions and attitudes impact on those around you.
I think you've exaggerated the individualistic idea, which is convenient because it exonerates you from any complicity. But, I'm afraid it's not that simple.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteWell, the problem with that is you're not really as much of an individual as you say. I'm assuming you live in the society of your fellows and have a certain amount of interaction with them.
I am not part of a collective. Yes, I interact with others in society--other individuals, who, like me, are possessed of their own free will. Every action I take is 100% my responsibility, and every action any other person takes is 100% that person's responsibility.
Your actions and attitudes impact on those around you.
My attitudes "impact on those around" me? Are you saying I have a moral obligation to avoid attitudes not approved by Big Brother? Do you listen to yourself?
I think you've exaggerated the individualistic idea, which is convenient because it exonerates you from any complicity.
What "exonerates" me is that I control my actions, not those of others.
But, I'm afraid . . .
On that, at least, we agree.