So, his entire premise is sexist. Not to mention that he ignores simple, basic logic.
My first question to the author of this article would have to be: "What about people who are legitimately weak? If your premise is that men don't need guns to be men, what about those with infirmities, women, kids at school, and other people who are at a physical disadvantage?"
The usage of simple logic dictates that if we do away with firearms, the people with the most ability to use force will be those with the most force available. His goal is to return us to a day of inequality, where women were domineered by men, and other social injustices abounded.
He also makes an enormous blunder when he references the Cullen report in Scotland. Their logic is that if the number of gun owners is decreased, the level of gun violence will decrease. This just makes no sense when you actually apply the logic of the real world to it. When you look at Scotland, which is well known for it's anti-gun laws, you see an INCREASE in violence, including gun violence. You see a higher per-capita rate of being a victim, and other things which indicate that disarming the populace serves the exact opposite purpose of it's stated intent.
He also says:
The emphasis is on resolving disputes through force -- physical force initially, lethal force ultimately.He misunderstands the intent completely. The emphasis is not on resolving disputes through force (if that was the case, there would be many more men in prison, businesses would contain boxing rings, and we'd see fist fights in stores over prices of goods.), rather it is on being prepared to defend ourselves and our loved ones if someone else chooses to use force against us. It has nothing to do with disputes whatsoever. The reason I carry a gun is not to give me the upper hand in a dispute. It is to provide the even footing required to be safe if the unthinkable happens.
Additionally he states:
Then there's the concomitant vigilante mentality and the belief that the righteous gun owner may have to fight the government itself if his Second Amendments rights (as he sees them) are not respected.Firstly, he couldn't be further from the truth. We won't fight the government ONLY for our Second Amendment rights. Our founding fathers often made reference to the need to balance the government, and the only way to do that is with an armed citizenry. Again, the goal is not to go out looking for this lack of respect, it's to respond when our rights are violated. It's a reaction to an offense, not the initiation of offense.
Lastly, and what I find most amusing, is that he is a professor of poetry. While I would try to avoid name-calling and such, I figure 'he started it' so I might as well make the comment demanding to be made. That isn't the sort of profession which is very 'manly' anyway. I think he has some pretty perverse ideas of what manhood is all about. He chooses to ignore logical reasoning and the consequences of living in the real world to defend his own fear of inanimate objects. Not the behavior of any real man I know.
I firmly believe that only people who have knowledge and understanding about a topic should be published addressing said topic in such a fashion, as his complete lack of understanding about the firearms community, and what it means to be a man, makes him look exceedingly foolish, and is a heavy mark against the Post Gazette's credibility.