That's right. The people who are so concerned about being bashed are being told to not buy guns to protect themselves.

It starts with a headline that reads: "Don’t Buy A Gun, Even If It Comes In Rainbow."

It's an intoxicating fantasy—a continuation of a longer-running sales pitch directed at women victimized by male abuse. Even I, someone who didn't grow up around guns, found myself falling for a version of it recently. My overarching position remained that guns shouldn't exist at all, and the might of the U.S. should be used to make manufacturing and selling them untenable. But given the reality that there's almost no legislative momentum for those changes, it felt rational to learn how to use one myself. After all, the bad guys have them and use them. Kyle Rittenhouse was allowed to fire a gun in pursuit of his politics; why shouldn't we?

It was Katherine Cross's 2024 book Log Off that distanced me from this notion, I think for good. She's got plenty of arguments, all of them strong: The state has historically given far more freedom to gun-users on the right than on the left; having a gun in your home makes you more likely to be shot dead, not less; becoming the kind of person who can safely fire a gun is a massively more difficult task than becoming a gun owner; there are plenty of roles in any anti-fascist resistance movement that don't require marksmanship.

Oh, where to start.

First, let's start with Kyle Rittenhouse. He didn't fire a gun in pursuit of his politics. He fired a gun at the people who were trying to kill him. He wasn't in pursuit of anything at the moment. He was being pursued. One man tried to grab his rifle. Kyle killed him. Another hit him in the head with a skateboard, which has been used as a murder weapon before. Kyle killed him too. The third person he shot pointed a gun at him and even admitted it in court.

Kyle Rittenhouse was "allowed" to fire a gun in self-defense.

That's a key difference so many anti-gunner can't seem to comprehend.

Then, the whole thing about being more likely to be killed if you have a gun that she's trying to present is total BS, of course, but she's not going to believe that. It would take a lot longer to debunk that and frankly, if you're reading this, you're already aware that it's nonsense.

But let's also understand that if you're absolutely convinced the nation is devolving toward fascism--it's not, but we're talking about her perception here--then sure, there are a lot of things one can do that don't involve marksmanship.

At least until they do.

Now, I'm not going to tell anyone they have to own a gun. That's a personal decision and not everyone is interested.

But let's talk about the claim that "becoming the kind of person who can safely fire a gun is a massively more difficult task than becoming a gun owner" for a second.

Again, total BS. Becoming a safe shooter isn't overly time consuming or difficult. A weekend class can teach someone how to be just that and all it takes from there is keeping those lessons in mind.

Becoming an effective gunfighter is a different animal, and yeah, that takes time and effort.

Then we have this argument about the expense of being armed.

Let's be extraordinarily generous and say a gun, a permit, and enough practice time to get comfortable shooting runs you $500. That money goes to people who have a vested interest in upholding the climate of fear that got you to buy the gun in the first place. What are some other uses for that money? Shelter, dinner, a makeover, mutual aid, internet service, art supplies, clothing, medication, musical instruments, electrolysis, movie tickets, pet toys, diapers, candles, books, video games, shampoo, furniture, sports equipment, tattoos ... the list is endless. When you’re already in a precarious spot, spend your precious money on something that will make your life happier and safer than a gun will.

I'm not entirely sure about her numbers here, but let's accept them as true for the sake of argument. I'll add that maintaining proficiency is an additional expense because shooting is a perishable skill.

And you can absolutely spend that money in other ways that may, in fact, bring you more joy than having a gun will. Then again, as someone who has been shooting, that's not necessarily true. Shooting is legitimately fun, so I'm pretty sure a lot of people would enjoy that more than electrolysis--which is something I don't see anyone in a "precarious spot" needing to spend money on anyway--so it may actually make life for them happier.

But let's also understand that "climate of fear" is something that has been peddled to people like the author, not to folks who own guns. I'm not afraid when I leave the house. I'm cautious. I'm aware. I'm not scared.

That's because I have the means to defend myself. I'm not powerless in the face of naked aggression.

If you're someone who is convinced that your lifestyle makes you a target for whatever reason, it behooves you to get a gun, learn how to use it effectively, then stop worrying. Armed gays don't get bashed, as the Pink Pistols like to say, and they're right.

It's impossible to oppress armed people. It's just that simple.

Telling people not to buy guns because you don't like them is just setting people up for failure.