> But if you ask if I do not like machismo and aggressive and
> violent men - the answer is unqualified yes, regardless of what
> tools they use to express their violent behavior.
> I thought this was your position too, no?
I'm way less concerned with violent individuals than I am with the constant violence of capitalism. But you seem pretty bent about machismo and individual behavior. Back to the OP: I think this is the reason that many "liberals" are anti-gun: something in their political makeup makes them especially prone to getting bent about "other people's" individual tastes and behaviors. Beats me what it is.
I think there is (rightly) some awareness of things like the so-called "War On Drugs" which is a waste of resources and is a huge distraction, but not so much attention paid to the mostly un-called "War On People" that has been successfully waged in the US since the 1960s. So when people shriek about individual violence and largely ignore the systemic violence in US society, I tend to tune out.
Are you more concerned about a street thug than by a fleet of corporate lawyers?
Shag brought it up (my position) so I'll try to state it clearly: I think the issue of individual gun ownership in the US is best characterized by two loud, boring sides of an inconsequential conversation. Is owning a gun the most perfect representation of individual liberty? Not by a long shot. Will closing the "gunshow loophole" et al do anything to address the roots of violent crime in the US? Not a bit. And frankly: "individually violent people" (such identified by you above) are mostly not criminals.
Nothing to see here. Move along. These are not the droids you're looking for.
/jordan