100% correct good post. Children for time immemorial have played at war, swung wooden swords, and weilded pop guns. Men are biologically biased towards martial endeavors. It doesn't mean we're all blood thirsty warriors, but rather that the study of weapons and fighting is normal from an historical perspective.
Once you reached adulthood the expectation of you, as a man, was usually to prepare for war. Hoplites, militiamen, and various aristocracies (Roman, Feudal) are some examples. Even if the expectation wasn't for you to go fight all the time, you were usually expected to be proficient just in case. Either as a leader, fighter, or both. This applies specifically to worthwhile men--people with land or power. Serf/peasant/laborer types need not apply. The militiamen of the early American colonies were generally semi-educated and landowners. Knights were straight upper class landowmers. Roman aristocrats operated similarly to knights, and while the military was professional their officers were wealthy landowners. There have been many exceptions, of course, but for the most part men who have been worth anything have had to know how to protect their shit. That means directly, or indirectly by siding with a military/lord/strongman and helping as needed.
Things are a little different now, and we can generally do whatever the fuck we want. Times have changed. Guns, as a hobby, are almost entirely for purposes of entertainment. I hate larperator fags and gear queers, personally. Its like a child playing war--its cringe. But, there is a clear historical precedent to this very male behavior. I like to seek a balance, and familiarize myself with guns and martial arts in a more normal range/gym environment, training for proficiency for its own sake and not out of a neurotic fear of impending Boogaloo. War is different nowadays. Not everybody wants to participate in professional armies (and die for Isreal). I hated the army.