Guns, fidelity and genital size

Reading anti-gunner comments about guns being compensations for small genitals, I wonder if they realize the assertion is a compliment. In nature, species with relatively large genitals are engaged in sperm competition, generally stemming from non-monogamous mating habits. Developing large genitals isn’t free, biologically speaking. So, if the theory of guns being compensations for small penises is correct, it would also correlate gun use with more developed brains. Guns being a subset of “tools”, that’s not an unreasonable theory. Equating “small genitals” with weakness, which is the aim of the detractors, is a logical fallacy: gorillas are a typical example of a species with small penises and rather impressive muscle.

Looking closer at that theory, I wonder why “compensating” would be bad. The same overall political group thinks that gender reassignment surgery is a fine way to compensate for mismatched software and hardware — merely owning or carrying a firearm is a much less onerous compensation for not being a cave bear with big teeth and claws. Wearing clothes to compensate for lack of fur is ok, wearing glasses to compensate for poor eyesight is ok, why would wearing sidearms to compensate for lack of built-in weapons be somehow an exception?

This entry was posted in humor, rkba, self-defense, weapon. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Guns, fidelity and genital size

  1. Lyle says:

    There is nothing a penis does that can be done with a gun, and nothing a gun does that can be replaced by a penis. There is no meaningful correlation between the gun and penis, and so there’s no way one could be made to compensate for the other, that is, unless one believes the penis to be a weapon of some kind (that would only come from a disturbed mind).

    Therefore those who try to make the correlation are speaking gibberish at best, or they’re telling us they have disturbed minds.

    None of this has anything to do with the fact that all humans have the right to defend themselves, or that said right is guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, or that politicians and law enforcement have all promised to uphold and protect that right.

  2. Firehand says:

    My usual response to such ‘penis size’comments: “What is this fascination you have with other peoples’ genitals?”

  3. Matt says:

    So if one carries a large handgun suitable for fighting one is compensating for having a small penis? What about women who carry? Does she now identify as a man? What about people who carry small pistols? Let us take the argument one step further and examine people who want to take away the right to carry and gun ownership in general? Those must be some sad sick individuals.

  4. ken e says:

    some men were born with a penis and jewels and others were born with a penis and no jewels and them are the one who carry the guns to compensate for having no jewels. in other words it isnt the size of the penis but the lack of the jewels that go with it.

    • Lyle says:

      How then does a gun make up, in any way, for a lack of “jewels”? You would have to explain how “jewels” are used as weapons at a distance, or how a gun works to produce sperm. Then please address the issue of women who carry guns for defense. For what personal character, or physical, defect are they compensating. What nearing does any of this have on the inherent, unalienable right to self defense?

      “…them are the one who carry…”

      What do you do to compensate for your shortcomings in grammar and syntax, besides making silly insults?

    • Sho Rembo says:

      Next time you are being robbed, pull out your big “jewels” and let us know how it goes.

  5. LarryArnold says:

    Pitnick and his colleagues had predicted that, in species with promiscuous females, males would require bigger brains in order avoid being cuckolded. So they were surprised to find the opposite: “Perhaps monogamy is more neurologically demanding.”

    Evidently Pitnick and his team don’t get out much. If a female is promiscuous, no amount of male brain is going to make any difference. Keeping up with a monogamous woman is much more demanding.

  6. Dan Lewis says:

    I think the real issue is how obsessed the left is with penises.

  7. People with small brains compensate by running their big mouths. If these folks really think a critter is dangerous and unstable, how stupid do you have to be to poke the critter with a sharp stick? So either they know we really are peaceable and stable, or they are idiots. How about these same folks walk into a biker bar and suggest the bikers are compensating for small genital size with their bikes? Go ahead, poke the critters…

  8. Mrs.W says:

    How to explain to my children why mama is giggling after Daniel’s comment… then OMGsh you guys all have me dying. I’d never thought it through THAT much!

  9. revjen45 says:

    Of course I carry a gun to make up for the size of my genitals. Magnificent as my male member is, it can not function as a club. Also, I can not expel anything from my penis with sufficient kinetic energy to disable an armed attacker. Therefore, for the purposes of self defence I have to use a firearm.

  10. Kristophr says:

    I am compensating for my inability to project deadly countervailing force with my penis.

Comments are closed.