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?
