Don’t dare Mad Mike — he would take you up!
Pole arms and hoplophobes
I wonder why the fans of Markley’s Law don’t annoy the Swiss guardsmen with their helberds or the Japanese history reenactors with spears and naginatas. Seems to me, the users of pole arms are far more appropriate targets for the accusations of compensating for insufficient potency than the users of small handguns.
Fun guns and the girls who shoot them
ATI STG44-22 is one of my favorite plinkers. Scoped, it’s impressively accurate.
I bet most of you didn’t even see the Nighthawk shotgun in this photo. Oh, the power of camouflage patterns!
Poor Yorick and other skulls
She’s no mechanic!
She may have a grease gun, but the cars she serviced catch fire more than they run…
Pay Attention!
Hazards of modeling: the hungry beasts
Bear cavalry is real!
This is not a scarf
It’s not a pipe, either.
Funny wabbit!
Hush, Daddy!
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?
Gun stand
You’ve read the order!
A prepper’s dilemma
This is not a scarf
It’s not a pipe, either.
Funny wabbit!
Hush, Daddy!
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?