“Moms Demand Action” makes a lot more sense now…

This made my morning. You’re familiar with Markley’s Law, right? It refers to the musty old joke that an interest in owning/carrying guns is driven by a desire to compensate for small male genitalia*. Guns are phallic symbols, people unhappy with their own phalluses are drawn to carry them in order to project power and aggression that they would not otherwise feel.

It was always just a slur, nobody ever tried to actually quantify whether it’s true or not.

Or have they? Actually it seems somebody did.

I don’t know who sponsored the above-linked study but I can only assume they didn’t get their money’s worth. Because the study** turned out to purport the exact opposite.

Size Matters? Penis Dissatisfaction and Gun Ownership in America

In this study, we formally examine the association between penis size dissatisfaction and gun ownership in America. The primary hypothesis, derived from the psychosexual theory of gun ownership, asserts that men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises will be more likely to personally own guns.
—
We find that men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises are less likely to personally own guns across outcomes, including any gun ownership, military-style rifle ownership, and total number of guns owned. The inverse association between penis size dissatisfaction and gun ownership is linear; however, the association is weakest among men ages 60 and older.

😀 I’m not suggesting that the above is in any way important or meaningful or even truthful. But it did get a chuckle out of me.

—-
*the fact that it may or may not be true in my case is not an indication of truthiness in regard to the general population. No part of my aspect has ever graced the cover of a romance novel, or ever would – on the other hand I don’t actually own that many guns.

**which may or may not be any more accurate than the slur it was intended to reinforce, I’d have no way of knowing.

h/t