I think it’s probable that if you’re reading this at all, you are likely to agree with the proposition that Too Many Guns (TMG) is essentially a null value – there simply is no such number.


This is, of course, a highly subjective determination. Paul Helmke, for example, could easily place a value on TMG and express that integer in an extremely simple statement:

TMG > 0,

in that any number greater than 0 equals Too Many Guns. But even he, if pressed, would assign quite a list of qualifications and exceptions to the effect that TMG becomes a null value if G refers to Government guns. I don’t have enough math to know how to express the complete equation, but this post would have been substantially funnier if I could. It probably involves cosines.

But who cares what he thinks anyway? For purely practical purposes, “TMG” only truly comes into play in the matter of storage and maintenance. For many (by no means all) people, a pragmatically accurate statement would be

TMG ≥ Cs + 1,

or the capacity of the gun safe(s) plus one gun, at which point things can get hard to keep track of.

Can you tell I’m having trouble finding something I’ve been looking for?

About Joel

You shouldn't ask these questions of a paranoid recluse, you know.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to TMG

  1. Points well taken.

    I would advance that the relationship for Helmke, the Brady Bunch as a whole, and essentially all collectivists, might best be expressed as this:

    OPG = division by zero

    Where OPG, of course, represents Other People’s Guns.

    It’s not the number. It’s not even that they exist. It’s the mere shadow of a thought that they might exist.

    I think that goes a long way toward explaining the genocidal results of “successful” gun control. See, in the Holy Quest(tm) to eradicate OPG, it is not that much of a stretch to accept that anyone wielding OPG may have to be eradicated along with the Devil Spawn Objects(tm) themselves. They obviously had it coming anyway. But, then the nagging question of “who has ’em and who doesn’t?” comes up, and that’s when the “if you’ve nothing to hide you’ve nothing to fear” campaign kicks up a notch, and obviously anyone who gets uppity about that is hiding something…and after all, hell, there are millions of obviously decent people in the world, so we shouldn’t worry overmuch about those who shoulda known better anyway. And somewhere in there, it just becomes–ahem–necessary to start presuming that everyone has one. Or more. (Those fucking jerks. Paranoid fucking jerks at that. Serves ’em right.)

    After all, “You’re either with us or you’re against us,” right?

    See how bad it is for poor Helmke? Maybe we shouldn’t be so hard on him. Human rights for everyone sure is a bitch, innit?

  2. Joel says:

    It’s not the number. It’s not even that they exist. It’s the mere shadow of a thought that they might exist.

    You raise an interesting – and delightful – point, Kevin.

    This evening I will raise a glass to Mr. Helmke, and wish him much anguish at the thought that he lives in this brave new world that has such people – like we who will not be disarmed, no matter what he does – in it. He needn’t have merely the shadow of a thought that they exist. They definitely exist. They can’t be numbered, they can’t be tracked, and they are in the hands of people with no reason to love him.

To the stake with the heretic!