Disclaimer: no gold was harmed in the making of this film.
But, fellas, you’re probably not going to like it when you hear what was harmed…
“Keep It Simple, Stupid”–aka the KISS Principle. Many scholars maintain, present company excluded, that the less complicated a plan is, the less likely it is to go off the rails, and therefore the better it is. And personally, I think it’s simply ----- stupid. But that’s just me, over-complicater extraordinaire.
However, every now and then an idea floats past me in the aether that is just the right amount of simple that I can’t deny its beauty and its genius.
And before I float this beautiful, genius, simple idea, I’m just gonna throw in the disclaimer that, on account of its simplicity, that there’s no way in hell that it can be an original idea of mine; I’m sure this has been posited by someone else long before I showed up.
Also, you may utterly hate this idea, so I may or may not actually want to take credit for it, even if it were actually original. Anyways, I digress…enough intellectual foreplay–let’s get to the real action…
“It’s a story that’s tragically familiar, and all too easily avoidable: another man with a gun, another tragedy…” At some point in the last week I scrolled past an article that started this way, in reference to recent mass shootings in Georgia and Colorado. And yes, the article was making a case for common sense gun control.
Now I’m well aware that gun control is a rather controversial topic, but just humor me for the next 2 and 1/2 minutes, will ya?
That line from that particular article got me to thinking, “What singular characteristic best predicts who may be responsible for future mass shootings?”
Of course, the answer one gets when they ask that depends pretty heavily on who you’re asking. Some might say that if you look at the cold, hard data, it’s actually white men you need to be constantly giving the side-eye. But focusing on this demographic would have let the shooter in Denver–who is most definitely not your average white guy–slip past unnoticed until it was too late. Others might point out that it is precisely these guys with “hard to pronounce names” are exactly who you should be afraid of, and warrant an extra level of surveillance and/or restrictions of personal liberties.
In short, it’s a politically loaded question, and we all know that if it’s that subjective, then we’ll never agree enough on how to combat the problem effectively.
But hold up–has the obvious blown right on past us?
Really, though? What’s the single most accurate predictor of the perpetrators of senseless gun violence?
This particular scholar maintains that the undeniable answer is: a penis.
Indeed, the one thing nearly every last one of these assholes have in common is a dick.
So I’m just going to throw this ri-dick-ulous idea out there, and let you do with what you will. What if…what if we simply banned men from owning or handling guns?
Yeah, that may be a bit of blunt tool for a nuanced issue, but let’s just stop ----- around already and solve this problem. Us men have repeatedly proven to society that we simply cannot be trusted with firearms. In-laws, outlaws, crooks, & straights–if Brooks & Dunn can sing about them, then they are statistically way too likely to shoot someone or something that they shouldn’t.
Only female cops get guns? You know what, that sounds pretty ----- good to me.
Only female soldiers get to handle loaded weapons? That one probably doesn’t matter because it won’t be too long before the military has outsourced all their violence to drones and robots. In the meantime, though, sure, I think we would do just fine with that policy.
Oh, and would this solve all the domestic violence problems in the country? No…but, yeah, maybe. I say it’s well worth the risk, the Patriarchy be damned!
Girls, go get your guns! If you can’t be trusted with them…well, it’s going to take a lot to prove to us that you can’t be trusted with guns, given the infinite amount of heart-breaking and senseless shit that we’ve tolerated thus far from your brethren…
Like any idealistic and naive proposition like this one, there are bound to be unintended consequences that the creators never could have foreseen. And no doubt that would be the case here. But after all the dust settles, I would wager that our society would be a much better place for the vast, vast majority of us.
There is, however, one unintended consequence that I can foresee, and it makes me chuckle a wee bit: I can only imagine that the support for transgender rights would suddenly find proponents from previously untapped and unexpected sources (this is not to denigrate the very real struggle of fellow citizens who are very worthy of basic respect, but rather a critique of those who for some ----- reason think they have an opinion in the personal matters of other people).
Is it morally wrong of me to take some sort of secret delight in envisioning gun-loving gentlemen across this great nation of ours agonizing over that age old question? You know the one: “Which do you love more: your dick…or your gun?”
So…how much do you really love your guns, buddy?
*Giggles like a schoolgirl packing heat*
Content created on: 28 March 2021 (Sunday)
The latest word on the street