Looks like we finally have an answer to whether men with big guns overcompensate for a small package, thanks to a study published a few days ago in the American Journal of Men’s Health. 🍌
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.
Now I won't go into the methodology and all that boring stuff, the paper is open for anyone who wants to indulge on the semantics. Plus I only skimmed the paper as I really don't care about the subject.
Instead I will concentrate on the two points I found really interesting.
Of course one is the main finding, which according to the paper it's the exact opposite of the primary hypothesis. That it's the men who are less satisfied with their size that are actually LESS likely to own a gun!
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
But now comes the really juicy and hillarious part!
If you scroll down all the way to the funding of the study you will find this
The data collection for this study was supported by funding from Change The Ref, an organization that “uses urban art and nonviolent creative confrontation to expose the disastrous effects of the mass shooting pandemic.” Although Change The Ref holds a clear political stance with respect to the role of guns in society, this organization played no part in the planning or implementation of the study.
It looks like the study was funded by a anti-gun organization, probably in the hopes that they have something scientific to back up their media or whatever
But unfortunately for them, it totally backfired 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
If you want to read the paper just click here, it's open for everyone.
As I said I only skimmed the article so I don't really have an opinion on how good the "science" behind it is. I just found it hillarious how an anti-gun group tried to fund a paper to use for their propaganda only to back fire 100 %. 😂
Posted Using InLeo Alpha
