The Phenomenon of Critical Gun Mass

[Colonel Dan, SASS #24025]

As we enter the Christmas season, many in our beloved SASS Gang will be finding gifts of our favorite toys under the tree.

 

Given that we continually add new members to our ranks, I therefore thought it appropriate to review the SBSS Law of Critical Gun Mass for those who may have missed its formal publication in 2006. Besides, a well deserved break from the inconsequential world of politics and other equally meaningless topics is always warranted during the Christmas holidays— especially after we’ve been forced to suffer through the media-generated period of never ending post election analysis.

 

“Inconsequential” I say because what I’m about to address totally eclipses the importance of politics in every cowboy shooter’s life. This research is particularly useful to our ever increasing number of new SASS members and therefore deserves to be revisited now and again.

 

For those new to SASS, what follows is an important executive summary of a study generated after years of diligent, if not life-threatening, experimentation and analysis of the phenomenon known as gun buying action vs. spousal reaction—not always of the equal and opposite kind we learned about in physics class.

 

Those fresh to CAS will need this information as they travel the Cowboy Shooting Trail, accumulating guns at tumultuous pace—just ask anyone who’s been at this great sport for more than a day!

 

What is the reaction of your spouse, hereinafter referred to as the party of the second part, when you, hereinafter referred to as the party of the first part, walk in the door with that impossible to hide gun box—that long slim box of the rifle class or the squatty box of the revolver class that you just can’t pass off as a pair of new shoes. Over the years the party of the second part has seen untold numbers of examples and can now spot that all too familiar container even as the party of the first part pulls into the driveway—they’ve developed a 6th and 7th sense about all this dontcha know.

 

In the early days of our marriage, the purchase of guns was a significant event. There was no question about it Miss Mary knew when I came home with one. And since I didn’t have all that many (yet) she could tell that gun I was handling was new and not Army issue even if she didn’t see me walking in the house with it. The reaction always followed in that quiet way, “Is that your new gun?” Miss Mary is like that—her reaction is one of the proper Army wife; subtle yet albeit strongly directed by an unmistakable attempt at guilt elicitation in the colonel.

 

I had to endure this over the years until it seemed to reach a point of noticeable diminishment. I wondered about this and commenced the study in question.

 

My research led me to discover the Law of Critical Gun Mass.

 

The law is of a simple nature but very important to the conduct of life. I discovered that there comes a point when the party of the first part has so many guns that the party of the second part can no longer distinguish old from new and the party of the second part becomes totally oblivious to the party of the first part’s new toy!!!!

 

Eureka!! I had discovered the Law of Critical Gun Mass (CGM) for all those of us infected with terminal Gun Disease.

 

In Miss Mary’s case the all-important point of CGM was reached at about gun number 24. I am now way beyond that point and my life is so much simpler these days. I have so many guns that she can’t tell if the one I am fondling is something old, something new, something borrowed or something re-blued! Slick eh?

 

Life is now great but I can’t tell you if CGM is different for Army wives as it is for ladies from other walks of life—a point for further study and analysis.

 

The Law of CGM differs in each household depending on the number of guns present when the joining of the party of the first part with the party of the second part took place. Further reaction is then determined by the party of the second parts powers of observation and the level of natural anxiety over guns and/or money and the level of gun disease present at birth in the party of the second part.

 

If the party of the second part is also infected with gun disease or at least has a high tolerance for it, there is a direct and positive correlation in the reaction level unless the factor of jealously is calculated.

 

If the party of the second part wants just as many guns as the party of the first part then anytime the party of the first part acquires a new toy, the party of the second part reacts vehemently in the fear of being left behind regarding total toy count and the natural instinct to catch up takes over, fueled by the libido of the party of the second part.

 

I’m now going to ask the honorable Professor Cubby Bear and his not-so-secret Laboratory staff to see if we can’t come up with a formula that SBSS HQ could publish to help others determine the level of CGM for their party of the second part. I’ll then ask the Regimental Litigation Trickster, the estimable Johnny the Kid, to draw up a contract useful for establishing binding consensual gun acquisition procedures between the two parties in question if required by either party being retroactively effective to their officially registered joining date.

 

Although reporting on CGM may be unrelated to our study of Stealth Bullets and political philosophy, let it be known the SBSS is eternally dedicated to serving those honorable humans known as cowboy shooters in any way we can.

 

Just another helpful service from SBSS HQ…Merry Christmas my friends!

[Adirondack Jack, SASS #53440]

The first corollary of the law of gun mass is the rule of domestic homeostasis. The energy of the domiclie tends to seek it's own level, and the introduction of a new gun brings about a disturbance in the domestic force.

 

In the early years of the established domicile, when the number of guns is quite small, (along with the number and value of most every other household furnishing and personal possession), the addition of something as small as a cobra derringer might well cause a significant disturbance in the force, with the requisite fears of monthy bill interruptus, leading to risks of all manner of unpleasentries until the anxiety fades when in fact the lights stay on, the family car keeps sipping petrol, etc.

 

As the phases of the life of the domicile progress, the number and value of accumulated possessions increases, and the experiences of many and varied disruptions in the force never in fact does cause disruption of the flow of electrons through said lights, nor does it in fact disrupt the flow of gasoline through the family car, nor prevent the considerable multiplication of shoes and jewelry, a new gun, while still a noted addition, proves far less anxiety producing.

 

When domicile maturity and critical gun mass are achieved, (notable by such signs as having to shove piles of pistol parts aside to actually eat a sandwich at the kitchen table, or the occassional inability to immediately respond when asked WHERE a certain gun is, and the less frequent, but still notable moments when one is not sure of the continued ownership of a certain gun,) there comes a time when the disturbance in the force is but a mere ripple, as insignificant as a pint of ice cream in the freezer, and all is well and good. The home fires burn well and heartily, and the party of the first part is quite content, so long as he doesn't mistake ballistol for catsup, and sprinkle it on his eggs.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

Col Dan,

 

Don't let the bean counters omit a very important part of this equation and that is:

 

If the party of the first part is a GF and the party of the second part is not, then reason would bare out that the party of the first part would need a gun for each hand whereas the party of the second part could suffice with one gun, assuming the guns are not of the Cowboy persuasion.

 

Another item to consider is:

 

if both parties combined have XXXX to spend, the party of the first part could spend 50% which would be XX. Then the party of the second part could also spend 50% of the 'remaining' available $$ which would only justify X.

 

This equates to each party only being able to use 50% of 'available' funds at the time of purchases. Basically, the winner would be the one who purchased firstest with the mostest.

 

Anyhow, that would be my plan.

 

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and Safe Travels to everyone.

 

 

..........Widder

[Adirondack Jack, SASS #53440]

Col Dan,

 

Don't let the bean counters omit a very important part of this equation and that is:

 

If the party of the first part is a GF and the party of the second part is not, then reason would bare out that the party of the first part would need a gun for each hand whereas the party of the second part could suffice with one gun, assuming the guns are not of the Cowboy persuasion.

 

Another item to consider is:

 

if both parties combined have XXXX to spend, the party of the first part could spend 50% which would be XX. Then the party of the second part could also spend 50% of the 'remaining' available $$ which would only justify X.

 

This equates to each party only being able to use 50% of 'available' funds at the time of purchases. Basically, the winner would be the one who purchased firstest with the mostest.

 

Anyhow, that would be my plan.

 

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and Safe Travels to everyone.

 

 

..........Widder

You actually wanna leave that out there in the world for all to see? Yer a brave (or foolish) man, Widder.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

You actually wanna leave that out there in the world for all to see? Yer a brave (or foolish) man, Widder.

 

 

Well, no one has ever accused me of being brave.

 

 

..........Widder

[Colonel Dan, SASS #24025]

Widder and Jack, You guys fit right in to the way we do research around the SBSS HQ!! I can see right off, you're two very smart cookies!

 

Good job soldiers....

[Grizzly Dave]

Merry Christmas Col Dan.

[G. I. Tarpicker, SASS #998]

Profound, gentlemen, profound. -- GIT

[Charlie MacNeil, SASS #48580]

Did somebody mention cookies?

[Widder, SASS #59054]

Well, truth be told, AJ was born that way.

 

I had to hang around smart folks all my life and let it rub off on me.

 

 

..........Widder

[Deadeye Dallas, SASS #60249]

I take it Miss Mary does't read the wire

 

Dallas

[Mike Fink, SASS #29047]

I like cookies!

 

M F

[RLMartin]

I can't say for sure when our household reached CGM. Somewhere between 10 and 30 guns I guess. I used to buy more frequently than I do now. I always show my wife my new guns, but at some point she reached saturation and no longer retains such information. Half the time when she sees me with a gun she'll say "I don't remember that one is it new?" Invariably its one I've had for 20 years.

[Sage Creek Gus SASS #64320]

This is similar to the same thing in my other hobby which is collecting and restoring old farm tractors.

 

CTM (Critical Tractor Mass) has many of the same features.

 

The biggest factor for keeping CTM in effect with the other half is to scatter your old tractors throughout the property and make sure they are not all in sight from one spot.

 

The biggest mistake a farm tractor collector can make which may well ruin the established CTM is to park all the tractors in a row!

 

Regarding CGM. I've begun having extra barrels made for some of my guns and switch from one caliber to another by switching barrels. I've got the better half convinced that a gun with another barrel is not a new gun.

 

This gives me the opportunity to state, when she asks if a gun is new to reply that no, it's an old gun with a new barrel.

 

Sage Creek Gus

[Tangent Ranger]

I have also noticed that if the party of the first part keeps the gun put away, or hidden, when it is taken out, and the party of the second part asks, then the party of the first part won't commit purgery when stating that they have had it for a while.

[Uno Mas SASS #80082]

.

I find that any long-term relationship will reach a rough equilibrium between the elements Guns of the first part and Shoes and Purses of the second part. This G-SAP ratio is unstable, as the party of the second part will always consider Guns to be a frivolous and wasteful expense, while a roomful of Shoes And Purses is the minimum required to escape Public Indecency laws.

 

Another poorly understood ramification: The element Guns is considered to be chemically inert, and as such is expected to last forever. However, the elements Shoes And Purses have relatively short half-lives, and radically degrade over a time period approximating the attention span of a teen-aged boy. As such, Shoes And Purses must be continuously replaced in order to keep the desired G-SAP domestic harmony ratio.

 

The adjusted formula can be expressed as: G (I'm a) SAP.

[Colt McCloud, SASS #65003L]

.

I find that any long-term relationship will reach a rough equilibrium between the elements Guns of the first part and Shoes and Purses of the second part. This G-SAP ratio is unstable, as the party of the second part will always consider Guns to be a frivolous and wasteful expense, while a roomful of Shoes And Purses is the minimum required to escape Public Indecency laws.

 

Another poorly understood ramification: The element Guns is considered to be chemically inert, and as such will last forever. However, the elements Shoes And Purses have relatively short half-lives, and radically degrade over a time period approximating the attention span of a teen-aged boy. As such, Shoes And Purses must be continuously replaced in order to keep the desired G-SAP domestic harmony ratio.

 

The adjusted formula can be expressed as: G (I'm a) SAP.

 

Hey Uno Mas, I know we aren't living with the same woman but this just verifies to me they are all related. I am constantly trying to ensure the total mass of my collection outweighs hers. And I know her collection is a frivolous and wasteful venture!!!

 

Now to the original post. After carefully reading all the posts on this topic, I'm still not sure if critical mass is caused by the actual accumulation of items by the party of the first part or if it is caused by the party of the second part becoming aware of the accumulation of items by the party of the first part. Please help me on this gentleman as I am seriously considering expanding my accumulation of "items" and would like to remain comfortably within the safety zone of non-detection by the party of the second part.

Thanks

Colt

[Chancy Shot, SASS #67163]

Gentlemen - I will posit for your consideration, that GCM is irrelevant. Guns, in and of themselves, are not noticed in my household. However, $6.45 spent on a bag of wads has been brought to the attention of the party of the first part. With both parties supplying income, it seems that the party of the second part has an interest in the location and destination of household funds. The party of the first part is constantly justifying expenses incurred in the pursuit of marksmanship.

 

In a word – HELP

 

Chancy

[Muleshoe Bill SASS #67022]

I shall wax Biblical and forthwithly explain the Right of gun mass.

For it was foretold in those days, when it was told unto those who were there to be told and then, those who were told in the second hand and third. The coming of the right to purchase guns and ammunition for which the need was foretold by the one who foretold the need and indeed held forth not only the need, but the inalienable right to procure, purchase without interference or judgement from She (substitute as appropriate he) who shall normally be obeyed, but for fortune and circumstance yielded Her (as appropriate substitute he) right to forbid, forbay, the right to purchase more guns and ammuntion and reloading gear. For to purchase guns, ammunition and reloading gear shall not be restrained by the significant other or the letter of credit, yeah verily I say unto thee, the only limit upon such procurement should be the desire to estrange oneself from the affections of the Mate or Family, balanced against the internal peace achieved by such procurement, failing fiduciary propriety or limit! Man shall not fly in the face and deny one's closeness to the need to be close unto the Gun.

[Injun Ryder, SASS #36201L]

There is no such thing as GCM! They are just humoring us until such time the axe will fall mightily upon us!

 

Enjoy your blissful ignorance while you can!

[Colt McCloud, SASS #65003L]

I shall wax Biblical and forthwithly explain the Right of gun mass.

For it was foretold in those days, when it was told unto those who were there to be told and then, those who were told in the second hand and third. The coming of the right to purchase guns and ammunition for which the need was foretold by the one who foretold the need and indeed held forth not only the need, but the inalienable right to procure, purchase without interference or judgement from She (substitute as appropriate he) who shall normally be obeyed, but for fortune and circumstance yielded Her (as appropriate substitute he) right to forbid, forbay, the right to purchase more guns and ammuntion and reloading gear. For to purchase guns, ammunition and reloading gear shall not be restrained by the significant other or the letter of credit, yeah verily I say unto thee, the only limit upon such procurement should be the desire to estrange oneself from the affections of the Mate or Family, balanced against the internal peace achieved by such procurement, failing fiduciary propriety or limit! Man shall not fly in the face and deny one's closeness to the need to be close unto the Gun.

 

Amen - I have seen the light!!