Keep Our Service Free-Donate

Saturday, February 24, 2018

Would a Change in Law Change Behavior? More Gun Control-While Ignoring Causes and Cures.


Poor Man Survival

Self Reliance tools for independent minded people…

ISSN 2161-5543

A Digest of Urban Survival Resources


Would a Change in Law Change Behavior? More Gun Control-While Ignoring Causes and Cures.

Blaming the NRA is like saying GM or Smirnoff is responsible for drunk driving deaths…CNN and other left wing, anti-gun media drool over these incidents and the press in general have a policy “If it bleeds, it leads.”

   It has become a cliché in America.  After every gun shooting, the same players trot out the same failed arguments about why need more ‘gun control.’  They NEVER examine the root causes of why people conduct these horrific acts.  Instead, it is always the same ass-backward, senseless mantra-blame the gun, not the person.  Now they’re trotting out small-minded individuals who suggest boycotts of the NRA are the solution which is typical simian thinking.  The NRA had nothing to do with this or any other mass shooting.  Indeed, the group promotes responsible gun ownership and training.

We already have scads of gun laws in place but what we don’t have are enough safety checks for individuals either through schools or for families.  Other nations have automatic weapons in their homes but nearly zero gun related shootings.  Why is America so different?  It wasn’t always this way.  What has changed in our society and why do people think changing laws will change behavior?

They rarely air protests about opioids which kill more people or drunk driving which also kill more people and are almost always overlooked by much of lamestream media.  Their lack of logic baffles me.  After all, we don’t demand the ban of vehicles or the ban of doctors and pharmacies.

  Manipulated student protests are aired to a salivating press which has had an anti-gun bent for years.  But what exactly is ‘more gun control?”  Most of us know it is a code for a complete ban on all guns as they’ve done in Australia and the elimination of our Second Amendment [most high school students aren’t taught American history or the Bill of Rights at this point any longer so they probably don’t know what I’m referring to].

When I was growing up virtually every boy in our city owned a BB gun.  I spent summers at my Grandfathers’ cottage where my uncle, an avid hunter shot clay pigeon over the canal.  He let me shoot his 12 gauge once.  It promptly put me on my ass much to the amusement of everyone watching. He owned a lot of guns but I didn’t have to be told not to touch them.  It was the RULE!   When I joined the Boy Scouts, I owned a .22 rifle.  When I was 16 I got my first hunting rifle as did many others in our area of Ohio, MI and PA.

In those days I purchased a survival .22 [everything concealed into the stock] from a Sears sporting goods department for about $60.  A bargain considering what they sell for today.  No identification was required, cash and carry.

 Eventually, I purchased a semi-automatic carbine.  I’ve never caused anyone harm as a result of firearm ownership and to the best of my knowledge, neither have any of my uncles, cousins, grandfathers, or friends…most of which have been lifelong hunters.

What has changed since I graduated high school are the rise in broken homes, single-parent families on welfare, deteriorating schools, increasing numbers of children placed on psychotropic drugs, an increase of discipline problems in our schools, a decrease of parental involvement with the upbringing of their children or involvement with their school work, a tremendous increase in the disconnect of family as a result of electronic devices [too much time spent with cell phones, video games, tablets, - people are addicted to shiny objects and no longer communicate with each other face-to-face as much like at family dinners each evening for example.]

Gun control begins (and ends) at home.

As James Davenport recently pointed out in FEE, there are reasons why Congress doesn’t act on gun violence. (“The reality is,” says James Davenport, “Congress isn’t, and can’t be, responsible for anyone’s personal safety.”)

There’s growing sentiment (at least that’s what the media wants you to believe) that the (at least) 60,000,000 gun owners, in possession of over 300 million guns shouldn’t have some, or in the most extreme positions, all of them.

And, at the very least, they shouldn’t have those devious machines deemed “assault rifles.” (Of which, contrary to popular thought, the “AR” in “AR-15” does not stand for.)

But would a ban on AR-15’s quell shootings or terror attacks?

Would it, like a well-received rain dance, wash the violent impulses from the loonies and sprout rainbows from the pastures?


In reality, it’s a tiny, shriveled, used band-aid applied on an incredibly deep and complex gash (a band-aid which, no less, could cause drastic unintended consequences from its use).

It is, I propose, one of the least effective ways of quelling violence. 

Here are seven reasons why.

- Guns or violence? Is getting rid of guns wholesale the sole goal? If so, why?

Those sincere to the cause can find common ground with those they deem as “gun nuts.”

The incredibly vast majority of this country want the same things...

Namely, for the despicable, deranged acts of violence to go away. Most people want to live in peace.

(There are, of course, exceptions…)

But wishing violence away with a law (enacted by... wait for it... more violence) is one of the least effective ways to get it.

Seeking common ground with our fellow citizens is more effective.

- War on Poverty… War on Drugs… War on Terror…

It’s a strange phenomenon.

Whenever the federal government declares war on something, we tend to receive more of the very same thing.

A “War on Guns” would be, behind the smoke-screened doublespeak, a “War on Violence.”

How would you wage such a war on violence? With violence.

Soft power, making peace appealing and attractive in communities, rather than beating disobedient individuals into submission, is a more effective, and less disastrous, strategy. (But where’s the political clout in that?)

What you resist persists.

Wholesale bans empower the criminal class and enrich the black market.

Blanket bans in any form are almost always unfavorable to the most vulnerable.

Not only do all laws create criminals  (which is why they should never be applied lightly), they often have a way of emboldening and empowering the criminal class through perverse incentives. (AR-15s, for example, become a hot ticket item on the black market. Profit margins go significantly up.)

Incentives which weaken the honest and most vulnerable. 

As the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu, author of the Tao Te Ching, sagely said: “The more laws and restrictions there are, the poorer people become.”

- The right to self-defense is a negative right -- a right which doesn’t inherently, by its nature, infringe upon the rights of others.

Positive rights entail government taking action, infringing upon individual rights for the “greater good” of the collective.

Rarely is the “greater good” how such interventions turn out in the long run.

Power that is so absolute to have free reign to roll over the individual (the smallest minority) as it pleases is always in danger of being perverted.

“Shall not be infringed” leaves very little room for ambiguity.

- The right to self-defense.

Guns represent one’s right to defend one’s own self, one’s own spark of existence, one’s own life from unprovoked attack.

Historically speaking, they’ve helped to turn the tables on physically strong predators who wish to prey on the weak, meek and most vulnerable.

Like all technological innovations, they ushered in a new paradigm. Each paradigm has its own set of pros and cons.

Each paradigm is also a psychological construct.

To demolish this psychological paradigm for an illusion (yes, illusion) of safety, even just by chipping away at the idea of it, sets, as history shows, monumentally dangerous precedent.

It’s a step backward.

- Healthy homes and communities heal.

Mass shootings, defined as four or more deaths by one or a few hands, happen year-round.

The amount of press one will receive, unfortunately, depends on the zip code.

Local action and soft power is more effective and humane than pleading for more force.

For example, on a micro scale…

Adding beautiful green spaces or community centers to a downtrodden place (park, urban garden, etc.) has been shown time and again to reduce crime in that area. 

Getting children engaged in community activities (or, heck, allowing young kids to work) reduces the time they have for dwelling on untoward things, gives them a sense of responsibility for themselves and those around them.

Strengthening community ties allows for individuals to see more clearly who is a danger to the community and might need some form of intervention. (Nosy neighbors are good for some things.)

Although all of this might sound insignificant, it’s not. It’s the grassroot. It’s where the action happens.

It’s where the wild things live and grow.

Violence is always a situational issue and can never be painted with a broad brush.

We are individuals, each with our own individual needs. 

Abstracting the problem, then outsourcing the solution to the house on The Hill does little.

It makes us feel, erroneously, that such violence is something which can be fixed nationally with the flick of a switch.

It reinforces the idea that collective response is the only option.

That our energy should be funneled into changing the minds of the out-of-touch political class (who saunter around with armed bodyguards) rather than hacking at the root.

- Violence emerges from individuals. Individuals are responsible.

The Parkland shooter reportedly killed animals for pleasure, self-harmed, acted out violently, had the cops called on him over 30 times, threatened to shoot a school, had the FBI tipped off about him twice -- all clear signs of a compulsive and incredibly violent and dangerous individual.

He was essentially a Jeffrey Dahmer reincarnate. (They both had similar impulses and both killed 17 people, except Dahmer didn’t use guns.)

Where are the parents? The community? The people who deal with this person on a regular basis? (Dahmer’s parents were absentees, too wrapped up in their own lives to see what was happening.)

Historically, communities would’ve been much more likely than they are today to take action and intervene.

It was, for them, a matter of keeping everyone safe and the bonds strong in the “tribe.”

You are, after all, only as strong as the weakest link.


Half of parents recently surveyed said they are at least "somewhat concerned" that their child's mobile device usage is negatively affecting their mental health.

I’ve been tracking the connection since 1999, when I wrote a long white paper, for the Truth Seeker Foundation, on school shootings and psychiatric drugs. The paper was titled: “Why Do They Do It? School shootings Across America.”

What about you? Got anything interesting to share?

Bruce, the Poor Man, free thinker, social critic & cynic


 Final Notes…

Contributors and subscribers enable the Poor Man Survivor to post 150+ free essays annually. It is for this reason they are Heroes and Heroines of New Media. Without your financial support, the free content would disappear for the simple reason that I cannot keep body and soul together on my meager book sales & ecommerce alone.


Special Offer for our Readers

 72-hour Emergency Meal kit that's being offered contains 16 total servings of such delicious meals as Blue Ribbon Creamy Chicken Rice, the always-loved Granny's Homestyle Potato Soup and the stick-to-your-ribs breakfast favorite Maple Grove Oatmeal.

This kit normally sells for $27, plus shipping and handling and is rated 4½ out of five stars by customers.

While supplies last, these kits are available for only $21.95 and that includes Priority Shipping [we were force to increase prices due to another round of USPS price hikes]. Go here for this deal:


Additional Resources


How to Survive the War on the Middle Class

14 of the best reports I’ve assembled on protecting your freedom-Download link.


Support our efforts by shopping my storefront…



A Smoking Frog Feature, Shallow Planet Production


Larry said...

Just incredible how quickly the left managed to gear up and mobilize its anti-gun troops to blame the NRA, even scripting mindless youth in its efforts. To see corporate America join in against the NRA was dumbfounding [must be a politically correct defect in their poor judgment] I like Shapiro's argument as explained below on YouTube:

'These Kids Know Nothing About Gun Control' - Ben Shapiro REACTS To Liberals Using Kids For Agenda

DAR said...

The anti-gun movement is very well funded thanks to Soros and other billionaires. Several of these groups have banded together and have hired a PR/Marketing agency to assist them with their anti/No gun agenda. They've created a how-to manual which shows these groups two things: How to effect change and How to get anti-gun people elected to office...the ultimate goal is to eliminate guns altogether in America and turn us into another Australia. This is the agenda.
The NRA is not responsible for these nut cases-PERIOD! A pox on those idiot corporations who boycott the NRA. All of my friends re-upped their memberships early to support the NRA!

Lucy said...

I wasn't a member before but I plan to join the NRA now. There are more idiots today compared to when I was young. I've hired high school kids who can barely speak English, can barely write and know next nothing about our own history. Schools do a dismal job teaching the basics let alone anything about our Bill of Rights and the Constitution. No wonder there are so many left leaning socialist morons in this country.

Sanford said...

Amen brother-you hit all the salient points. There are a lot of nut cases today and more gun control isn't going to stop despite all the whining from the Left and the Democraps.