The Psychology of Gun Control


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.


Last week, I saw a picture that shows the psychology of gun control perfectly.  Here’s the pic…

psychology gun control

The real psychology of gun control is far more subtle than the public debate would imply.  It is also far more powerful.  The state always wants order, and power.  While order is desirable, the state’s means of enforcing it is shown by the man with the whip.  It is based on fear, threats, and injustice.  It is not just, it is violence.  As for the people?  Most of them bowed.   But when one stood up, others were emboldened to stand as well, and even thought the state continued using it’s whip, he was eventually broken when all the people stood up.

To look at this further, we have to turn it around, and realize that many people are being conditioned to be compliant, even to their own detriment.  To get there, we need to look at learned helplessness.  It’s a psychological state in which a person does not try to help themselves.  It is, in fact, so pervasive that people do not think to help themselves, because they do not believe that anything can be done for them.  To illustrate, let’s use an old analogy.  I don’t know how factually true it is, but it does capture this quite well.

When a baby elephant was born in the circus or zoo.  A rope would be tied to one leg, and secured with a stake in the ground.  Try as it might, the baby elephant could not escape.  Eventually, it would quit trying, and accept it’s captivity.  As the elephant grew into adulthood, it would continue to be restrained in the exact same way, even though it could easily pull the rope and stake right out of the ground.  Based on it’s learning and conditioning, it no longer contemplates its escape, and passively accepts it’s captivity.  It has learned to be helpless.

That state of passive captivity is exactly where the state wants all of us.  And, the political left attempt to create this by use of the Alinsky Method.  People that dissent, believe in freedom, and such are singled out and destroyed.  They are harassed in public, and in their own homes.  Their children and tracked and harassed.  They receive death threats, false lawsuits are filed.  Basically, the target is relentlessly isolated and attacked until they submit.  They want the target to submit and be passive, and they want to people witnessing it to not get any bright ideas about having independent thoughts of their own.  Also, when children are singled out for punishment in school for being Christian, or c0llege students are threatened with failing grades for not embracing the “tolerance” of the regressives. we see the isolation and attack mode that seeks to create passive sheeple, and punish those that stand up.

How this applies to gun control is simple.  A firearm provides a sense of security and confidence.  As the old saying goes, “God made man, but Samuel  Colt made them equal.”  Meaning, that it became very difficult to intimidate and subjugate a man that is armed.  It is a catalyst for independence, as when a human can defend themselves, they will stand up to the state, community organizers, or union goons.  It’s the “emboldening agent” that could be applied to the picture.  It’s the great equalizer of our Republic. It is the counterbalance to tyranny; the gun owner is confident, and the one(s) that would attack him are wary.  It doesn’t matter that the gun owner cannot impose his will on others, as others cannot impose their will on him.

If you will notice, we see stories about union attacks, and community organizers intimidating people far more in urban areas.  Why is this?  I think most of you will understand why.  In the cities, there are more gun control laws, so these thugs have less of a chance of being confronted by an armed citizen.  In the suburbs, and especially in rural areas, the thug’s shenanigans would be confronted with the sound on dozens of “metallic clicks.”  It’s hard to intimidate someone that can fight back, even if he or she is outnumbered (or, unless the government limits the amount of bullets that go in magazines).

Obviously, the gun owner  can’t stand against the military, nor can he wreck the state single-handedly, nor does he have to.  However, he and a million so of his close friends, could make the country ungovernable.   And when he does that, even more will stand with him.   In that scenario, I wouldn’t want to be the man bearing the whip. Again, it’s about being confident, and not psychologically helpless that wins the day.  It’s a psychological balance of power that is at stake.  And, that’s exactly why the state wants to take the guns-they seek compliant sheeple, and emboldened free citizens with fire arms prevent that.

  • Really excellent, Matt. They want everyone cowed and complacent. It seems that every year there are fewer williing to stand.

  • Don

    Excellent article, Matt!