Idea to turn public opinion in favor of firearms


PDA






Vector
March 30, 2013, 04:48 PM
I believe that the average American does not think too much about guns in their daily lives. Some even own guns and generally support the 2A, but that is as far as it goes.
So when I hear people being freaked out about regular citizens owning certain types of guns, it gets me to wonder why. Furthermore when people in states that Open Carry is allowed are stopped by police, just because others see it and feel uncomfortable with it, it also makes you wonder why.
Heck one day on the forum I was reading where a gun owner said he would call the police if he saw someone doing OC even though it was legal, though not a common site. When I asked him why, he replied that "it seemed strange to him, and why not have the guy checked out, just to be safe".
If the guys who are supposedly on our side feel that way, just imagine how the typical person would feel.

It was not all that long ago that I was not a big fan of Open Carry though I was not opposed to it.
Where I live OC is not an option, but Concealed Carry is. So while I still personally prefer CC to OC, I am thinking we should fight for more OC options for the following reason.

The word is desensitizing.

I will give two examples of how American culture has been changed (for better or worse is not to be debated here) through desensitization.

Not all that long ago inter-racial dating and marriage was frowned upon by almost everyone except extreme liberals. However Hollywood started in with depictions of it in movies[Guess Who's Coming to Dinner], and the Star Trek episode with Kirk & Uhura kissing.
People were outraged and sickened by it, and protested/boycotted TV stations if they dared to air it. Yet over time Hollywood has gone out of their way to promote it in movies, TV series, advertising, etc. That combined with inter-racial couples now commonly walking around in public has caused a shift in public outrage. So even those who still do not want their own children to date someone of a different race are desensitized to it in general.
The current social issue promoted by liberals is homosexuality. For at least the last 10 years or so Hollywood has gone out of their way to promote as normal homosexuals and their lifestyle. When it first started people were outraged/sickened, and did the same thing by protest/boycott.
However now days there are several mainsteam shows that not only imply homosexual behavior, but promote it as the norm, including adoption and marriage.

My point is that intentional desensitization does work to change peoples minds whether they like it or not. Even if they still hold true to their core beliefs such as opposition to inter-racial or homosexual couples, they are much less likely to be an activist against it. Whether it is apathy/ambivalence or something else, most people do not protest/boycott like they use to on those two social issues.

Ergo, if more law abiding citizens were to OC in everyday life and routine activities, the anti's would become desensitized, and less vocal in their opposition. The regular people would also not be "freaked out by evil guns" because their exposure would by much greater. They would also start to see that non LEO's can legally and responsibly carry firearms without anyone being harmed as a result.
I also think that TV shows like Top Shot and others showing gun competitions, collecting, etc. is good for this purpose.

So I am curious about what others think of this. While I have no issue with others bringing up different examples of where social engineering has occurred to desensitize the populace, please do not debate the merits of those examples.
Instead just use them as a means to bolster or debunk the thought of how desensitization might help us win the hearts and minds of those who otherwise feel uncomfortable around firearms.

`

If you enjoyed reading about "Idea to turn public opinion in favor of firearms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
blarby
March 30, 2013, 04:58 PM
You know what really will sway opinion in our favor ?

Stop letting guns get into the hands of people who shouldnt have them.

All of our recent tragedies point to this.

guns dont matrialize out of thin air....although this printing stuff is gettin pretty good.

At some point, there is a transfer... legal or not.

Do everything in your power to control the transfers. Keep your guns locked upunless you are there with 'em. Feel free to ask pointy questions towards those buying guns from you.

The better we police our own actions, the less aberations we'll have to answer for.

That, and take n00bs shooting. Nothing converts like a gun in hand....

TCB in TN
March 30, 2013, 05:29 PM
Stop letting guns get into the hands of people who shouldnt have them.

Sorry, isn't going to happen. Nice in theory, impossible in reality. You can't lock up everyone who "might" one day be a danger to society.

People would be far better off learning to protect themselves, and to be prepared than to worry about the "wrong people" getting guns.

Vector
March 30, 2013, 05:43 PM
You know what ...

While I'd be happy to discuss this with you in another thread, what are your thoughts on this threads topic of desensitizing the public via OC and positive media?

`

AlexanderA
March 30, 2013, 06:16 PM
The word is desensitizing.

I disagree completely. The result of extensive open carrying would be the opposite -- hyper-sensitizing. Where I live (northern Virginia), open carry is legal. But I guarantee you that if a large number of people suddenly started open carrying, the general public -- leery about guns to begin with -- would freak out and the next thing you know, open carry would be made illegal. I say let sleeping dogs lie.

This is not the way to win friends. Tactics like this make gun owners look like kooks and nutcases.

barnbwt
March 30, 2013, 07:10 PM
The result of extensive open carrying would be the opposite -- hyper-sensitizing
And that's why people are completely terrified to see law enforcement with AR15's :rolleyes:. Remember how odd it was to see riflemen situated in the airports after 9-11, and how every dang squad car seems to have them now? Of course exposure desensitizes people's emotional response, it's basic psychology.

The goal is exposure, not overexposure. Yeah, a massive OC protest would freak people out, but small numbers of people (initially) going out of their way to be seen in public with a piece on their hip would not "panic the masses." You think cops weren't called out against gays and minorities over the years as they practiced "questionable" behavior? We're not entitled to have our rights respected any more than another minority gorup--even if ours are explictly defined in the Bill of Rights.

No other oppressed group (and gunowners are certaintly oppressed in many parts of this country) ever achieved anything by letting sleeping dogs lie, and hoping that the majority wouldn't continue to chip away at them.

Do everything in your power to control the transfers
Biiig +1. The rationale behind needing federal approvals is that we aren't paying attention. I know for a fact that many of us aren't. "Just say no to weird or shady guys" :D
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/August_2010/images/watch_large.jpg
I never realized how hilariously out-dated the Watch logo is...

TCB

kwguy
March 30, 2013, 07:42 PM
Desensitizing does work. It may not work on everyone, and if done incorrectly (like a huge OC protest in the middle of NYC), that may not work too well either.

I'll give one example. The military in a combat zone. Soldiers, Marines, etc, some of who have never grown up with weapons, and are maybe a bit intimidated by them, are trained to use them, and they become desensitized to seeing them around. Everyone carries at least an M4 carbine or pistol. Most will have M16's and plenty carry SAW's, 240's etc. It's just normal to them now, but for many it certainly didn't start out that way. Even some civilians who work in these areas who, when new, appear out of their element at first, get desensitized to seeing all that hardware.

That's why it's so laughable to listen to some of these politicians talk about these 'powerful evil, weapons of war: the AR-15!" It's obvious they have no clue as to what they are talking about, because they haven't been around them.

There isn't a 'one size fits all' solution to having people accept firearms for what they are: tools. But that is one part of the equation. Another word to use would be just plain 'familiarity'.

beatledog7
March 30, 2013, 10:01 PM
You can't lock up everyone who "might" one day be a danger to society.

Of course not. But you can lock up and keep locked up those who have already proven they are a danger. That would be a great start.

kwguy
March 31, 2013, 06:59 AM
But you can lock up and keep locked up those who have already proven they are a danger

THIS is definitely a huge part of the equation.

FROGO207
March 31, 2013, 08:03 AM
Situational awareness lends itself to firearms sales also.:) FWIW as of the last few months I have been OC when I go out and about often. Other times I will only have a holster strapped on when visiting in some places that don't allow a firearm. There have been some that have questioned me about this and it gives me a chance to start a discussion over the 2A and the need for us to have it. Mostly there have been positive responses. One individual called the local PD cause I had an empty holster on. I waited for them to show and explain to her that it was also legal to carry a firearm in it there as well. She was still upset with us all.:rolleyes: I agree we need to do all that we can to make such things "normal" again and this action will be a good start.:cool:

Vector
March 31, 2013, 10:34 AM
I disagree completely. The result of extensive open carrying would be the opposite -- hyper-sensitizing. Where I live (northern Virginia), open carry is legal. But I guarantee you that if a large number of people suddenly started open carrying, the general public -- leery about guns to begin with -- would freak out and the next thing you know, open carry would be made illegal. I say let sleeping dogs lie.

This is not the way to win friends. Tactics like this make gun owners look like kooks and nutcases.

I see what you are saying. However the way you take the idea and come up with the most in your face scenario would not be the goal. Rather I am suggesting that in states that already have OC, that people start exercising their rights to OC in any venue that it is legally appropriate to do so.
I am also not suggesting a large group of people go around with combat style shotguns and AK47's slung over their shoulders either.

Furthermore we should start to lobby our representatives to pass OC in the states that do not allow for it. As I've pointed out, I prefer CC, and would not want to have my state to go to OC only. However if I had the option of doing either, I'd start to OC on occasion just to start getting others around me to become accustomed to it, i.e. desensitized.

So I am suggesting what barnbwt surmised, that being a "goal of exposure, not overexposure".

`

SuperNaut
March 31, 2013, 10:42 AM
I am not a fan of OC, or worse, using it as a political tool; and I'm about as desensitized to guns as one can get.

Vector
March 31, 2013, 10:51 AM
I am not a fan of OC, or worse, using it as a political tool; and I'm about as desensitized to guns as one can get.

As I stated in the OP, I've never been found of OC, but probably not for the reasons some may think. That said, my views are evolving on the subject to where I certainly see the benefits, having nothing to do with my own bias for CC vs. OC

So tell us why you feel this way, and that may help others get a better understanding of how to overcome that apprehension.

SuperNaut
March 31, 2013, 11:02 AM
As I stated in the OP, I've never been found of OC, but probably not for the reasons some may think. That said, my views are evolving on the subject to where I certainly see the benefits, having nothing to do with my own bias for CC vs. OC

So tell us why you feel this way, and that may help others get a better understanding of how to overcome that apprehension.
It is how I was raised, I find arguments more convincing than theater.

I don't feel compelled to persuade anyone on this matter though, you have another data point and I'll leave you to it.

Kim
March 31, 2013, 11:09 AM
I think gun rights groups need to have programs for minority outreach. This too me is very important for the future. Take a city kid shooting or hunting. Have camps for them etc. Spend the time and money. Not just kids but minority women and men. College age adults need to be reached out too also. Expand the idea of freedom and the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment depends on it.

Vector
March 31, 2013, 12:07 PM
It is how I was raised, I find arguments more convincing than theater.

I don't feel compelled to persuade anyone on this matter though, you have another data point and I'll leave you to it.

Look, you can be as vocal or silent as you choose. From the number of views compared with responses so far, many are choosing to lurk rather than offer an opinion, one way or the other.
As to having a "data point", I created a thread for discussion. Otherwise I could have just created a poll for a numbers crunching exercise of data points. Instead I'm hoping for insightful and thoughtful points of view on this subject.
Using the two examples of societal/social changes and how they have come about, is an example of how unpopular things were changed over time. I believe that with the medias influence and desensitizing average people with regular exposure is a means to an end. I would not even call it political per se, rather the ability to change peoples minds about things they may even object to, with regular doses of what is portrayed as normal/routine.

BTW - I certainly do not want to debate nor scoff at your position. Yet when you say "it is how I was raised", that brings up more questions than it answers.
I too was raised in a city where only LEO's wore guns, and still live there. When CC was first proposed and passed into law, many an anti decried it as a prelude to the OK Corral. Needless to say they were proved wrong, but still are anti for the most part.
Still I'm not sure what you mean by your "raised that way" comment.
Maybe elaboration on that alone might be insightful, so please educate us as to what you mean?

`

cfullgraf
March 31, 2013, 12:32 PM
Situational awareness lends itself to firearms sales also.:) FWIW as of the last few months I have been OC when I go out and about often. Other times I will only have a holster strapped on when visiting in some places that don't allow a firearm. There have been some that have questioned me about this and it gives me a chance to start a discussion over the 2A and the need for us to have it.

Interestingly, most folks do not have an issue seeing law enforcement with a firearm strapped to their hip. Obviously, this has become a "normal".

But recent events in California have shown law enforcement folks can and do get a bit over zealous when using their firearms.

I believe that there needs to be alot of education to make the public informed and respectful of firearms. Firearms have been demonized of late. I do not feel desensitizing John Q Public is a good idea as firearms have a high degree of lethality when handled and used improperly.

oldcelt
March 31, 2013, 05:40 PM
One of our local newspapers here in CT. has assigned its court and crime reporter to apply for a Ct. pistol permit and is paying all the fees. He is to report from N.R.A. safety course, the entire prosess of obtaining the permit. I think this is a great idea and will educate a lot of uninformed people. An atta boy for the Bulletin and reporter John Barry

jeffmack
March 31, 2013, 05:55 PM
I wish people who successfully defend themselves would get more positive publicity. It would demonstrate the usefulness of guns.

Also, if we heard more stories about spree killers getting stopped early in their attack, and fewer stories about crazy people killing a bunch of innocent kids, it would help discourage the crazies.

BBQJOE
March 31, 2013, 06:12 PM
Of course we all don't want crazy people with bad intentions to own firearms.
But is that to say that a mentally disturbed person should have the right to defend himself from an attack stripped away from him?

I keep hearing folks, including the NRA bringing up the "mental health" issue.

I think we all know how the mentally ill who have proven their willingness to commit crimes should be dealt with.
But I think what looks like an up and coming push towards culling out the mentally ill could become a really slippery slope.

I see it coming to a point where all someone has to do is pick up a cell phone, call the police, and tell them they think you are crazy.
Before you know it, you will have more problems on your hands than you ever thought possible.

Who will determine who is crazy, and how much evaluation and inspection will you have to be subject to to prove to those questioning your sanity that you are indeed not insane? You will be guilty before proven innocent.
And quite possibly you might have your gun rights revoked just because you were brought forward for analyzing.

God help us. We need to be careful.

76shuvlinoff
March 31, 2013, 06:28 PM
Who will determine who is crazy, and how much evaluation and inspection will you have to be subject to to prove to those questioning your sanity that you are indeed not insane? You will be guilty before proven innocent.
And quite possibly you might have your gun rights revoked just because you were brought forward for analyzing.

God help us. We need to be careful.

Agreed, see signature line.

leadcounsel
March 31, 2013, 06:48 PM
Gun homicides are a statistical anomoly in our society.

The left wing media is successful at making us think they are commonplace.

BBQJOE
March 31, 2013, 06:50 PM
Of course we all don't want crazy people with bad intentions to own firearms.
But is that to say that a mentally disturbed person should have the right to defend himself from an attack stripped away from him?

I keep hearing folks, including the NRA bringing up the "mental health" issue.

I think we all know how the mentally ill who have proven their willingness to commit crimes should be dealt with.
But I think what looks like an up and coming push towards culling out the mentally ill could become a really slippery slope.

I see it coming to a point where all someone has to do is pick up a cell phone, call the police, and tell them they think you are crazy.
Before you know it, you will have more problems on your hands than you ever thought possible.

Who will be the people to determine who is crazy, and how much evaluation and inspection will you have to be subject to to prove to those questioning your sanity that you are indeed not insane? You will be guilty before proven innocent.
Right now, it doesn't take anything more than an upset girlfriend or spouse to make a call, report valid or invalid abuse, and bada bing, you can lose your guns.
And quite possibly you might have your gun rights revoked just because you were brought forward for analyzing.

We need to be careful in what we say, or think we might want, because one thing can certainly lead to another.

BBQJOE
March 31, 2013, 06:51 PM
deleted

Domina
April 1, 2013, 08:39 AM
There is already an on-going active program to stigmatize guns and gun ownership. Eric Holder commented about how people should be treated with shame For owning guns as smokers have been shamed. Every thing which can be taken to highlight percieved dangerousness and craziness of weapons owners will be used to that end in national media. Open Carry can aid the wrong crowd if done improperly, especially if a person is dressed like a commando, wears it in an inattentive or inappropriate way etc.

Ehat I think is needed is to reanslate the "call of duty" generations digital gun interest into practical experience with the weapons they have imagined with, but in a safe and responsible and fun environment which demystifies the weapons, reinforces legitimate vs illigitmate use and handling, and introduces competency and responsibility in place of gamer fantasy. I view tactical marksmanship competitions as an excellent way to do this.

Couple this with outreach programs to explain that there is nothing wrong about being competent with arms that may be called upon in times of national emergency to aid against invasion, usurpation, or insurrection in a mannor consistent with what the founders envisioned, and I think you have the basis for better normalizing modern arms.

krupparms
April 15, 2013, 04:41 AM
Open carry is leagle here in Oregon. I choose to O.C. all the time. It doesn't cause problems with the public. But will get LE to have a Terry stop! Which they need to stop! We have a guy walking around with an AR15 & handgun. He rates the P.D.s in Oregon along I-5. Check him out on YouTube
Seems to be getting alot of positive feedback! Yes on open carry!

Frank Ettin
April 15, 2013, 07:12 AM
....Ergo, if more law abiding citizens were to OC in everyday life and routine activities, the anti's would become desensitized, and less vocal in their opposition. The regular people would also not be "freaked out by evil guns" because their exposure would by much greater. ....

So I am curious about what others think of this. While I have no issue with others bringing up different examples of where social engineering has occurred to desensitize the populace,... I think there is far too little evidence that wide spread openly carrying guns would necessarily have that effect.

Certainly in the late 1960s in California, the Black Panthers openly carrying guns resulted in the open carry of loaded guns being made illegal. And a few years ago, demonstrations involving the open carrying or unloaded guns resulted in that being made illegal.

If enough people do something that's legal but they do it in a way that enough other people find obnoxious, the activity might not stay legal for long.

[1] See this post 6 (http://floridaconcealedcarry.com/Forum/showthread.php?46-Open-Carry-in-Florida&p=201#post201) regarding the history of the loss in Florida of the right to openly carry in this thread on another forum.

[2] There are plenty of examples of rights being lost because enough folks didn't like the ways in which they were being exercised. Over the years, in many communities, we have seen many zoning and other laws adopted restricting how you can use your own property. In some places you may not work on your car in your own driveway in view of the public street. In some places you must get design approval of remodeling or landscaping visible to the public. In some communities, you may not park or store large vehicles like boats on trailers or RVs on your property so as to be visible to the public. These sorts of restrictions have in large part been the result of strong enough public sentiment that some things previously lawfully done by private parties on their own land were unseemly or unattractive.

If a lot of people start legally open carrying their guns hoping to achieve a particular political result, we can reasonably expect a range of responses from, "Cool" to "Yawn" to "A nut with a gun; there ought to be a law." What the distribution is will decide whether openly carrying is politically helpful or politically harmful. But we can't know whether open carrying is doing any political good without having a better idea of that distribution. And the distribution will probably be different in different places at different times.

Some tools like properly conducted surveys or focus groups can be useful in measuring public opinion and predicting likely effect. But the flip side is that without that sort of evidence, we really can't know whether open carry, from a political perspective, is good or bad.

btg3
April 15, 2013, 07:27 AM
If the pro-2A side were able to determine, agree upon, and implement effective solutions for current issues, it would go a long way toward shutting down anti-2A momentum. In the absence of solutions, it leaves the door open for emotional appeal, grabbing at straws, any nearly any agenda the anti-2A wishes to pursue as a ruse in lieu of a solution.

The prevailing direction is the latter, rather than the former.

r1derbike
April 15, 2013, 12:26 PM
When raw, emotional nerves are exposed by mainstream (bought-off) media and anti gun political insanity every day of the week, impressionable people become hyper-sensitized to the lies spread about gun ownership.

It would be great if they were to get off the couch and research what they are being force-fed, but they are too lazy, and believe what they see or read as gospel. Desensitizing these potatoes is unlikely. Maybe gain a few converts with words, but a trip to an outdoor range for some fun would likely gain more. I say outdoor range as there is less noise than indoors.

OC, no problem with it, but wouldn't do it if it were legal here, because it does intimidate some people, to the point they might call the cops about a crazy person with a gun.

Look at all the youtube videos of kids OC'ing to look menacing, with the intent of having John Q. Citizen call the cops so they may record the stop. These cops could be dispatched elsewhere where they might be needed, instead of having to stop teeny-boppers, or young adults, and wasting time for the kids' amusement, to try to catch a cop in a bad light, as sometimes happens.

Anyway, going to the range with my dad, first time ever, as he just got his CHCL. That's what I call desensitizing.

0to60
April 15, 2013, 03:27 PM
Sorry, isn't going to happen. Nice in theory, impossible in reality. You can't lock up everyone who "might" one day be a danger to society.

People would be far better off learning to protect themselves, and to be prepared than to worry about the "wrong people" getting guns.

Of course you can't, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try. What, exactly, is wrong with background checks?? This seems like a no-brainer to me. I don't want violent felons to own guns! I don't give a hoot about their 2A rights. With half the gun purchases in this country not subject to any form of background check, and most of the pro-gun crowd fighting UBC every step of the way, can we even SAY we're trying to prevent bad apples from buying guns?

You know what's the biggest threat to our 2A rights? Its not our "evil, tyrannical gov't", its when guns get into the wrong hands. If Lanza didn't shoot up a school, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Fighting for the 2A is cute, but figuring out how to prevent dangerous people from easy access to guns will go a LOT further in protecting our gun rights.

Walkalong
April 15, 2013, 04:00 PM
What, exactly, is wrong with background checks?? This seems like a no-brainer to me. I don't want violent felons to own guns! Criminals don't buy legitimately. Background checks will not affect them.

0to60
April 15, 2013, 04:24 PM
Criminals don't buy legitimately. Background checks will not affect them.

Without some form of background checking, violent criminals CAN buy guns legitimately. Sure, someone can always circumvent the law. Does this mean we shouldn't have laws? Murder is illegal, but it happens anyway. Should we just get rid of the law because its "not working"? Why make it easy for a violent criminal to buy a gun?

UBC is a commonsense measure that will affect NO decent, law abiding gun enthusiast. Being against stuff like that makes us look completely unreasonable and delusional. I say let's not give the anti's any easy arguments to use against us. Its in our own best interests to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, and UBC would be a big part of doing that.

r1derbike
April 15, 2013, 07:00 PM
Without some form of background checking, violent criminals CAN buy guns legitimately. Sure, someone can always circumvent the law. Does this mean we shouldn't have laws? Murder is illegal, but it happens anyway. Should we just get rid of the law because its "not working"? Why make it easy for a violent criminal to buy a gun?

UBC is a commonsense measure that will affect NO decent, law abiding gun enthusiast. Being against stuff like that makes us look completely unreasonable and delusional. I say let's not give the anti's any easy arguments to use against us. Its in our own best interests to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, and UBC would be a big part of doing that.Uh-oh, there's that word "commonsense" creeping into the fray once again. How about using the thousands of laws already on the books? How about scrutinizing a bill to see what's actually in and attached to it, have it go through due process, and then bring it to a vote.

I'm confused by your question, "should we just get rid of the law because its not working"?

Should we flood our judicial system with even more laws that won't work, because others aren't working (read ignored)?

Accepting the hangman's noose with no reason to be at the gallows is what this administration is pushing, and I for one will not stand for it.

Finally, once again, violent criminals will always be able to buy, steal, and procure guns, no matter the laws on the books. What part of that don't you understand?

Mainsail
April 15, 2013, 07:23 PM
Heck one day on the forum I was reading where a gun owner said he would call the police if he saw someone doing OC even though it was legal, though not a common site. When I asked him why, he replied that "it seemed strange to him, and why not have the guy checked out, just to be safe".

The writer is mistaken in his assumption. The police do not have the authority to 'check me out just to be safe', unless I allow them to. In other words, the police cannot detain me for behaving lawfully. Yes, they can stop and talk to me about open carry, BUT, if open carry is a lawful activity (like it is here), then the I need only ask if I'm free to leave. Unless the officer can articulate a crime the OCer is committing, has just committed, or is likely to commit, the officer cannot demand that I stop and chat or provide identification.

I have done this several times. The officer stops me because he saw my OC, or it was reported to him, and I politely asked if I was being detained. When he said no, I politely wished him a good day and I walked away.

I disagree completely. The result of extensive open carrying would be the opposite -- hyper-sensitizing.
You are wrong. When open carry started in Washington (always legal but never practiced) it was started in Seattle, easily the most liberal city in the Northwest. It raised some eyebrows, caused a few MWAG calls, but the end result is that people aren't as disturbed by it as they were in the beginning. If you do a trend analysis, you'd notice a desensitizing. There are now very few police encounters for open carry folks to write about- the cops simply don't come.

0to60
April 15, 2013, 07:55 PM
Uh-oh, there's that word "commonsense" creeping into the fray once again. How about using the thousands of laws already on the books? How about scrutinizing a bill to see what's actually in and attached to it, have it go through due process, and then bring it to a vote.

...

Should we flood our judicial system with even more laws that won't work, because others aren't working (read ignored)?


Would you change your mind about UBC if the existing laws were enforced more strictly?

r1derbike
April 15, 2013, 08:17 PM
Would you change your mind about UBC if the existing laws were enforced more strictly?At this point, I demand the laws on the books be enforced, period.

Anything this administration is pushing in its "gun control" farce would be meaningless (it is already), if the above was actually done.

Vector
April 18, 2013, 08:02 PM
The writer is mistaken in his assumption. The police do not have the authority to 'check me out just to be safe', unless I allow them to. In other words, the police cannot detain me for behaving lawfully. Yes, they can stop and talk to me about open carry, BUT, if open carry is a lawful activity (like it is here), then the I need only ask if I'm free to leave. Unless the officer can articulate a crime the OCer is committing, has just committed, or is likely to commit, the officer cannot demand that I stop and chat or provide identification.

I have done this several times. The officer stops me because he saw my OC, or it was reported to him, and I politely asked if I was being detained. When he said no, I politely wished him a good day and I walked away.




My comment was not referring to the LEO stopping you to be safe, rather it was the pro 2A poster who said he would call the police "just to be safe".

So while your encounter with a LEO could go well or poorly, it would matter little to the 2A supporter who is so unused to seeing OC, he would react like a typical anti-gunner by calling the police.

To me, as long as we don't get a bunch of yahoo's acting the fool, more OC will help to get John Q. to find it less disturbing.

`

Frank Ettin
April 18, 2013, 08:21 PM
...To me, as long as we don't get a bunch of yahoo's acting the fool, more OC will help to get John Q. to find it less disturbing....But what evidence do you have to support that contention? In post 27 I outlined a number of reasons to in fact seriously doubt that widespread open carry is likely to have a positive effect on pubic attitudes and perceptions and thus further the RKBA.

If it's legal and someone finds open carry a convenient or personally desirable way to go about armed, that's fine. But we should not necessarily believe that doing so will change public opinion in a way the benefits the RKBA without solid evidence.

Ditchtiger
April 18, 2013, 08:35 PM
Idea to turn public opinion in favor of firearms.

All we need is a color.
We will wear colored bracelets and get magnetic ribbons for our cars.

Then all will be OK.

Cosmoline
April 18, 2013, 09:08 PM
My suggestion to break the ice in areas where OC is legal but rare--Muskets. OC with flintlock and caplock smoke poles. They're big, easy to notice but they don't typically make people too scared. They're a gateway drug. And they can open the way to discussions of history and the Second Amendment without being too "aggressive." For example you could carry a Hall Rifle around and if people ask you can tell them how it gave rise to their cars, laptops and every other piece of modern technology. Those interchangeable parts were the sine quo non of the industrial revolution. Quirky, perhaps, but nothing they're going to call a SWAT team on. And if they do you can educate the SWAT team.

Of course you will have to grow long chin whiskers and take to using phrases like "tarnations" and "foofarah"

NorDoor
April 19, 2013, 10:18 AM
I'd like to see us become more proactive instead of reactive.We need to pressure our congress to introduce legislation to loosen or eliminate restrictive gun laws in states that have them. This sitting around and waiting for the left's next attack on our 2nd amendment is poor form.

BBQJOE
April 19, 2013, 10:33 AM
I live in an open carry state, but I think if everyone OC'd the public would just plain freak out.
I quit OC a long time ago. No need to advertise.
Nothing will flip you out more than a kid in walmart pointing at you and yelling "MOM!!!! THAT MAN HAS A GUN!!!!!!!"

Vector
April 19, 2013, 01:30 PM
But what evidence do you have to support that contention? In post 27 I outlined a number of reasons to in fact seriously doubt that widespread open carry is likely to have a positive effect on pubic attitudes and perceptions and thus further the RKBA.

If it's legal and someone finds open carry a convenient or personally desirable way to go about armed, that's fine. But we should not necessarily believe that doing so will change public opinion in a way the benefits the RKBA without solid evidence.

While I might not have articulated it as well as I could, I addressed this in my opening post about how desensitization has worked in this country. This is true in far more controversial social issues like mixed marriage and homosexuality.
In very short periods of time, the deliberate and constant exposure in movies, on TV, in books and other media has had the effect of people who are even opposed, throwing up their hands in despair. Others begin to see it as just another lifestyle choice, and still others get on the bandwagon to stand up for it even if they themselves do not personally care for it.

There is no doubt in my mind that if every 30th or 40th person was open carrying in public where it is legal, even anti-gunners would be less likely to call the police on them. Yet today we have states where it is legal, but so few people do it, even pro-2A people call the police just to have them checked out for safety's sake. :rolleyes:


`

Frank Ettin
April 19, 2013, 02:15 PM
But what evidence do you have to support that contention? In post 27 I outlined a number of reasons to in fact seriously doubt that widespread open carry is likely to have a positive effect on pubic attitudes and perceptions and thus further the RKBA.

If it's legal and someone finds open carry a convenient or personally desirable way to go about armed, that's fine. But we should not necessarily believe that doing so will change public opinion in a way the benefits the RKBA without solid evidence.

While I might not have articulated it as well as I could, I addressed this in my opening post about how desensitization has worked in this country. This is true in far more controversial social issues like mixed marriage and homosexuality.... But what evidence do you have that public attitudes with regard to mixed marriages and and homosexuality are sufficiently similar to public attitude toward citizens carrying guns in public to be relevant? Indeed there are reasons to believe that they are not.

Grudging public acceptance of mixed marriages rode the coattails and was inexorably intertwined with the Civil Rights Movement (of the 1950s and 1960s) and has taken many years.


Several things in particular that argue against that notion with regard to homosexuality:


There has been and is considerable sympathy in the straight community for gay rights. Many people actively participating in gay rights demonstrations and active in the struggle for gay rights were straight. On the other hand, how many non-gun owners actively support the RKBA?


There has been significant support for gay rights from mainstream media, academia and even some influential religious organizations.


The gay rights movement was tremendously helped by the fact that it turns out that many gays were well liked, well regarded, prominent and influential public figures (especially in the arts), all of whom had well established public personae independent of their sexual orientation prior to the revelation that they are gay.


Many of those gay public figures are also extremely affluent and have been able to pour considerable money into support of politicians who support gay rights. (And many of those public figures are also using their money and influence to promote gun control.)


Various public demonstrations promoting gay rights did not include showing up with and displaying loaded guns.


...In very short periods of time, the deliberate and constant exposure in movies, on TV, in books and other media has had the effect of people who are even opposed,...How things are portrayed in the media has the potential to have a tremendous effect on public opinion. Many people that their cues about what is good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable, from the "opinion makers" of the media. What the media says about something can be more significant to many people than what those people see looking out their windows.

If television, movies and books started to portray in a positive way private citizens carrying guns in public, that might well benefit the RKBA. But that's very different from a bunch of ordinary folks wandering around downtown with loaded guns on their hips.

...There is no doubt in my mind that if every 30th or 40th person was open carrying in public where it is legal, even anti-gunners would be less likely to call the police on them.... Yet you really have no good evidence to support that notion.


People might not be calling the police. But they might be writing their legislators urging the banning of open carry. That's pretty much what happened in Florida and California.

Vector
April 19, 2013, 06:51 PM
But what

You have a PM

Frank Ettin
April 19, 2013, 07:33 PM
But what

You have a PM...Yes, you sent me a PM. But it does not answer my question, nor is it at all relevant to this thread.

BigBore44
April 20, 2013, 07:53 AM
I don't have a PM :(

I think there is no evidence because it hasn't been tried as a "desensatizing experiment". And at this point I'm not sure it would help. The people who don't care, wouldn't care. But those that do, will scream and call the police.

Vector
April 20, 2013, 12:29 PM
Yes, you sent me a PM. But it does not answer my question, nor is it at all relevant to this thread.

First I'd expect that common courtesy would dictate a private response, rather than a public one. However it is presumably now ok to publicly have discourse with a mod without fear of the thread getting locked or retribution.

My concern as I told you via PM was that I do not want to re-experience what happened in another thread. A moderator got into a debate in a thread I created, then essentially derailed it, only to wind up locking it because it was deemed by them to be circular. So while I am happy to discuss this with you, I do not want the same thing to happen here. Also I am reluctant to get into specifics about the homosexuality aspect as you did for fear it would be considered a lock worthy subject not to be debated here at THR.

Now as to this threads topic, the irony of your premise is that by people exercising their OC rights, "it might backfire" to where those rights are taken away.
To me that is counter intuitive. You want to keep a right, but not exercise it? What good is it then, especially when if done so rarely, the day you attempt to use it, you are going to be stopped by the police all in the name of safety?

There are many examples of how desensitization works aside from the controversial ones I mentioned in the OP. I'm sure we can discuss different examples, as well as the merits of whether responisble OC will have the effect I believe it will.

`

Frank Ettin
April 20, 2013, 12:41 PM
..Now as to this threads topic, the irony of your premise is that by people exercising their OC rights, "it might backfire" to where those rights are taken away.
To me that is counter intuitive...It might seem ironic and counter intuitive, but I've given a number of example of when that has, in fact, been the result.

...There are many examples of how desensitization works aside from the controversial ones I mentioned in the OP. I'm sure we can discuss different examples, as well as the merits of whether responisble OC will have the effect I believe it will.
Nonetheless, unless you have some solid evidence (1) that other examples of desensitization working in other contexts are relevant to gun rights; and (2) to support your beliefs about open carry, there really isn't much to discuss.

Vector
April 20, 2013, 01:46 PM
It might seem ironic and counter intuitive, but I've given a number of example of when that has, in fact, been the result..

:rolleyes:

Taking that attitude would mean that any time the anti's were successful in suppression of our 2A rights, we should be hesitant in standing up for them in the future.

Nonetheless, unless you have some solid evidence (1) that other examples of desensitization working in other contexts are relevant to gun rights; and (2) to support your beliefs about open carry, there really isn't much to discuss.

On this we could not be in further disagreement. I do not need studies or examples "relevant to gun rights" to know desensitization works in many aspects of our lives. Heck even if it were just a notion or belief that a 2A supporter had without proof, should not preclude it's discussion.

The way to deal with the anti-2A types is not to just sit back and wait to play defense. Rather a lawful exercise of our OC rights in a calm and routine manner is a pro-active way to educate the general public that they do not have anything to fear from lawful gun ownership.



`

Frank Ettin
April 20, 2013, 02:56 PM
Taking that attitude would mean that any time the anti's were successful in suppression of our 2A rights, we should be hesitant in standing up for them in the future.No, it means that we should learn from the experience and look for ways to be more effective. It's not about "standing up for our rights." It's about standing up for our rights in ways that are well calculated to further our interests.

...On this we could not be in further disagreement. I do not need studies or examples "relevant to gun rights" to know desensitization works in many aspects of our lives...And you've thus given me no reason to pay the least bit of attention to your opinions. What you think you know is irrelevant. It's what you can support that matters.

A lot of people have "known" things that turned out to be wrong. Things you think you know without adequate support are a lousy basis for taking action.

To some extent this is all about the questions of how we know things, what we really do know, or can know or can't know, and how well we know things. This is whole area study in itself, and it's called "epistemology."

During the course of my career I've seen a lot of people get themselves into trouble by not knowing what they don't know; and by thinking they knew things they really had no reason to believe, having relied on bad data or unsupported opinion.

...Heck even if it were just a notion or belief that a 2A supporter had without proof, should not preclude it's discussion...Phooey. I gave up on drunken midnight dorm room bull sessions over 40 years ago.

This might be the Internet, and things here, we tend to think, don't really mean anything. But it's still a bad idea to get in the habit of jumping to conclusions, relying on assumptions based on tenuous data or guessing about things. It might work for the unimportant things in life; but if one gets in the habit, he might deal with something important that way too.

Being critical of information given to you, asking where it's from and what it's based on, expecting evidence, etc., are all good habits.

All opinions are not equal. An opinion backed up by solid evidence, relevant education, knowledge and experience is one thing. An opinion snatched out of thin air is another.

...The way to deal with the anti-2A types is not to just sit back and wait to play defense. Rather a lawful exercise of our OC rights in a calm and routine manner is a pro-active way to educate the general public that they do not have anything to fear from lawful gun ownership.The way to further the RKBA may not be to sit back and just be defensive. We do need to be proactive. But we need to be proactive in ways well calculated to serve our purposes, and in deciding what strategies may be well calculated to serve our purposes we need to rely on evidence, not imagination.

Some of the things I've seen be effective in my own dealings with people have been:

Being a good ambassador for gun ownership. Are you the type of person, in your manners, tastes, interests (aside from guns), about whom someone might say, "Gosh, I would never have expected you to be a gun owner"?


Being a multilayered, well rounded person; active and contributing to society in a variety of ways and spheres -- our careers, our communities, local charities, the arts, etc. We're not just "gun nuts." We're active, participating members of our communities, and we just happen to own firearms and are interest in, and knowledgeable about, them. The points are (1) to break down stereotypes; and (2) to increase our credibility.


Actively promoting shooting and responsible gun ownership -- training and bringing new people into shooting. I'm an instructor in a group that puts on monthly NRA Basic Handgun classes. Almost all of our students have no prior experience. We introduce about a hundred people a year to guns.
But as far as exercising:...our OC rights in a calm and routine manner is a pro-active way to educate the general public that they do not have anything to fear from lawful gun ownership.that is mere conjecture.

As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence."

CarolinaChuck
April 20, 2013, 03:04 PM
A firearm is a tool, and like any tool it needs to be learned how and when to use it; what it is good for and what it is not good for. Just having people wandering around with a set of wrenches is not going to make people comfortable about working on their cars...

The problem you have is that most folks do not want to be burndened with taking care of themselves; really sucks, don't it...

I was given an SKS years ago and have had it since before I married. It is always been loaded and has never been thought of otherwise in my house; we have no children. My wife has never shot it, but it has been shown to her and she probably could not use it if needs be. The rifle has never been a though or even bothered her being here and loaded.

I figured well, the woman needs something she can use if I aint around; so I bought a lever gun. We have all seen cowboy movies, even her; anybody can rack the handle and pull the trigger. It don't get any more simple than that.

I bring it home and have her load it up and put it where she wants. What does she do now when I am gone? She locks the bedroom door when I am not home... Untill she takes it out and learns what it is, how it works and what it is good for there will be nothing anyone can do to get her to use the bloody thing if needs be.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make em drink,
CC

JShirley
April 20, 2013, 03:46 PM
Without some form of background checking, violent criminals CAN buy guns legitimately.

No, by definition they cannot. You might benefit from reading the definion of "legitimate". It's good to know what words mean before you use them.

Frank has some excellent points. All ideas are NOT created equal. Doing "something, anything", while it might be briefly satisfying, does not automatically help our cause.

You want to use psychology? Fine, let's do that. If there are objects that some people have a violent emotional reaction to, we are most likely to have positive results by giving people the opportunity to experience these objects in safe and controlled environments. Vector, your thought process has some serious flaws. Seeing a biracial couple or two gay partners may be emotionally upsetting for some, but who consenting adults choose to have sex with is not going to be immediately fatal to a bystander. Being shot may. One is a purely social issue, while one is at least partially a safety issue.

I think this one is about done~ I'll give a brief space of time to see if anything contributory can be added.

John

Vector
April 20, 2013, 06:22 PM
No, by definition they cannot. You might benefit from reading the definion of "legitimate". It's good to know what words mean before you use them.

Frank has some excellent points. All ideas are NOT created equal. Doing "something, anything", while it might be briefly satisfying, does not automatically help our cause.

You want to use psychology? Fine, let's do that. If there are objects that some people have a violent emotional reaction to, we are most likely to have positive results by giving people the opportunity to experience these objects in safe and controlled environments. Vector, your thought process has some serious flaws. Seeing a biracial couple or two gay partners may be emotionally upsetting for some, but who consenting adults choose to have sex with is not going to be immediately fatal to a bystander. Being shot may. One is a purely social issue, while one is at least partially a safety issue.

I think this one is about done~ I'll give a brief space of time to see if anything contributory can be added.

John

I want to make a preemptive objection. I will PM you on this in a moment.

In the mean time I'd ask others to weight in on their views.

`

`

JShirley
April 20, 2013, 06:24 PM
Yeah, I already solicited input.

Vector
April 20, 2013, 06:54 PM
I'd ask those who think exercising ones right to lawfully open carry is the wrong thing to do, to then explain what good having OC in the state is?

I mean if a pro-2A state like Florida, which has a bunch of people walking around CCing were to change it's law allowing OC, why shouldn't people make a concerted effort to do so.

On this subject, there are plenty of Youtube videos where LEO's are called to investigate legal OC. Most turn out ok, but it is still an inconvenience for those trying to exercise their lawful rights. As a matter of fact, even though I'm advocating for greater OC, I might be deterred if I know I might be unduly delayed if time were an important factor. Additionally I would not want to have a run in with a LEO having a bad day or on an authority kick no matter how within my rights I was.
However when enough people who are not use to seeing OC start getting use to it, then they are probably less likely to call the police every 20 minutes.

BTW - Another example of being desensitized to something is carnage in the EMS field & emergency rooms. I've seen people want to hurl at the sight of blood when they are rookies doing their clinicals. Yet as time goes on, they get use to it and will eat lunch right after cleaning blood or brain matter off the floor.

JShirley
April 20, 2013, 07:02 PM
Rambling. We're done.

John

If you enjoyed reading about "Idea to turn public opinion in favor of firearms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!