Changing public opinion via demonstrations


PDA






JohnKSa
May 31, 2014, 09:07 PM
We've seen a number of high-profile OC actions that have been received negatively by the general public, not just by the anti-gunners. I think we can all agree that expending effort to support a strategy that ends up being self-defeating is undesirable.

I've been thinking about this for awhile and have tried to come up with a loose framework of guidelines for developing strategies designed to positively influence the genera public.

1. DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Put forth genuine effort to learn what you're up against. I'm not talking about trying to feel out the anti-gunners; we already know what they want and there's no way we're going to make them happy. This is about gathering enough information from members of the general public to get an idea of how they will likely perceive certain actions.

Ask objective (non-leading) questions in neutral environments to see what people think about recent events in the news. That means this kind of research can't be conducted while OC'ing. It shouldn't be done while wearing your "Cold Dead Hands" T-shirt. Don't push your views or argue any points when you're gathering information, you're not evangelizing, you're doing research.

WRITE the results down as soon after the exchange as possible. Don't trust your memory to give you an accurate summary of a number of "interviews".

Look around online. Not just at the websites you frequent, but at some of the websites you would normally avoid. It's important to have a general understanding the variety of views out there.

Look at poll results to get a feel for the numerical breakdown of how people are likely to think and react to your strategy.

This step is hard, it takes time and effort and isn't fun, but it isn't one that can be skipped. If our goal is to be a positive influence, it's critical to understand how our actions will be perceived by those we wish to positively influence. The alternative is blind trial and error, and it's an understatement to call that a foolish strategy.

2. GET ADVICE. A wise man once said that "Plans go wrong for lack of advice but many advisors bring success." That does NOT mean to consult a circle of like-minded friends; it means seeking counsel from a wide variety of persons with a wide variety of views. Not everyone who is consulted has to be happy with the resulting plan (it's impossible to satisfy everyone), but the planner needs to carefully consider all the points of view in the process of creating a strategy.

It's important to understand how critical this step is. The same wise man stated that everything fools do seems right to them but a wise person listens to advice. It's NOT enough to look at a plan and judge it exclusively based on how you, personally (or other people with nearly identical views), feel about it. Remember, a sound strategy requires wise guidance and success depends on having many advisors.

3. COMMUNICATE CLEARLY. Make sure that everything done has a clear, easily understood, easily stated goal that will make sense to the general public--the group we are trying to positively influence. Avoid jargon, cliches and catch-phrases that may be familiar to firearm enthusiasts but foreign to the general public. This lesson was driven home recently to me when my gun club put out some club T-shirts with the motto 'RKBA' on them. It was surprising how many people, even some in the club, had to ask what 'RKBA' stood for. Remember, the message isn't being sent to you or people who think like you. You have to keep your audience in mind.

If a particular activity can't be summed up clearly or can't be shown to be directly related to a desired outcome, drop it. The goals must be kept in the forefront and it should be easy to clearly state why you or your group is doing something if someone asks.

Make sure that everyone working with you understands the goals and is on board with the plan. Plan for the possibility of your group members being asked to explain their actions.

There should be an obvious appearance of order and strategy to outside observers and that kind of organization doesn't come automatically or accidentally.

4. FORM GUIDELINES AND ENFORCE THEM. Make sure that there are rules that everyone working towards your strategy understands and agrees to uphold. Enforce the rules. Don't welcome just anyone to join your cause and don't tolerate those who refuse to cooperate or won't agree to the guidelines. Any participant in a demonstration may, at the drop of a hat, end up being a de facto spokesman for you and everyone who is working with you. Don't be fooled into thinking that the strength of numbers can make up for the disadvantages created by rogue members.

It's too late to come up with rules AFTER a public opinion SNAFU.

If you enjoyed reading about "Changing public opinion via demonstrations" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Dain Bramage
May 31, 2014, 10:19 PM
Excellent advice. We disagreed on the Colorado OC case, but I am on board with RKBA activists being skilled, totally focused on message including appearance and repercussions, and politically savvy.

We have been generally successful recently in a sort of mob rule sense, with things like CCW expansion. With anti-gun pushback, the day has come for a sharper, more astute strategy.

moxie
June 2, 2014, 05:54 PM
OC demos with slung ARs only scare a lot of people and make their loved ones angry.

This irresponsible behavior just makes all of us look stupid and sets the gun rights cause back a lot.

Ridiculous!

Here's the best strategy: Stop this OC silliness!!

JRH6856
June 2, 2014, 07:50 PM
While it is possible that carefully planned and organized OC demonstrations may be conducted without being offensive to a majority of people, what is not possible is controlling irresponsible individual imitators who learn they can OC a rifle and think it would be a cool thing to do. So they load up and head for Chipotle's and become poster boys for idiocy.

CoalTrain49
June 2, 2014, 10:17 PM
That's a very good idea. Here are some questions that might be asked by the public or someone who is AG. I already know the answers.

1) Why are you demonstrating to legalize open carry when you are already legally carrying a firearm.

2) Why do you feel a need to openly carry a handgun?

3) Do you want the right to open carry to avoid the background check that goes with a permit?

4) Why do you have to carry a firearm when you demonstrate?

5) Are you affiliated with the NRA?

6) Is that an assault weapon?

You need to anticipate questions like that and have a reasonable reply.

Mainsail
June 2, 2014, 10:25 PM
What's wrong with just carrying your handgun in a holster openly and going about your business politely? If you, as a gun owner and carrier, act as though your sidearm is somehow exceptional or peculiar, how on earth can you dare to expect the non-gun owning public to see it any different?

Just holster it and carry it.

Frank Ettin
June 2, 2014, 10:52 PM
What's wrong with just carrying your handgun in a holster openly and going about your business politely? If you, as a gun owner and carrier, act as though your sidearm is somehow exceptional or peculiar, how on earth can you dare to expect the non-gun owning public to see it any different?...In general, nothing -- assuming it's legal. Although there may be times or places in which doing so might not be appropriate -- just like there are times and places where certain attire would not be appropriate.

But that's really beside the point. John is discussing using demonstrations (not necessarily limited to the open carry of firearms) to stimulate desired social or political change.

Now let's try to avoid derailing John's thread by bickering about it.

Mainsail
June 2, 2014, 11:05 PM
John is discussing using demonstrations (not necessarily limited to the open carry of firearms) to stimulate desired social or political change.
Yeah. So am I.

We "demonstrated" in a peaceful, non-intimidating, and effective manner by refusing to play into the anti-gun idea that guns are scary or shameful or only owned by paranoid lunatics. When I left a convenience store after buying a drink or snack, the clerk and other patrons saw a regular guy carrying a handgun in a holster who was polite, friendly, and as far from threatening as any person could be.

In the small-scale of people around me, I saw a positive change.

Now, how about we get back to my genuine question; If you, as a gun owner and carrier, act as though your sidearm is somehow exceptional or peculiar, how on earth can you dare to expect the non-gun owning public to see it any different?

Frank Ettin
June 2, 2014, 11:17 PM
...We "demonstrated" in a peaceful, non-intimidating, and effective manner by refusing to play into the anti-gun idea...You seem to think so. But I reject your unsupported, purely anecdotal views. You no doubt believe what you're saying, but I won't accept it without far better evidence than you're able to offer.

Mainsail
June 2, 2014, 11:42 PM
You seem to think so. But I reject your unsupported, purely anecdotal views. You no doubt believe what you're saying, but I won't accept it without far better evidence than you're able to offer.That’s the second time you’ve posted that somewhat silly argument Frank. Short of commissioning a full study it’s impossible to get any better than anecdotal- but you know that.

How about you instead provide objective evidence that what we did here in Washington (and others did in other states) doesn’t work? I’m sure you could point out the yahoos in that restaurant with their rifles at the ready, and say that set back our rights, but then that would also be anecdotal as well wouldn’t it. It also wouldn’t be apt.

Civil rights demonstrations throughout US history have used a variety of methods; sit-ins, marches, boycotts, civil disobedience, and even violence were used as a vehicle of change. Which of those would work best for firearms rights? We can’t even get pro-gun people to boycott actively anti-gun businesses (Costco for example)!

And still, my question remains: If you, as a gun owner and carrier, act as though your sidearm is somehow exceptional or peculiar, how on earth can you dare to expect the non-gun owning public to see it any different?

JohnKSa
June 3, 2014, 12:01 AM
What's wrong with just carrying your handgun in a holster openly and going about your business politely? If you, as a gun owner and carrier, act as though your sidearm is somehow exceptional or peculiar, how on earth can you dare to expect the non-gun owning public to see it any different?Maybe nothing. Maybe something.

Here's my advice for determining which it is in your particular circumstance.1. DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Put forth genuine effort to gather enough information from members of the general public to get an idea of how they will likely perceive certain actions.

Ask objective (non-leading) questions in neutral environments to see what people think about recent events in the news. That means this kind of research can't be conducted while OC'ing. It shouldn't be done while wearing your "Cold Dead Hands" T-shirt. Don't push your views or argue any points when you're gathering information, you're not evangelizing, you're doing research.

WRITE the results down as soon after the exchange as possible. Don't trust your memory to give you an accurate summary of a number of "interviews".

Look around online. Not just at the websites you frequent, but at some of the websites you would normally avoid. It's important to have a general understanding the variety of views out there.

Look at poll results to get a feel for the numerical breakdown of how people are likely to think and react to your strategy.

This step is hard, it takes time and effort and isn't fun, but it isn't one that can be skipped. If our goal is to be a positive influence, it's critical to understand how our actions will be perceived by those we wish to positively influence. The alternative is blind trial and error, and it's an understatement to call that a foolish strategy.How about you instead provide objective evidence that what we did here in Washington (and others did in other states) doesn’t work?That's not how it works in a polite debate. The person making the claim must support the claim. What you are doing is called the "Burden of Proof" fallacy. A claim doesn't become valid merely because it is stated, thus forcing others to refute it. When a claim is made, it is considered invalid until the person who makes it can support it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proofShort of commissioning a full study it’s impossible to get any better than anecdotal...You can get better than simple anecdotal evidence if you really put forth the effort to discover the truth. The FIRST step is stepping back and admitting that maybe you don't already KNOW the truth. Recent events in TX have proven that people can THINK they know that something will be a good strategy and still be wrong.

Remember, "The same wise man stated that everything fools do seems right to them but a wise person listens to advice. It's NOT enough to look at a plan and judge it exclusively based on how you, personally (or other people with nearly identical views), feel about it. Remember, a sound strategy requires wise guidance and success depends on having many advisors."

Frank Ettin
June 3, 2014, 12:05 AM
...Short of commissioning a full study itís impossible to get any better than anecdotal- but you know that...I know what it takes to know something. And without appropriate evidence and appropriate studies, you can't know something. You can only guess. That how people believed for centuries that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe. Guesses aren't knowledge. At best you have a hypothesis, and a hypothesis must be tested.

If all you have is poor evidence, all you can really say is, "I don't know."

...How about you instead provide objective evidence that what we did here in Washington (and others did in other states) doesnít work?... You're making the affirmative claim, so it's your burden to prove it.

...Civil rights demonstrations throughout US history have used a variety of methods; sit-ins, marches, boycotts, civil disobedience, and even violence were used as a vehicle of change...Ah, the Civil Rights Movement corollary to Godwin's Law.

Let's consider why the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s is a poor model for the struggle for the RKBA.

Overview of the Civil Rights Movement


The core and very effective part of the overall strategy of the Civil Rights Movement (referring to the struggle during the 1950s and 1960s for racial equality) was non-violent civil disobedience, winning wide and deep support for that cause.


The acts of civil disobedience, involved very normal, benign, human acts: taking a seat on a bus for the ride home after a hard day at work; sitting at a lunch counter to have a meal; a child registering to attend school; registering to vote; voting; etc. These are normal, every day thing that White folks took for granted. And it became profoundly disturbing for many White to see other humans arrested for doing these normal, benign things simply because of the color of their skin.


The Civil Rights Movement of the '50s was the culmination of 100+ years of abolitionist and civil rights activity. It had broad and deep support. The goals of the Civil Rights Movement were promoted regularly in sermons in churches and synagogues all across the nation. The Civil Rights Movement had charismatic leaders like Martin Luther King who could inspire the country.


During the days of the Civil Rights Movement of the '50s and '60s, civil disobedience, as favorably reported by the mainstream media, and as favorably commented upon on college campuses and in sermons in houses of worship across the nation, helped generate great public sympathy for the cause. That sympathy helped lead to the election of pro-civil rights legislators and executives. And that led to the enactment of pro-civil rights laws.


On the other hand how has the public thus far responded to the thus far minimal "civil disobedience" of RKBA advocates?


Where have there been any great outpourings of sympathy for the plight of gun owners, especially from non-gun owners -- as whites showed sympathy for the plight of non-whites during the days of the Civil Rights Movement?


Where are the editorials in the New York Times lauding the courage of gun owners in their resistance to the oppression of anti-gun prejudice?


Who has heard a pro-gun rights sermon in his church? Where are the pro-gun rights rallies on college campuses?


Where are non-gun owners joining with gun owners in pro-gun rights demonstrations, just as whites joined with non-whites in marches and demonstrations during the Civil Rights Movement? Where are our charismatic leaders inspiring the nation?


A Particular Example -- Rosa Parks


Rosa Parks had a long history (http://www.biography.com/people/rosa-parks-9433715) of being actively involved in the organized Civil Rights Movement:... joining the Montgomery chapter of the NAACP in 1943, serving as the chapter's youth leader as well as secretary to NAACP President E.D. Nixonóa post she held until 1957...


At the time of her arrest Mrs. Parks was (http://rosaparksfacts.com/rosa-parks-civil-rights-movement.php) an adviser to the NAACP.


On 1 December 1955, Rosa Parks was the third African-American since March of that year to be arrested for violating the Montgomery bus segregation law. One was Claudette Colvin (http://rosaparksfacts.com/rosa-parks-civil-rights-movement.php), a 15-year-old girl who was arrested some nine months earlier. E. D. Nixon decided that Claudette would be a poor "poster-child" for a protest because she was unmarried and pregnant.


The night of Mrs. Parks' arrest, Jo Ann Robinson, head of the Women's Political Council, printed and circulated a flyer throughout Montgomery's black community starting the call for a boycott of Montgomery's city buses.


Martin Luther King, Jr., as president of the Montgomery Improvement Association and pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, together with other Black community leaders, then organized the boycott of the Montgomery bus system. That boycott reduced Black ridership (the bulk of the bus system's paying customers) of Montgomery city buses by some 90% until December of 1956 when the Supreme Court ruled that the bus segregation laws of Montgomery, Alabama were unconstitutional (Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903 (1956)).


So the Rosa Parks incident is more than a matter of not moving to the back of the bus. Her arrest was part of a well orchestrated, well organized, multilayered program reflecting good planning and political acumen leading to a successful conclusion. If it had not been she would have just been another Black person arrested for violating that ordinance.


Please note especially that prior to the Rosa Parks incident E. D. Nixon rejected one "arrestee" as standard bearer for the protect because of possible image problems.

nazshooter
June 3, 2014, 12:37 AM
You seem to think so. But I reject your unsupported, purely anecdotal views. You no doubt believe what you're saying, but I won't accept it without far better evidence than you're able to offer.

That's pretty much how it worked on me when I moved to an OC state. The first few people I saw carrying made me a little nervous but after a while I noticed that the sorts of people I saw carrying appeared to fall into the "good guy" category.

Frank Ettin
June 3, 2014, 12:55 AM
That's pretty much how it worked on me when I moved to an OC state. The first few people I saw carrying made me a little nervous but after a while I noticed that the sorts of people I saw carrying appeared to fall into the "good guy" category. So? Are you "everyone"? Why would everyone else necessarily share your reactions?

JRH6856
June 3, 2014, 01:51 AM
On the other hand how has the public thus far responded to the thus far minimal "civil disobedience" of RKBA advocates?

One glaring difference between the two movements is that while the '60s civil rights protesters were trying to do the same things that most people were doing, the OTC protesters are trying to do what most people are not doing.

And the big difference between a man with black skin and a man with a gun is that the man with a gun has a choice.

nazshooter
June 3, 2014, 02:32 AM
So? Are you "everyone"? Why would everyone else necessarily share your reactions?

I don't think I ever claimed to be "everyone" however it's unlikely that I'm completely unique either. The basics of desensitization aren't exactly new and I think most people have had the experience of being afraid of something (or someone for that matter) but then losing your fear as you got used to it.

Walkalong
June 3, 2014, 07:17 AM
The OP has laid out a very sensible way to use OC to sway public opinion. He has also laid out why some of the grandstanding that has gone on lately has hurt our cause. It boggles my mind why some folks cannot see the differences.

If one wants to OC to help sway public opinion they need to consider many things, only one of which is what is the culture of the place you want to do so in, and exactly how and what you are going to OC. Are you ready if pushed into a hypothetical corner with questions? Are you going to look threatening to this culture you wish to OC in? How can you avoid that?

It is not a cut and dried issue. It can be done, and can be done successfully, but it needs to be done with care and foresight, not just blatant "I have my right to do so" without and care as to how it is going to be perceived and what the likely outcome will be considering the manner in which it will be done.

We have to be smart about this if we do it. Activism is about having a plan, not about arguing about can we or should we, but how we should and why we should, or not, in some circumstances.

Sam1911
June 3, 2014, 08:48 AM
I don't think I ever claimed to be "everyone" however it's unlikely that I'm completely unique either. The basics of desensitization aren't exactly new and I think most people have had the experience of being afraid of something (or someone for that matter) but then losing your fear as you got used to it.

Certainly true in many cases. Not necessarily true in all, but I think everyone would agree that over a long enough time line, if the exposure is allowed to continue, the result is inevitable acceptance.

The risk is in ramping up exposure pressure too fast and in too much of an overwhelming way and creating a backlash which causes the exposure to NOT be allowed to continue. I.e.: ticking off enough folks that laws get passed to stop you from practicing your desensitization efforts -- and create other negative results for all gun owners.

It is a balance we have to walk carefully, with our eyes open.

The OP has laid out a very sensible way to use OC to sway public opinion. He has also laid out why some of the grandstanding that has gone on lately has hurt our cause. It boggles my mind why some folks cannot see the differences.

Exactly. The sort of day-to-day sidearm carry that Mainsail and others practice is probably a net positive, in his area. At least, it can't be said to be a distinct negative. There may be a day when openly carried handguns are completely unexceptional in almost all of the country. At that point, if there's still some perceived need to push open carry acceptance further, perhaps introducing long-guns might be a reasonable means to that end (if there is something worth pursuing in that goal). Rifles might be the next incremental step in broadening public acceptance/desensitization. But that's no where near where we're at in 95% of the country. Even Texas! ;)

The problem in Texas, where open carry of handguns is illegal, is that folks are trying to work the other way. Jump to carrying long guns as a means to get open carry allowed. The problem is that's jumping far too far ahead of where we are right now and is not any step on a clear, logical path from where we are to where we want to be. It bothers way too many people, turns neutrals to antis and doesn't "read" as sensible to any average onlooker. Texans are clearly in a tough spot trying to broaden public acceptance for something that they aren't legally allowed to do (open carry of handguns) but this current experiment is proving a disastrous way to attempt to meet their goals.

moxie
June 3, 2014, 09:01 AM
Sam, nice analysis.

Yes, as I've stated, handguns aren't a big issue. Many don't care and most don't even notice.

The RIFLES are the problem. When 5-6 guys enter a restaurant with ARs slung, some in front, some in back, it's not a normal situation. People get scared. There's no normal reason for it. This is backfiring on the cause of gun rights in general.

The NRA has now come out against these OC demos with rifles. Good for them.

I hope one of these OC demos doesn't result in a confrontation with concealed carry folks already in the restaurant who perceive them as threats. Could be a problem there.

I hasten to add, again, that most people I know here in Texas, pro-gun people, many with CHLs, are perfectly happy with the status quo concealed carry situation since the laws were tweaked last year. Initial and renewal requirements were streamlined and inadvertent exposure/printing was clarified. Most don't want OC and view it as inflammatory, playing into the hands of the antis. The OCT group is NOT representative of the majority of Texas gun owners/carriers.

Mainsail
June 3, 2014, 09:21 AM
If all you have is poor evidence, all you can really say is, "I don't know."
Suddenly it's poor evidence? That sure sounds like an affirmative claim- I wonder how one should handle such a claim?

You're making the affirmative claim, so it's your burden to prove it.
Good timing Frank! Go ahead and prove it's poor evidence- the burden is on you.

Seriously though; all of history is anecdotal evidence. Where did General Armstrong Custer die? Ask people, they will unanimously say; he died at the battle at Little Bighorn. How do they know that? Anecdotal evidence.

I have experiential evidence as well. When we began to open carry the police reaction always involved a stop- disarming- lecture- threat- and an invitation to leave the area. We kept right on carrying openly. The city of Federal Way was one of the first to issue its officers a training bulletin on the subject. Very quickly other cities did the same. Those training bulletins are documented evidence of the shift in police attitude about and due to open carry. Those training bulletins did not exist prior to OC, and would never have been issued without open carry. The benefits went beyond firearms though, because it reminded police officers that 'reasonable articulable suspicion' is still a requirement for a Terry Stop- something they do daily.

You've latched onto 'evidence' as though your personal disbelief somehow cancels out my entire argument. I've now demonstrated that everything you believe about history is anecdotal evidence- I think even you would agree that not everything can be proven. So whether you believe or disbelieve what we have seen is no longer relevant.

My question remains: If you, as a gun owner and carrier, act as though your sidearm is somehow exceptional or peculiar, how on earth can you dare to expect the non-gun owning public to see it any different?

Mainsail
June 3, 2014, 09:26 AM
Sam, nice analysis.

+1

The OCT group is NOT representative of the majority of Texas gun owners/carriers.
They are not representative of the majority of gun owners anywhere.

Kleanbore
June 3, 2014, 10:36 AM
Posted by Mainsail: In the small-scale of people around me, I saw a positive change.What did you not see? How did you measure the overall change? Change from what?

Seriously though; all of history is anecdotal evidence.WHAT?

Where did General Armstrong Custer die? Ask people, they will unanimously say; he died at the battle at Little Bighorn. How do they know that? Anecdotal evidence.No. Corroborated eyewitness testimony. Plus scientific forensic evidence.

I have experiential evidence as well. When we began to open carry the police reaction always involved a stop- disarming- lecture- threat- and an invitation to leave the area. We kept right on carrying openly. The city of Federal Way was one of the first to issue its officers a training bulletin on the subject. Very quickly other cities did the same. Those training bulletins are documented evidence of the shift in police attitude about and due to open carry. Those training bulletins did not exist prior to OC, and would never have been issued without open carry. The benefits went beyond firearms though, because it reminded police officers that 'reasonable articulable suspicion' is still a requirement for a Terry Stop- something they do daily.That's all about law enforcement procedure (and not police attitude). The OP was about changing public opinion. Different animal.

Short of commissioning a full study itís impossible to get any better than anecdotal...Short of designing a valid experiment, there is no valid way to conclude whether the claims are valid.

Such an experiment would have to measure (1) the reactions, said and unsaid, of all observers, and (2) the change in attitudes of those exposed to the practice. It would have to involve a statistically valid sample.

It can be done, but it hasn't been done yet.

And without it, all we have is supposition.

I have one data point. The state representative of one friend of mine in the Puget Sound area states that she is "freaked out" wham she sees people carrying guns. Might the practice possible result in more such reactions? Those are people that one does not want to influence negatively.

Frank Ettin
June 3, 2014, 10:38 AM
...You've latched onto 'evidence' as though your personal disbelief somehow cancels out my entire argument...No, what I, John and some others have done is point instances in which open carry is not helpful. That shows that open carry is not uniformly helpful and thus that your experiences can not be considered universal.

As I've written previously (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=9494136&postcount=158) concerning open carry:...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....

And that's why John's advice (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=9494710&postcount=1) is important and apt:

1. DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Put forth genuine effort to learn what you're up against. .... This is about gathering enough information from members of the general public to get an idea of how they will likely perceive certain actions.

Ask objective (non-leading) questions in neutral environments to see what people think about recent events in the news....

WRITE the results down as soon after the exchange as possible. ....

Look around online. ...

Look at poll results ...

....If our goal is to be a positive influence, it's critical to understand how our actions will be perceived by those we wish to positively influence. The alternative is blind trial and error, and it's an understatement to call that a foolish strategy.

2. GET ADVICE. A wise man once said that "Plans go wrong for lack of advice but many advisors bring success." That does NOT mean to consult a circle of like-minded friends; it means seeking counsel from a wide variety of persons with a wide variety of views. ....

....

3. COMMUNICATE CLEARLY. Make sure that everything done has a clear, easily understood, easily stated goal that will make sense to the general public--the group we are trying to positively influence. Avoid jargon, cliches and catch-phrases that may be familiar to firearm enthusiasts but foreign to the general public. ....

....

4. FORM GUIDELINES AND ENFORCE THEM. Make sure that there are rules that everyone working towards your strategy understands and agrees to uphold. ...

Dain Bramage
June 3, 2014, 11:51 AM
We're back in the same rut as the Colorado OC post. This post is not about whether OC in general is good or bad RTKBA publicity, but what is the best way to shape public opinion via demonstrations, and specifically to discuss JohnSKa's proposals on organizing demonstrations and events.

Dain Bramage
June 3, 2014, 12:04 PM
If a particular activity can't be summed up clearly or can't be shown to be directly related to a desired outcome, drop it. The goals must be kept in the forefront and it should be easy to clearly state why you or your group is doing something if someone asks.

There was a recent WA state OC event that received some criticism on the WA OC website. A person was complaining about the religious bent of the demonstrations, with with several pastoral speakers and frequent public prayer. They also thought the remaining speakers had a conservative bias, and brought up unrelated conservative issues.

As a Christian and conservative, I was aghast, but upon further reflection I realized that person was right. The purpose of the event was not to affirm my social and political choices, outside of RTKBA. It was not a revival.

Don't ask the Christians to stay home. Perhaps open with a prayer, but keep the focus on the political goals of the rally. Keep a big tent open, and remember we are championing a universal right.

Mainsail
June 3, 2014, 12:19 PM
No. Corroborated eyewitness testimony. Plus scientific forensic evidence.None of which youíve personally seen or verified. You take it on faith that the persons reporting this evidence are factual and unbiased.

And without it, all we have is supposition.All you can have is supposition, because thatís all there is. The entire OP is supposition, and itís supposition from someone in a restricted carry state at that. I have never said I disagree with the OP, I merely asked a follow-up question. Apparently my f/u question is rubbing people the wrong way because it has been ignored to chase these minor points down rabbit holes.

I have one data point. The state representative of one friend of mine in the Puget Sound area states that she is "freaked out" wham she sees people carrying guns. Might the practice possible result in more such reactions? Those are people that one does not want to influence negatively.
See State vs Casad:

We note that, in connection with this case, several individuals have commented that they would find it strange, maybe shocking, to see a man carrying a gun down the street in broad daylight. Casadís appellate counsel conceded that she would personally react with shock, but she emphasized that an individualís lack of comfort with firearms does not equate to reasonable alarm. We agree. It is not unlawful for a person to responsibly walk down the street with a visible firearm, even if this action would shock some people.

Of course, all this nitpicking minor points in my post has nothing to do with my follow-up question to the OP, which despite being asked four times now, remains unanswered.

If you, as a gun owner and carrier, act as though your sidearm is somehow exceptional or peculiar, how on earth can you dare to expect the non-gun owning public to see it any different?

Kleanbore
June 3, 2014, 12:45 PM
Consider this part of the OP and reflect upon it.

If our goal is to be a positive influence, it's critical to understand how our actions will be perceived by those we wish to positively influence....

That does NOT mean to consult a circle of like-minded friends; it means seeking counsel from a wide variety of persons with a wide variety of views. Not everyone who is consulted has to be happy with the resulting plan (it's impossible to satisfy everyone), but the planner needs to carefully consider all the points of view in the process of creating a strategy.

It's important to understand how critical this step is. ...

It's NOT enough to look at a plan and judge it exclusively based on how you, personally (or other people with nearly identical views), feel about it.

None of that is at all peculiar to the use of public demonstrations.

The same principles apply in the development of an advertising campaign, planning for a litigation strategy, product development, the framing of a political campaign....one can go on and on.

In some areas, there are basic tenets that are well understood because they are time tried: the defendant should appear clean and kempt, with a supportive significant other in attendance; the background for the ad scenes should be inviting; the prevention of the case must play to the sympathies of the jurors....

Some, though untried, should be self-evident from the outset. The idea of having men wave unslung rifles around in a family restaurants should be seen as an obviously poor strategy on the face of it without further ado. In a couple of places that was not taken into account, and we now have the evidence in hand. At some cost, I might add.

Still others remain unknown until the homework has been done. Unless the litigants, the firm, the political candidate or party, the designers, the demonstrators, etc. are willing to proceed on the basis of what John appropriately classified as "blind trial and error" and bet everything on an unknown outcome, they need to do their homework.

Frank Ettin has referred to that in a recent related thread. That homework can involve simulation, mock juries, test populations and control groups, and so on. It is routine in vey important situations.

I suggest again that unless and until someone has gone to the effort to design and conduct a valid experiment that would show the likely results of public demonstrations, those who demonstrate are engaging in blind trial and error.

Kleanbore
June 3, 2014, 12:59 PM
Posted by Mainsail: None of which you’ve personally seen or verified. You take it on faith that the persons reporting this evidence are factual and unbiasedDo you contend that that somehow makes it anecdotal?

By the way, hundreds of people from different walks of life provided their recollections of the event. Not all were unbiassed. But the differences in their accounts were insignificant. And there was the forensic evidence, from then and from decades later.

The entire OP is supposition, and it’s supposition from someone in a restricted carry state at that.I would characterize it as a well thought discussion of how demonstrations can be used to win or lose friends and to influence people favorably or unfavorably. It is amply supported, I think, by recent events that have backfired.

See State vs Casad: "We note that, in connection with this case, several individuals have commented that they would find it strange, maybe shocking, to see a man carrying a gun down the street in broad daylight. Casad’s appellate counsel conceded that she would personally react with shock, but she emphasized that an individual’s lack of comfort with firearms does not equate to reasonable alarm. We agree. It is not unlawful for a person to responsibly walk down the street with a visible firearm, even if this action would shock some people."How does an appellate court ruling tell us anything at all about changing public opinion?

If you, as a gun owner and carrier, act as though your sidearm is somehow exceptional or peculiar, how on earth can you dare to expect the non-gun owning public to see it any different?I have read that several times, and I'm afraid I still have no idea of what it is that you are trying to ask, or why.

Sam1911
June 3, 2014, 04:09 PM
I have read that several times, and I'm afraid I still have no idea of what it is that you are trying to ask, or why.
I gather he is suggesting the maxim that if you proceed as though whatever you're doing is perfectly natural and expected, 99% of folks will probably treat you as though what you're doing is perfectly natural and expected. Conversely, act all nervous and worked-up, and/or even furtively hiding our carried guns perhaps(?), will make people see you as odd, suspicious, and maybe even dangerous.

Sort of like skipping class back in high school. As long as you act like you're heading some place important (throw a roll of extension cord over your shoulder and push around a cart of supplies) nobody will stop you to ask why you're wandering the halls! ;)

nazshooter
June 3, 2014, 04:17 PM
I have read that several times, and I'm afraid I still have no idea of what it is that you are trying to ask, or why.

I'm sure Mainsail will correct me if I'm wrong but I think he's saying that if you are using a gun as a prop for its shock value in order to force people to pay attention then people will (correctly) perceive you as if you were shouting and waving a sign in their face and will associate gun carriers with "dangerous jerks". If, however, you're just carrying a gun while going about your normal business people are likely to react accordingly.

Frank Ettin
June 3, 2014, 07:17 PM
...If, however, you're just carrying a gun while going about your normal business people are likely to react accordingly. Mainsail may indeed be saying that; but we still don't know it is necessarily true all the time, or how or when it will be true.

Perhaps sometimes, in some places, under some circumstances it will be true. But it might also not be true at other times, in other places and in other circumstances.

CoalTrain49
June 3, 2014, 09:12 PM
If you, as a gun owner and carrier, act as though your sidearm is somehow exceptional or peculiar, how on earth can you dare to expect the non-gun owning public to see it any different?

I understand the premise behind this. You could also say if you as a Rottweiler owner, act as though your dog is somehow exceptional or peculiar, how on earth can you dare to expect the non-Rottweiler owning public to see it any different?

So what is your opinion about Rottweilers? I personally don't trust them. Not much of an argument IMO and honestly I don't think the non-gun owning public is going to buy it either.

If you want OC you will have to do a better job to promote it. Just exposure to it won't be enough.

We have to be smart about this if we do it. Activism is about having a plan, not about arguing about can we or should we, but how we should and why we should, or not, in some circumstances.

I like this as a place to start.

Of course we should have open carry. I open carry, I just don't do it in the grocery store. I like the freedom of being able to hike in warm weather with a shoulder holster outside. When people ask I tell them it's for bears and snakes and it makes them feel better.;) Most people who are non-gun owners are naive or have objections to it on moral grounds. I can understand that and we need to understand that. Those people vote just like we do and they outnumber us by a wide margin. To be effective we have to somehow convince them that the guns themselves are not the threat. The threat, if there was one, would come from the person with the gun. So the burden of proof is on us. It shouldn't be but everyone these days wants some insurance. Insurance is a big business. That insurance might come in the form of a license. I have a license to CC. I have a license to visit my state park. I have a license to hunt. I have a license to drive. It goes on and on. If you carry a gun in any manner, maybe a license is in order. I know some people are going to choke on that but at least you can reply by saying do you have a license to drive, well I have a license to carry this pistol and I will carry it however I want.

A lot of people won't get a license to OC. Those are the people that won't get a license to CC. They just want to tell you it's muh right and by god I'm not payin for somethin that's muh right. Well in TX and 5 other states it isn't your right. Here's a tip. If you let the state or county control it (permit like CC) and get revenue from it chances are good that you can have it. It's how they do things these days. The train done left the station.

That would be my approach instead of taking my AR into Wal Mart and dissing the manager. He wasn't around for reconstruction.

Mainsail
June 3, 2014, 10:06 PM
I'm sure Mainsail will correct me if I'm wrong but I think he's saying that if you are using a gun as a prop for its shock value in order to force people to pay attention then people will (correctly) perceive you as if you were shouting and waving a sign in their face and will associate gun carriers with "dangerous jerks". If, however, you're just carrying a gun while going about your normal business people are likely to react accordingly.I won't say you're wrong.

The OP has a half page of suggestions about demonstrations. The problem is the most gun owners lean towards conservative- a group that historically does not march or sit-in or shake signs and chant. I doubt most people have time to read the whole OP, much less go through all that. While it seems like a list of good suggestions, I doubt anyone will ever take it.

What we did in WA worked- just polite friendly people going about their lives just like everyone else, but with a pistol showing. Frank insists, from San Fran 800 miles away, that it needs to be proven in scientific terms or he won't believe. We don't really care. We know what we saw and still see.

Frank Ettin
June 3, 2014, 10:11 PM
...We don't really care...We know you don't really care. That's obvious. Some of us do however care about effectively advocating RKBA.

...We know what we saw and still see. And that's exactly why people used to think the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.

Now that's settled, perhaps we can go back to trying to discuss effective RKBA advocacy.

Sam1911
June 3, 2014, 10:22 PM
What we did in WA worked- just polite friendly people going about their lives just like everyone else, but with a pistol showing.

Maybe we wouldn't be so curtly opposed to each others' viewpoints if we defined this a little better so we make sure we're talking apples-to-apples.

"What we did WORKED." Worked to what end, exactly? Are you saying that open carry is a settled thing in Washington state and is unexceptional to the point of producing no negative fallout?

Worked to what degree exactly? That you can walk around wherever you want with a visible handgun without making people uncomfortable?
That you can walk around wherever you want with a visible handgun without seeing people vote against your wishes in large enough numbers to matter?
(These are two separate issues. One you can know, and one you can only guess at, mostly.)

Or that you can walk around wherever you want with a RIFLE without eliciting either of those negative outcomes?

Or something else?

I guess what I'm asking is what is the actual matter of fact that makes you say "it worked?" What'cha all hanging your hat on here? :)

Mainsail
June 3, 2014, 10:59 PM
Now that's settled, perhaps we can go back to trying to discuss effective RKBA advocacy.I accept your apology.

Maybe we wouldn't be so curtly opposed to each others' viewpoints if we defined this a little better so we make sure we're talking apples-to-apples.

"What we did WORKED." Worked to what end, exactly?
Worked as in OC became more acceptable in the eye of the general public. Totally acceptable? Nothing is absolute.

Ten years ago OC was just as lawful as it is today, but nobody did it. Since nobody did it- nobody outside the gun community knew it was lawful and assumed it was not. Now we have news organizations reporting on it and mentioning it is lawful.

If you (collective yous) insist on 'absolute proof' and 'zero people are uncomfortable' fuggetaboutit. Nothing is absolute (except the statement that nothing is absolute) on earth. The whole forum is about our beliefs, anecdotes, ideas, theories, experiences, and second hand information. Why is it that only open carry demands such a higher level of reliability?

Frank Ettin
June 3, 2014, 11:46 PM
...Worked as in OC became more acceptable in the eye of the general public....Did it really? You certainly believe it, but on a very flimsy basis. And your experiences still do not reflect a universal truth.

...The whole forum is about our beliefs, anecdotes, ideas, theories, experiences, and second hand information. Why is it that only open carry demands such a higher level of reliability? Different people, even on this board, have different credibility thresholds. Some people believe things at the drop of a hat because they really want to believe or because this assertion or that assertion fits their preconceive world view.

Some people here require more evidence. I'm among those, as is JohnKSa and Kleanbore. We come from a world in which decisions and beliefs must be evidence based.

We might consider that much of the anti-gun movement is based on beliefs which are not evidence based.

JohnKSa
June 4, 2014, 12:40 AM
They are not representative of the majority of gun owners anywhere.And yet I see some gun owners trying to make the case that we should defend their actions simply because they are gun owners too. That's short-sighted and wrong-headed. If someone does something ill-advised with guns in public, we should not, we can not support their actions. In fact, it's important that we make it clear to everyone (pro-gun, anti-gun) that what has been done is ill-advised and that we don't support it.

Although my comment in the OP about any particular member of a group potentially becoming a de facto spokesperson, and the danger of rogue members was narrowly focused in the context in which I made it, it also applies more broadly. When a gun owner makes a public statement (either verbally or by his actions) that is harmful to the rest of the gun community, the immediate (and natural) assumption that those outside the firearm community will make is that he speaks for all of us or that his actions are representative.

It's important that the general community moves rapidly to make it clear that is not the case.Apparently my f/u question is rubbing people the wrong way because it has been ignored to chase these minor points down rabbit holes.I answered your question in the original post and reiterated the answer in my second post on this thread.

"What's wrong with just carrying your handgun in a holster openly and going about your business politely?" Maybe nothing, maybe something. There might be nothing wrong with it at all, but there might be some contexts in which "going about your business politely" with an openly carried pistol could be considered anything but polite.

That's why it's important to do some serious investigative work to determine how people in your area are likely to react to OC in various circumstances. I provided some loose guidelines for how to do that work and tried to explain why it's so critically important.

"If our goal is to be a positive influence, it's critical to understand how our actions will be perceived by those we wish to positively influence. The alternative is blind trial and error, and it's an understatement to call that a foolish strategy."

For what it's worth, your comment about "going about your business politely" is an example of circular reasoning. Because you start off with the assumption that you are being polite, you exclude the possibility that not everyone will see what you do as polite.

I suspect that the answer "It depends" isn't going to make you happy because it highlights the fact that like so many real-world issues, the question of when OC is prudent and when it's not does not have a strictly black or white answer. Unfortunately many times, in the real world, the actual answer is "It depends on the circumstances."... from someone in a restricted carry state at that.This is an ad hominem fallacy. Where I am does not prove that what I've posted is incorrect. If what I've posted is in error then you should be able to point out the errors. If you can not, attempting to attack the content by attacking the author instead is a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"...a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."I doubt most people have time to read the whole OP, much less go through all that. While it seems like a list of good suggestions, I doubt anyone will ever take it.I'm optimistic. I doubt that a lot of people will pay attention, but I think some might. I believe that your analysis is probably pretty accurate in the sense that the people who need to read it most probably won't bother to take the time to do so.

This is where people like YOU come in. You did take the time to read it and you seem to understand it. Maybe you, or someone like you who took the time to read this thread and who understands it will get the chance to talk to someone who can benefit from thinking about some of concepts discussed here.

That's why I take the time to post here. Some people probably think that pointing out logical fallacies is some kind of an ego trip for me. The reason I do it is because people who care enough about the issues to spend the time reading and posting here are likely to be the ones who care enough to go out and take action and to talk with friends, neighbors and others in their area.

So I think it's important for them to be able to both spot logical fallacies when others make them and to be able to avoid making them in their own arguments. I point them out hoping people will take note and learn.

That's also why I started this thread. I realize that the worst offenders won't be bothered to pay attention to any opinion other than their own and those that mirror their own. But not everyone is that far gone. I also realize that not everyone who reads what I wrote will agree with everything I've said. But I do hope that it will provide some food for thought.

Thinking is a good thing and I think more people ought to try it. This is my way of trying to help people think.

JRH6856
June 4, 2014, 01:11 AM
"What's wrong with just carrying your handgun in a holster openly and going about your business politely?"

There are a lot of things wrong if it is illegal to do so. So for those of us who live in the six states plus DC where open carry of handguns is illegal, the question is irrelevant.

CoalTrain49
June 4, 2014, 10:53 AM
"What's wrong with just carrying your handgun in a holster openly and going about your business politely?"

There are a lot of things wrong if it is illegal to do so. So for those of us who live in the six states plus DC where open carry of handguns is illegal, the question is irrelevant.

Exactly. You can't really use WA to test whether or not the general public is going to be receptive to open carry in a state where it isn't legal. The demographic is that the western part of the state is primarily blue and the eastern part red. The most populated counties are blue. Those counties have been growing at a rapid rate for 30 years. I know because I lived in the middle of it. A great number of those people that moved here were from CA. Because it wasn't common to OC in the metro areas the cops didn't even know it was legal and might hassle you if you did. Then it was tested by a few people who started to OC in the metro areas. They reclaimed their constitutional rights in a sea of AG folks and everyone including the cops got an education. It was a commendable effort but what they were doing was legal from the beginning. In WA if you object to OC now about the only thing you can do is demonstrate against it (and they do) and try to change it by legislation. Ironic isn't it?

As was mentioned earlier you need lots of support to do that. In order to get support you need to be able to show why you want to change the status quo or why the change is needed. Generally people don't like change so that makes it doubly hard.

I think one of the reasons that CC and shall issue has become the norm in most states is because it has been shown by studies that people licensed to CC are responsible and much less likely to commit a crime. It also goes a short distance to restore some 2A rights. It's a compromise. That's a dirty word for some people but we never get everything we want in life and the real world is full of compromise. I don't have to pay and subject myself to a background check for my RKBA at home but I do anyway because I travel and I like to carry in my vehicle.

The only way to support the statement that people who have a license to carry are less likely to commit a crime is keep records.

http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm

Those are some hard numbers that can be used to support CC. If a license were to include OC the numbers would be the same because again it isn't the weapon or how it is carried but the person who carries it.

Oklahoma has come up with a good compromise.

http://www.ok.gov/governor/OpenCarryFAQ.html

These are just some ideas and thoughts to promote OC. Nothing is perfect and you aren't going to please everyone, but negotiation and compromise is in order here if you are trying to get something you don't have.

usurp31
June 4, 2014, 03:18 PM
Great information Coaltrain; I shared the OK info with some people who live there.

Mainsail
June 4, 2014, 10:40 PM
Pass

CoalTrain49
June 4, 2014, 11:23 PM
That's better than WA, where you don't need any permit or license to carry openly? No thanks.


The way I read WA law to carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle you need a CPL.

RCW 9.41.050
Carrying firearms.

(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

How do you manage OC without a CPL? Just curious.

CoalTrain49
June 4, 2014, 11:33 PM
Deleted

Mainsail
June 5, 2014, 08:55 AM
The way I read WA law to carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle you need a CPL.

RCW 9.41.050
Carrying firearms.

(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

How do you manage OC without a CPL? Just curious.When I lived in the Stadium District in Tacoma I could park my car on Friday after work and never need to drive it again until Monday morning. My CPL was tucked in the visor of my car.

You are correct- you need a CPL to carry loaded in your car, but you do not need one at all for just walking around or if you elect to unload your sidearm every time you get in the car. If you elect to do the latter, you may sit the gun and the magazine on the seat next to you- there is no requirement to separate them.

CoalTrain49
June 5, 2014, 11:18 AM
You are correct- you need a CPL to carry loaded in your car, but you do not need one at all for just walking around or if you elect to unload your sidearm every time you get in the car. If you elect to do the latter, you may sit the gun and the magazine on the seat next to you- there is no requirement to separate them.

That sounds like a PIA to me, but I guess some folks that live in a metro area don't drive that much. Driving everywhere, especially in Seattle is also a PIA.

Blackbeard
June 6, 2014, 01:26 PM
The key to a successful demonstration is to garner sympathy from the general public. These OC rifle demonstrations are unlikely to generate sympathy for the plight of these people. They're more likely to generate sympathy for the poor people frightened while shopping at Target or eating a burrito at Chipotle.

Unfortunately, the complaint of OC Texas has very little potential for public sympathy. You have to cover your pistols? Oh no! We must right this wrong! That's never going to happen. What you have is an inconvenience, not an injustice. Nobody marches on the state capitol over an inconvenience.

It seems to me the best course of action is a lobbying campaign among the state legislators to correct the absurdity in the state regulations.

Frank Ettin
June 6, 2014, 03:13 PM
The key to a successful demonstration is to garner sympathy from the general public. These OC rifle demonstrations are unlikely to generate sympathy for the plight of these people. They're more likely to generate sympathy for the poor people frightened while shopping at Target or eating a burrito at Chipotle.

Unfortunately, the complaint of OC Texas has very little potential for public sympathy. You have to cover your pistols? Oh no! We must right this wrong! That's never going to happen. What you have is an inconvenience, not an injustice. Nobody marches on the state capitol over an inconvenience.
...Excellent points and spot on.

Many in the RKBA community have been pointing at the Civil Rights Movement and the Gay Rights Movement without understanding in any depth how they worked, why they worked, and how their lessons can and can not be useful for the advancement of our interests. But during the Civil Rights Movement many Whites came to care about the plight of the Blacks, and much of the focus was to make Whites understand and care. Many straight people came to care about the plight of the gays, and much of the focus of the gay rights movement was to make straight people understand and care. The successes of non-Whites and of gays on the social and legislative fronts depended on Whites and straights seeing non-Whites and gays as oppressed. How many non-gun owners think gun owners are oppressed?

Let's look at the comparison with the Civil Rights Movement graphically. In the days of the Civil Rights Movement:

White folks cared in 1960 when U. S. Marshals had to escort a black girl to school in New Orleans, Louisiana.


White folks cared in 1963 when George Wallace attempted to block the desegregation of the University of Alabama. He was confronted by federal marshals, Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, and the Alabama Army National Guard and forced to step aside.


White folks cared in 1963 when Wallace again attempted to stop four black students from enrolling in segregated elementary schools in Huntsville.


And White folks cared about --


http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/fiddletown_2006/Random%20for%20boards/schoolintegration10_zps4f733f68.jpg (http://s95.photobucket.com/user/fiddletown_2006/media/Random%20for%20boards/schoolintegration10_zps4f733f68.jpg.html)


and


http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/fiddletown_2006/Random%20for%20boards/elizabetheckford1_zps733fc3f7.jpg (http://s95.photobucket.com/user/fiddletown_2006/media/Random%20for%20boards/elizabetheckford1_zps733fc3f7.jpg.html)


and


http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/fiddletown_2006/Random%20for%20boards/USAjimcrow2_zpsfef6e226.jpg (http://s95.photobucket.com/user/fiddletown_2006/media/Random%20for%20boards/USAjimcrow2_zpsfef6e226.jpg.html)


and


http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/fiddletown_2006/Random%20for%20boards/lynching_zpsa6466a36.jpg (http://s95.photobucket.com/user/fiddletown_2006/media/Random%20for%20boards/lynching_zpsa6466a36.jpg.html)


On the other hand, what do non-gun owners (and many gun owners) think about:


http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/fiddletown_2006/Random%20for%20boards/f32697ac-39fa-416c-b8da-506cf7182d4d_zpsa4207be8.jpg (http://s95.photobucket.com/user/fiddletown_2006/media/Random%20for%20boards/f32697ac-39fa-416c-b8da-506cf7182d4d_zpsa4207be8.jpg.html)


and


http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/fiddletown_2006/Random%20for%20boards/Chipotle_zpsf13c25f1.jpg (http://s95.photobucket.com/user/fiddletown_2006/media/Random%20for%20boards/Chipotle_zpsf13c25f1.jpg.html)

aarondhgraham
June 6, 2014, 04:57 PM
Has anyone ever heard the phrase,,,
One "aw shucks" erases 10 "atta boys".

The last two pictures in Franks post,,,
Are in the "aw shucks" category.

We've had licensed open carry here in Oklahoma,,,
For approximately 1 year and 7 months.

For the longest time I didn't see anyone OC'ing,,,
But in recent months I've seen literally hundreds of people open carrying,,,
But the only examples of OC that truly stick in my mind are the "aw shucks" examples.

I see a person OC'ing and usually all I think about is,,,
What kind of gun he's carrying and what is that holster he's using.

But people like the man I saw last week,,,
Who was open carrying an SAA in full cowboy mode,,,
Unshaven, slovenly, and scowling at everyone, he will stay in my brain.

So if I, a fervent RKBA proponent, consider this an aw shucks moment,,,
Just how do you think Mr. & Mrs. fence-sitter will perceive it,,,
They will both remember the scene very vividly,,,
And erase any atta-boys from their minds.

I rarely (almost never) open carry,,,
But when I do I try for atta-boy status,,,
That's what these few folk in Texas haven't done.

One argument says we must not scare the general population,,,
So we keep it positive and show that we aren't scary,,,
But there is a group that rejects that thought,,,
And I can't understand why.

I am in complete agreement that any demonstration needs to be well planned,,,
This isn't the old world where we can just overwhelm our foes with numbers,,,
Specific goals need to be defined and strategies devised to attain them.

Anything less becomes a protest rather than a demonstration,,,
And as someone else said earlier in this thread,,,
For any protest to have a positive effect,,,
It must generate some sympathy.

The image of those two in Chipotle's,,,
Generates nothing but fear, distrust, and anger.

Yeah, they got noticed all right,,,
But it was an aw shucks moment for certain,,,
And it erased many more than ten atta-boys for the OC crowd.

The beast is the gun-control crowd,,,
These two men fed the beast!

Aarond

.

moxie
June 6, 2014, 07:10 PM
Frank,

Very nice work. Right on target.

Thanks!!

CoalTrain49
June 9, 2014, 02:30 PM
Excellent post Frank.

I find it ironic that in most of the south after the civil war laws were passed to prevent freed slaves from carrying handguns and the laws in CA are there because of the Black Panthers and their OC. Some not very good reasons that have far reaching effects for everyone.

kitsapshooter
June 9, 2014, 07:16 PM
And without appropriate evidence and appropriate studies, you can't know something. You can only guess.

Your wrong there Frank. I can walk outside and know if it is raining on me. I can stand on a hill and see further then a can standing in the valley.
I know these things. No studies needed.

Frank Ettin
June 9, 2014, 07:30 PM
And without appropriate evidence and appropriate studies, you can't know something. You can only guess.

Your wrong there Frank. I can walk outside and know if it is raining on me. I can stand on a hill and see further then a can standing in the valley.
I know these things. No studies needed.Nope, you're wrong. You know those things because the appropriate studies have been done, evidence examined, and the results determined.

So if you walk outside under the sky and water is falling on your head, the act of walking outside is a way to conduct a study to see it it's raining, and the water falling on your head is evidence that it is raining. Of course you still need to be far enough away from a building to exclude the possibility that someone is leaning out a window and dripping water on you.

hso
June 9, 2014, 08:42 PM
I can walk outside and know if it is raining on me. I can stand on a hill and see further then a can standing in the valley.
I know these things. No studies needed.

Personal experience isn't automatically universal truth. Stand on the hill on a foggy day and your limited sample tells you one thing. On a clear day, another. Which is the universal truth based on? Do it day after day and develop an understanding of the details over time and you come to a conclusion. As pointed out "we all know" is based on the collective experience which amounts to statistical studies. When dealing with large areas, big populations the only truth is derived from the statistical and not anecdotal.

If we want positive results we need to confront prejudice in a positive manner.

JRH6856
June 10, 2014, 12:41 AM
Your wrong there Frank. I can walk outside and know if it is raining on me. I can stand on a hill and see further then a can standing in the valley.
I know these things. No studies needed.
But your experiential knowlege only applies to you. You can't infer that because it is raining on you then it must be raining on everyone.

If you enjoyed reading about "Changing public opinion via demonstrations" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!