1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Idea to turn public opinion in favor of firearms

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Vector, Mar 30, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vector

    Vector Well-Known Member

    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.

  2. blarby

    blarby Well-Known Member

    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....
  3. TCB in TN

    TCB in TN Well-Known Member

    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.
  4. Vector

    Vector Well-Known Member

    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?

  5. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Well-Known Member

    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.
  6. barnbwt

    barnbwt Well-Known Member

    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.

    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
    I never realized how hilariously out-dated the Watch logo is...

  7. kwguy

    kwguy Well-Known Member

    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'.
  8. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Well-Known Member

    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.
  9. kwguy

    kwguy Well-Known Member

    THIS is definitely a huge part of the equation.
  10. FROGO207

    FROGO207 Well-Known Member

    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:
  11. Vector

    Vector Well-Known Member

    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".

  12. SuperNaut

    SuperNaut Well-Known Member

    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.
  13. Vector

    Vector Well-Known Member

    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.
  14. SuperNaut

    SuperNaut Well-Known Member

    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.
  15. Kim

    Kim Well-Known Member

    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.
  16. Vector

    Vector Well-Known Member

    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?

  17. cfullgraf

    cfullgraf Well-Known Member

    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.
  18. oldcelt

    oldcelt Well-Known Member

    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
  19. jeffmack

    jeffmack Well-Known Member

    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.
  20. BBQJOE

    BBQJOE Well-Known Member

    Will we/they create a witch hunt?

    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.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page