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. 76shuvlinoff

    76shuvlinoff Well-Known Member

    Agreed, see signature line.
  2. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    Gun homicides are a statistical anomoly in our society.

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

    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 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 Well-Known Member

  5. Domina

    Domina Well-Known Member

    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.
  6. krupparms

    krupparms Well-Known Member

    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!
  7. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    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 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.
  8. btg3

    btg3 Well-Known Member

    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.
  9. r1derbike

    r1derbike Well-Known Member

    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.
  10. 0to60

    0to60 Well-Known Member

    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.
  11. Walkalong

    Walkalong Moderator

    Criminals don't buy legitimately. Background checks will not affect them.
  12. 0to60

    0to60 Well-Known Member

    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.
  13. r1derbike

    r1derbike Well-Known Member

    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?
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2013
  14. Mainsail

    Mainsail Well-Known Member

    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.

    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.
  15. 0to60

    0to60 Well-Known Member

    Would you change your mind about UBC if the existing laws were enforced more strictly?
  16. r1derbike

    r1derbike Well-Known Member

    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.
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2013
  17. Vector

    Vector Well-Known Member

    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.

  18. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    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.
  19. Ditchtiger

    Ditchtiger Well-Known Member

    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.
  20. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Well-Known Member

    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"
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page