Gun Store Stereotyping

Good gravy, is this thread STILL going on? It's certainly an interesting look into the crossways of our cultures, at least.

Yes, there is sort of a gun clique. It isn't always inviting to newcomers because all too many people want to be in it because they crave the respect that an extensive knowledge of guns can get them from their peers but don't want to actually spend the time, effort, and money learning about firearms. People who run around pretending to be firearms experts generally piss off the real experts. .

Click to expand...

You seem to advocate this attitude. As such, I can only infer that you've perpetuated this attitude. Subsequently, I have to wonder how many potential pro 2a voters you've driven into apathy or even towards Brady.

Click to expand...

That's an unfair assumption. The poster is stating what IS, not what ought to be. And it turns into a personal attack, which is not real High Road.

For those who think their appearance shouldn't matter, perhaps it shouldn't. But it is also true that it DOES matter. If it is truly as neutral as some of you say, then why choose the baggy pants, belt below the butt, cap-turned-sideways look in the first place? It surely isn't a look that says "I want to be the next Lee Iacocca". It is a look identified with "gangsta" culture (using the word loosely) and those who dress that way are just going to have to accept that those who regularly sell firearms are going to, at least, look, and think, twice about them if they walk up to a firearm counter looking that way.

Maybe it wouldn't be that way in an ideal world, but it IS that way.

That said, though, the idea that you should walk into a gun store in pressed chinos and a button down shirt made me laugh. Having just gotten back from Carter's this morning, wearing capris, a tee shirt, and a bandana to keep my hair out of my face when shooting, I didn't exactly look like anybody's idea of a professional anything.

Much has to do with the way you treat the people behind the counter, with how you ACT, regardless of how you dress.

Springmom

Supernaught, Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

When bringing someone into the shooting fold the only "requirement" is that they have an open mind and a teachable attitude. Hair color and style, not so much. Clothing preference, again, not so much. Gender? race? religion? don't matter to me at all..

Close minded, set in your ways, bigoted or otherwise unteachable? Find someone else to learn from.

Guess what kids? Individually and collectively (NRA, etc) we spend a great deal of effort trying to attract new shooters to the sport. Everytime some some jackass redneck gunshop owner/employee pisses all over a prospective customer or new shooter, because they don't like their look; they have just made Sarah Brady smile. When I visit gun shops in my area, I feel sorry for any new shooter or non angry old white guy that patronizes them.

I suppose, as businesses, shops have a perogative to develop their clientele as they see fit. If you're unable to distinguish between whose just a younger individual with baggy jeans and an actual gangster; then you should probably stick to older white guys as your customer base. However, don't be suprised when the shop up the road eats your lunch.

There are only a couple of local shops I still do business with. One is run by a cranky old SASS guy. He's a son of a ..... but he carries stuff I like, and for a cranky old guy he's OK. The other is staffed by friendly younger asian and hispanic guys, a number with a fair amount of ink. I notice the latter shop is usually a lot busier with a more diverse clientele. If you had to bet on a shop's long term survival, which one would you pick?

Everytime some some jackass redneck gunshop owner/employee pisses all over a prospective customer or new shooter, because they don't like their look; they have just made Sarah Brady smile.

Click to expand...

But the point is, a lot of gun shop owners are curmudgeons at EVERYBODY. You're right, the marketplace will exact revenge on that behavior, and you're right that it doesn't do our side any good. But it isn't JUST about looks.

Remember (eight pages after the OP) the guy in the shop went off after the OP had "slammed" shut a revolver. The guy was angry with his BEHAVIOR. I just don't see this particular incident as a discriminatory thing; it was behavior-driven.

Springmom

First off - how does one use the "quote" function around here? I don't see it in the usual place.

Second - Werewolf - you crack me up. Ever been to northern WI? It's a LOOOOONG way from Madison. Funny thing is, on the other message board I post on (not a gun board) I'm universaly considered to be a hard-core right-wing nutjob. Here guys like Werewolf are in effect calling me a pink tutu wearing liberal. Truth is I'm niether. Extremeists on either end of the spectrum always end up thinking that anyone who doesn't agree with them is automatically thier diametric opposite.

..and nowhere was I "complaining" about prejudicial treatment in gunshops. How could I complain about something that I've never experienced? I was merely bringing up the point that some of you seem to be stuck in an episode of Leave It To Beaver.

Yes, there is sort of a gun clique. It isn't always inviting to newcomers because all too many people want to be in it because they crave the respect that an extensive knowledge of guns can get them from their peers but don't want to actually spend the time, effort, and money learning about firearms. People who run around pretending to be firearms experts generally piss off the real experts. .

Click to expand...

You seem to advocate this attitude. As such, I can only infer that you've perpetuated this attitude. Subsequently, I have to wonder how many potential pro 2a voters you've driven into apathy or even towards Brady.

What part of inalienable do people fail to understand? The BoR makes no mention of "proper attire" or "extensive knowledge." And "shall not infringe" did not carry a caveat excluding baggy pants or purple hair. If these attitudes are not changed, the steady erosion of gun rights will continue.

I think this is EXACTLY what is WRONG with a lot of gun culture. It damages our cause. I've seen the "good ole boys club" turn off more potential shooters and (more importantly) advocates than ANYTHING Brady, Fienstein, or any other anti has ever said. Most of them women.

Click to expand...

I've been shooting and learning about firearms for close to 2 decades now. I've seen a lot of loudmouth know-it-alls who say stupid stuff about firearms. A lot of the time they say stuff that is wrong, even dangerous, or (worse) stuff that will scare the uninformed purely to feed their ego. They do not want to genuinely know about the topic. I do not want to associate (or be associated) with people like that and if you want to label that as unwittingly anti 2nd Amendment so be it. As for me, I think that screening the idiots and nutcases out of this sport is a worthwhile activity. I am not afraid to tell you that there are people the gun community should not count as members and that you should do your part to keep them out.

That said, I try not to be a member of the good old boys club. If I know someone wants to go shooting I will invite them to go with me and will let them use my guns and my ammo. I am happy to share my knowledge with people as well. However, my time, effort, knowledge, and ammo supply all have limits so I don't act like a missionary either.

For example, a guy where I work told me he is interested in buying a handgun, so I told him where some good dealers were located as well as a brand he might want to look at. All he really knows about guns is that he wants a 1911 style .45. If he gets one, I am sure I will hear about how expensive ammo is, so I will wind up telling him about .22 conversion kits as well as telling him where to find better prices on ammunition. If we go shooting I'll probably give him shooting tips as well.

That's an unfair assumption. The poster is stating what IS, not what ought to be. And it turns into a personal attack, which is not real High Road.

Click to expand...

I actually have to concede your point. You're right. It *is*. And it should not be. (IMO of course) Though, I did not intend it to be a personal attack. That's why I used the word "seems." This allows room for retort, and to correct my perception.

Though, ConfuseUs is giving conflicting information in terms of clarification. Part of his response supports a position of elitism. The second part of his response indicates that he's *trying* not to be a part of the very clique he espouses. So at least, he seems conflicted to me. (again, I have chosen my words carefully. There is room for response and setting the record straight). And at the very worst, he and others are thinking about whom they willfully exclude and why.

It disturbs me though that he referred to things as "this sport." This is no sport. This is a fundamental right. Right up there with the right to breathe air and worship ones diety. Perhaps the one right that protects those others. But I'm sure on this, I am preaching to the choir.

Though, why some are more deserving of these rights than others, based on their clothing choices (as opposed to criminal convictions or renouncing their citizenship), baffles me a bit.

I think Oaktown sees my point.

I got stereotyped/'scriminated against recently, m'self - despite me being a 'typical white person' who 'clings to guns and religion'.
Cast of Characters:

Moi: combed hair (short), tucked shirt, jeans. All ironed/washed and in order. Young feller, I be. Some cashiers probably wonder if I'm 18.
Gun Shop Owner: Older guy. White/gray hair.
Incident: Moi decides to see if GSO will purchase a firearm. Nice levergun. Have already checked the blue book prices on it.
GSO looks at levergun, goes back into his place, and checks the book. Offers $200, and explains how NIB guns of that model have an MSRP of $350.
The book value as of the 2007 blue book? $300, +15% for my caliber. No MSRP, the gun's been discontinued. 98% goes for $400 +15%.
I got the notion that he wouldn't've tried that stunt on an older guy. Less an "I hate young people" and more of a "here comes a sucker!" attitude. Still ain't appreciated. No, I didn't correct him. Youngsters of the easygoing persuasion avoid correcting their elders... especially when those elders have a pistol strapped on their belt. They just complain on the internet and go on with their lives.
Gander Mtn, on the other hand, was extremely straightforward (true book value, condition, etc), and suggested I sell it to a private party so as to make more money.

I honestly believe that I can see both sides of the whole 'appearance and manner' issue because I have been on both sides of it.
I'm 46 and like others who have posted, have had something of a counter-culture look in the past but now look very conventional.
I've lived in a very conservative part of the country all my life....even back when I played guitar in heavy metal bands and had curly shoulder length hair. And back then, I was going to gun shops and looking around, too....but I made it a point to be about one notch above respectful and polite, knowing that my appearance was going to send a message. I wanted my manners to counter that "message".
And I have to say this, too...look at things from the gun shop owner's point of view: when was the last time that a clean-cut, well-groomed, ready-to-play-18-holes-of-golf looking guy caught a shop owner at an inattentive moment and stuck a gun in his face. Hey, that shop owner has a reason to be paranoid of people who look funny, particularly of people they've never met before and who look suspicious: he or she is a potential target, often surrounded by a whole bunch of property that a criminal or criminals might kill to get.
I'ts not uncommon here in South Georgia to walk in an outdoor store and see an employee with a loaded weapon on his or her hip. That is not meant to scare away potential customers, it's a way of letting the thugs know 'this ain't the place to be.'
It also depends on where the store is located and what kind of dealings the owner may have had in the past. If the store is located in a higher-crime area (like some pawn shops around here are) and something in your dress or demeanor looks 'gang' or 'thug', you can bet the guy's radar's going up and you're going to be treated in a different manner. That's not bigotry....it's the store owner trying to stay alive.
I've actually had pawn shop owners tell me that when somebody walks in and says, "I want a 9" and they look 'gang', he says, "We don't have any" regardless of whether he actually does or not...or he says he'll say, "Have you ever thought about a 10?" And they'll say, "We have the right not to sell to anybody we think may be a danger"....and like it or not, folks, that's their prerogative.
I hope I don't sound like I'm sticking up for prejudice, bigotry, sexism, or rude treatment, because I'm not. I guess I just thought I might be able to make a useful contribution to the discussion. Shoot safe, everybody.

"I've been shooting and learning about firearms for close to 2 decades now."

Welcome newbie.

"Part of his response supports a position of elitism."

If you think that's bad, go hang around in some art galleries, jewelry stores and imported rug shops. And have lunch at a restaurant with French waiters.

The world is full of jerks, but it's still a beautiful day outside.

John

"What part of inalienable do people fail to understand? The BoR makes no mention of "proper attire" or "extensive knowledge." And "shall not infringe" did not carry a caveat excluding baggy pants or purple hair."

That's funny, inaccurate and funny. The BoR applies to the government, not some guy running a retail business. Just like freedom of speech doesn't apply to this site because it's privately owned. Nice try though.

John

mr. 72

I read your first two big posts a page or two up in this thread.

Some items really stand out to me. You mention you were pretty new to guns. I have a lot of experience with people who are new to guns. Often you can hear a few key words and know if the person is a novice.

Would you have evaluated the situation differently if you had realized your choice of words branded you as a total novice, and also a high probability of just being a lookie-loo? I don't know how long you have been here, but we all have heard ten times as many posts about an obvious novice who is handed a gun, and the first thing he does is put his finger on the trigger, has no idea where the barrel is pointing, and pretty quick he is dry-firing the gun.

Also, amongst guns, a very significant percentage of novice males seem to think possessing a penis makes them wise in all gun things. They seem very unlikely to state 'I am new at this' which most people will recognize as meaning 'I am willing to lean' and that is what gets the trigger locks off.

Now for your two example conversations, regarding the second, I can see how that would be a good exchange to use with you. However, I have seen that very level of information backfire many times.

#1 Novice goes in, doesn't want to appear a novice, and has maybe a nugget of truth or two to parrot. This person will then start arguing about some feature most would agree on, claim some friend in the army told him that, and cause a scene.
#2 knowledgable gun person, can take offense to stating what for him is blatantly obvious. He expects the clerk to be able to pick up that this guy knows his stuff, and is just as insulted as I have seen many women get when the car dealer talks about color and interior not engine performance.

I'd also like to note, that even in your theoretical 'good exchange' neither you nor the clerk do what is really necessary. You fail to state you are a novice, and he fails to put down some ground rules regarding handling the gun (no dry firing, finger off the trigger, watch the muzzle) the very type of ground rules that would get #1 and #2 in a tizzy. So one way around this is to leave the trigger lock on

And an interested buyer AFTER stating he is a novice, should have no problem asking to take the trigger lock off. Just like sometimes the car dealer asks you 'want to take it for a testdrive' and sometimes the buyer has to initiate 'i'd like to take it for a test drive' Just like with guns, this is normally because there isn't perfectly communicated clues about the level of interst/committment. So when non-verbals fail, speak up if you don't like what is going on. Do it politely of course.

That's funny, inaccurate and funny. The BoR applies to the government, not some guy running a retail business. Just like freedom of speech doesn't apply to this site because it's privately owned. Nice try though.

Click to expand...

In case you failed to read the post to which I was responding, he used "this sport" to describe shooting, and firearms ownership in general. If you believe firearms ownership is a "sport," then you land in the same camp with him, and should perhaps give the words of the founders a second read. IPSC and skeet were not mentioned in our constitution.

siglite said:

In case you failed to read the post to which I was responding, he used "this sport" to describe shooting, and firearms ownership in general. If you believe firearms ownership is a "sport," then you land in the same camp with him, and should perhaps give the words of the founders a second read. IPSC and skeet were not mentioned in our constitution.

Click to expand...

Cheap shot, siglite. You know better than that.

siglite said:

It disturbs me though that he referred to things as "this sport." This is no sport.

Click to expand...

There are several sports; you've mentioned IPSC and skeet, for example. The sports are effective ways to attract people who've been unfamiliar with shooting and give them the opportunity to learn about guns. Enlightenment about the philosophical basis of human rights doesn't always come all at once, and one doesn't best quench a thirst with a fire hose.

I believe in and work to support the fundamental human rights of a lot of folks whom I might not personally like and don't wish to hang out with. Sometimes I'm not the right one to teach a particular person. Store clerks are people and some are jerks; I've had my say on that back at Post #113 of this thread.

Though, ConfuseUs is giving conflicting information in terms of clarification. Part of his response supports a position of elitism. The second part of his response indicates that he's *trying* not to be a part of the very clique he espouses. So at least, he seems conflicted to me. (again, I have chosen my words carefully. There is room for response and setting the record straight). And at the very worst, he and others are thinking about whom they willfully exclude and why.

Click to expand...

I support the right to keep and bear arms. At the same time I'm well aware that there are all sorts of people running around who I don't think should be armed. The difference between me and some anti is that I fully understand that society's worst elements will arm themselves in spite of the law. For that reason, I do not support gun control laws, nor do I support the enactment of laws that serve to restrict the rights of responsible and law abiding citizens who certainly deserve to be at least as well armed if not better armed than their criminal adversaries.

I've been around a few people who, despite my support for the right to keep and bear arms, I frankly wish would not exercise that right. Before you jump up and down and scream that my reasoning is foolish and elitist, consider voting. Voting is a fundamental right that adult citizens use to participate in their government, and we all wish that certain of those citizens didn't vote. Anti-gunners for instance. I doubt that I would hear as much protest if I had advocated discouraging card carrying members of the VPC or Brady Campaign (or, for that matter, the Democratic Party) from voting this November instead of suggesting that individuals who strike you as particularly irresponsible or prone to violent lawlessness not be introduced to shooting.

My position is simple, if occasionally contradictory: I support the individual right to keep and bear arms but if you seem to me like someone I wish wouldn't exercise his/her 2nd Amendment right, I do not feel that I should help you with that endeavor by doing more than voting pro-gun. It is no different in my eyes than refusing to drive an acquaintance who you know will vote anti-gun to the polls in November.

It disturbs me though that he referred to things as "this sport." This is no sport. This is a fundamental right. Right up there with the right to breathe air and worship ones diety. Perhaps the one right that protects those others. But I'm sure on this, I am preaching to the choir.

Click to expand...

Many sports originate in training activities for battle or hunting, even though many sports now seem far removed from such activities. Then there are other sports like martial arts where the primary activity of the participants essentially is nothing but training for battle. Since I regard shooting as a martial sport then to me it is not particularly different from studying Kung-Fu or Krav Maga, or some other discipline, although I think that using a gun for self-defense is better than using Kung-Fu. Apparently you regard sports and the right to bear arms as more exclusive from each other than I do.

Cheap shot, siglite. You know better than that.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. At all. Referring to the 2nd as a "sport" demeans and trivializes it. After all, curling is a sport. And I said that confuseus' reference disturbed me. It is the trivialization contained in the definition and categorization of a right as a "sport" that disturbs me. Maybe you see where I'm coming from here?

And I think torpid's use of Oleg's image is a nice visual summary of my point.

And confuseus, your straw man analogy of driving an anti to the polls does not hold up. Because those that we alienate from shooting and self defense start out on our side. Until, of course, they decide that all gun owners are exactly the bigoted redneck stereotype the antis use to paint us. Because we live up to the reputation in the gun stores and on the range, and then rationalize it after the fact as "good judgment of character based on outward appearance."

"case you failed to read the post to which I was responding, he used "this sport" to describe shooting, and firearms ownership in general. If you believe firearms ownership is a "sport," then you land in the same camp with him, and should perhaps give the words of the founders a second read. IPSC and skeet were not mentioned in our constitution."

I read the part of the post you quoted in your post - #174 - and it's there for all the world to see.

Your words stand as you posted them. There is no mention of firearms ownership as sport in that post. I stand by statement that the BoR limits the government.

Now, as far as this part of what you had to say...

"If you believe firearms ownership is a "sport," then you land in the same camp with him, and should perhaps give the words of the founders a second read. "

You're out to lunch, off track and missing the point of the words as they were written. You can't just make stuff up, put words in my mouth, criticize me and expect to be taken seriously in an adult conversation.

John

Your words stand as you posted them. There is no mention of firearms ownership as sport in that post. I stand by statement that the BoR limits the government.

Now, as far as this part of what you had to say...

"If you believe firearms ownership is a "sport," then you land in the same camp with him, and should perhaps give the words of the founders a second read. "

You're out to lunch, off track and missing the point of the words as they were written. You can't just make stuff up, put words in my mouth, criticize me and expect to be taken seriously in an adult conversation.

Click to expand...

It was in response to post 169 (I believe). Confusedus has clearly edited the post since I replied. I suppose I'll have to start quoting everyone's entire post, so it may not be edited, lest I be called juvenile. Or even a liar.

It was there.

Confusedus has not denied that it was. Your attack on my character is unwarranted. Perhaps if confusedus is still reading the thread, and has a shred of integrity, he'll confirm that it was originally in the post.

Quoted at 1711 hrs 06-01-08

It was in response to post 169 (I believe). Confusedus has clearly edited the post since I replied. I suppose I'll have to start quoting everyone's entire post, so it may not be edited, lest I be called juvenile. Or even a liar.

It was there.

Confusedus has not denied that it was. Your attack on my character is unwarranted. Perhaps if confusedus is still reading the thread, and has a shred of integrity, he'll confirm that it was originally in the post.

Click to expand...

Below is a post of mine (Post 181 in the thread) which I quote in its entirety with relevant passages in bold and in big font for your benefit. I believe it is the post you are implying that I changed in order to duck out of the withering vitriol shower concerning using the term "sport" when "right" was the orthodox term. I did not delete the words "this sport" from that post at any point in time. You can scroll up to confirm it as well as ask a moderator when it has last been edited. It IS there and HAS BEEN there this whole time.

Allow me to add :banghead:

Quote:

Quote:
Yes, there is sort of a gun clique. It isn't always inviting to newcomers because all too many people want to be in it because they crave the respect that an extensive knowledge of guns can get them from their peers but don't want to actually spend the time, effort, and money learning about firearms. People who run around pretending to be firearms experts generally piss off the real experts. .

Click to expand...

You seem to advocate this attitude. As such, I can only infer that you've perpetuated this attitude. Subsequently, I have to wonder how many potential pro 2a voters you've driven into apathy or even towards Brady.

What part of inalienable do people fail to understand? The BoR makes no mention of "proper attire" or "extensive knowledge." And "shall not infringe" did not carry a caveat excluding baggy pants or purple hair. If these attitudes are not changed, the steady erosion of gun rights will continue.

I think this is EXACTLY what is WRONG with a lot of gun culture. It damages our cause. I've seen the "good ole boys club" turn off more potential shooters and (more importantly) advocates than ANYTHING Brady, Fienstein, or any other anti has ever said. Most of them women.

Click to expand...

I've been shooting and learning about firearms for close to 2 decades now. I've seen a lot of loudmouth know-it-alls who say stupid stuff about firearms. A lot of the time they say stuff that is wrong, even dangerous, or (worse) stuff that will scare the uninformed purely to feed their ego. They do not want to genuinely know about the topic. I do not want to associate (or be associated) with people like that and if you want to label that as unwittingly anti 2nd Amendment so be it. As for me, I think that screening the idiots and nutcases out of this sport is a worthwhile activity. I am not afraid to tell you that there are people the gun community should not count as members and that you should do your part to keep them out.

That said, I try not to be a member of the good old boys club. If I know someone wants to go shooting I will invite them to go with me and will let them use my guns and my ammo. I am happy to share my knowledge with people as well. However, my time, effort, knowledge, and ammo supply all have limits so I don't act like a missionary either.

For example, a guy where I work told me he is interested in buying a handgun, so I told him where some good dealers were located as well as a brand he might want to look at. All he really knows about guns is that he wants a 1911 style .45. If he gets one, I am sure I will hear about how expensive ammo is, so I will wind up telling him about .22 conversion kits as well as telling him where to find better prices on ammunition. If we go shooting I'll probably give him shooting tips as well.

Click to expand...

Edit to add: Siglite, calm down. This isn't the Inquisition.

Confuseus,

Please accept my apology. You did not deserve the "shred of integrity" comment. I was a little irritated with JohnBT, who wades into a thread, calls me a loony immature liar, and then proclaims to the world that I cannot be taken seriously, when HE FAILED TO READ THE THREAD, NOR DID HE READ POST #68 where you said what you said.

No, you've been quite civil.

The same cannot be said of JohnBT. Who clearly is an idiot willing to attack folks and accuse them of fabricating things, when he's too lazy to read the thread.

I fully expect this thread to be locked now. Which is a damn shame. Because before JohnBT waded in here with his full-on-fit-of-stupid, I felt like we were civilly discussing issues which I believe are important to all of us.

HTF did you last to 7k posts around here JohnBT? Do you ALWAYS post with your head in that dark smelly place?

ETA: Now I'm finding *MY* head in a dark smelly place. #68 was the first instance of "this sport" by another member. Your instance is indeed, as you state, post #181.

Too far. It might be fair to expect more to result from that post than a locked thread.

First, welcome to my Ignore List, siglite.