Because you hold a particular opinion does not mean that others will hold it too, nor does it mean that it is correct just because you and some others hold that opinion.
That's a very good point. Since I first encountered this thread the day it opened, I have been polling my friends, family, and coworkers and reading the contents of other threads and online discussions to determine if what seemed painfully obvious to me was merely an outlying opinion. Thus far I have not found anyone who had not previously made it clear that they were "fundamentalist OC activists" who thinks that it was anything other than ill-advised to open carry into a theater in the Aurora area only a few days after the mass murder took place. It was refreshing to know that my grasp on reality is still strong, and it created opportunities for good discussions.
The appropriateness of the particular situation we are discussing is 100% a matter of personal feeling.
Another very good point. And if influencing the public positively in the interest of gun rights is important then understanding how one's actions will affect others' feelings is very important.
...I do not support the idea that social sensitivity should have the force of law.
This is either a
non sequitur or a strawman.
If you are implying that my post should be construed to be a comment on whether or not the man's actions should be legal then it is a strawman. Nowhere in my post did I claim, or even imply, that what the man did was or should have been illegal.
If you are implying that "ill-advised" is equivalent to "should be illegal", that is a
non sequitur. Just because an action is legal does not mean it can't be ill-advised.
Why does whether something is, in your opinion, "glaringly self-evident," have any brearing?
It doesn't. That's why I have done and am doing my best to determine if what I thought was glaringly self-evident was, in actuality, a controversial subject amongst the general public. So far I haven't been able to come up with any evidence that calls the accuracy of my assessment into question.
It's important for us to maintain a perspective that allows us to realize how the general public, as opposed to a group of dedicated open carry activists or admitted firearm enthusiasts, perceives certain activities.
What I am saying is that all evidence points to a truly disturbing disconnect. Not just between what the general public thinks about the post-Aurora shooting open carry incident and what the dedicated open carry activists think, but also in how the average firearm enthusiast views the incident vs. the aforementioned OC activists.
...would I want any of them to control behavior?
I would absolutely NOT want that either. And in the interest of avoiding having external controls applied in the form of anti-gun laws, it behooves us to be prudent in how we interact with the general public. That extends even to the types of activities and actions we support or decry.
There is an assumption that any time someone is arrested a crime has been committed.
Interestingly enough, as regards this particular incident, there doesn't seem to be nearly the problem with this that one might expect. People I've talked to and the online discussions I've been able to peruse seem to be in nearly universal agreement that he shouldn't have been arrested for what he did. People seem to be readily able to understand that what he did was legal.
I took some of the posts as disagreeing with the settlement/agreeing with the arrest.
I do not disagree with the settlement. I would have voted in favor of the plaintiff had I been on the jury. I do not agree with the arrest. I think that the police should have responded, verified that the man was acting rationally and then immediately left the scene.
Those same people would also like to see no guns carried at all from now on nationwide and would use "out of respect for the Aurora theater families and victims" as the reason.
That is incorrect. A significant number of the persons I have polled and a number of the online discussions I have perused involve gun owners or even gun enthusiasts. There is no direct correlation between those who suggest that this man's actions were ill-advised and those who want to prevent all carry of handguns.
There are groups who would like to use high-profile events as a springboard for passing anti-gun legislation, but it's a serious misconception to believe everyone who believes that the man's actions were unwise are also anti-gun.
This is a common error I see among the more "fundamentalist" OC supporters. They try to dismiss any and all opposition as being anti-gun even when that classification is entirely inappropriate. It is a very effective technique to avoid having to consider opinions which might be different from one's own. By categorizing all opposition as anti-gun, a person is able to dismiss any and all input without having to objectively assess the concerns raised. It is one of the major reasons that the fundamentalist OC activists have become so philosophically disconnected from the rest of the firearm community.
At what point do we put the brakes to this irrational thinking and point out the fact that Jim Mapes and millions of other responsible, law abiding and peaceful gun owners like him did not and would not commit the murders that those handful of criminals did?
If you can figure out an effective way to tell the general public how to think then be my guest. Until you manage that, we, as the firearms community, are limited to affecting the general public by what we say and what we do.
Therefore it is critically important that we think carefully about what we say and do and what effects our words and actions are likely to have on the general public.
