Guns not wanted in "family-friendly" Target

[SnowBlaZeR2]

I am sure most here are familiar with the Westboro Baptist Church. OCT is the same thing. I am sure most Christians support their right to worship, but they do not support their actions and they make it clear that their church is not WBC. If you take 99% of Baptist in the country and start a conversation with them about Westboro how many will just say I support their right and that's all I got to say?

OCT is the Westboro Baptist Church of 2A rights.

That's a little extreme. WBC is a hate group, in my opinion. OCT may not be the most well educated or organized group, but they certainly aren't the same as WBC.

I never, and would never make the statement that I support OCT's rights and have nothing else to say. In fact, I've argued with family and friends that are a little too red in the neck that I can, and do support their rights without supporting their actions.

 

[TennJed]

That's a little extreme. WBC is a hate group, in my opinion. OCT may not be the most well educated or organized group, but they certainly aren't the same as WBC.

I never, and would never make the statement that I support OCT's rights and have nothing else to say. In fact, I've argued with family and friends that are a little too red in the neck that I can, and do support their rights without supporting their actions.

WBC and OCT are very much the same in their tactics and delivery. The message is different but their style is identical. And most importantly the results are the same. IMHO when the way you do something is the same and THE RESULTS are the same, it is not extreme at all to make the comparison.

OCT does as much good for open carry as WBC does for Christianity, and unfortunately as much harm

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

Exactly. Doesn't mean I should support or endorse their choice of action, particularly when it is counterproductive to what I'm trying to accomplish. They're in the way; that's all. If I catch them doing illegal behavior, under what moral basis should I tolerate them?

You shouldn't, as long as it's illegal.

That's where I hope we can end up one day. I hope you can see how I doubt that inflammatory escalation will ever get us to such a laid back scenario, though. Maybe it could get us to the point of tolerating slogan-chanting protestors inside our eateries, though
TCB

I surely do. It would be nice to be at a point in society where a responsible gun owner could openly carry a firearm without the negative attention associated with it.

 

[barnbwt]

What about an upbeat, well-groomed, physically fit character with a fresh shave wearing slacks and a tucked in buttoned shirt carrying a semi-automatic rifle?

I think that such an animal, in suitable habitat specifically chosen to avoid causing alarm in onlookers, could be incredibly effective in promoting the message, sympathizing the movement, and passing out literature & making converts. That rifle had better be out of his hands, and had better be unloaded (not per law; per sanity) unless he plans on using it in that peaceful location. I also think positioning him away from others like him would do much to reduce the intimidation factor of the weapon itself, giving walkers-up only one person with a gun to keep track of, worry over, and make friends with.

I posited in another thread; what would you do if a bunch of clean-cut G-man looking dudes with AR15s sauntered into your eatery unexpectedly? I'm honestly asking if it would be more alarming than if a bunch of Bubbas did the same . What if they were wearing pinstripe suits and fedoras?

But have you been to a church, lately? The concept of Sunday Best is a spotty one, at best. A lot of people truly are a bit slovenly (mea culpa, here) and probably aren't the best tools to be used for in-person promotion. A wise activist leader would understand this, and find something else that these persons could do to contribute while not being a liability. You know, strategy

TCB

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

WBC and OCT are very much the same in their tactics and delivery. The message is different but their style is the same.

Again, I have to disagree. WBC attacks the grieving family members of fallen service members, among other things. OCT may carry out some ill-advised demonstrations, but their actions are not what a reasonable person would consider "morally" wrong.

 

[MachIVshooter]

What about an upbeat, well-groomed, physically fit character with a fresh shave wearing slacks and a tucked in buttoned shirt carrying a semi-automatic rifle?

I guarantee he would be universally more well-received than the walking, talking caricatures that comprise OCT/OCTC, but would still cause alarm among many.

On that note, I've said it in other threads; responsible looking people who show up at a state capitol carrying rifles and signs are a in a whole different league from the Chipotle duo and all these other fools playing right into the stereotype the antis try so desperately to portray as all gun owners. In that context, the man would clearly be a demonstrator/protestor exercising his rights. These OCT idiots, on the other hand, are engaging in very forceful, alarming antics that could easily be perceived as threatening in some circumstances.

 

[barnbwt]

It would be nice to be at a point in society where a responsible gun owner could openly carry a firearm without the negative attention associated with it.

We'll get there. After all, the same can now be said for an ice cold beer, can't it? And not even the Anti's ever called our gear "Demon Guns," so we never got that far gone . I think if we keep our sanity on the issue, we'll have most of the NFA struck down in courts or neutered/repealed by 2034. Probably 100 years to the day. I'll probably still look sideways at a guy too clueless to leave his 1919 at home for a burger run, same as I would a guy who wore his drawers over his britches by accident

We'll have to figure out what to do, then (success: the natural predator of the activist)

TCB

 

[MachIVshooter]

OCT may carry out some ill-advised demonstrations, but their actions are not what a reasonable person would consider "morally" wrong.

No, not morally wrong. Just civically imbecilic.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

I think that such an animal, in suitable habitat specifically chosen to avoid causing alarm in onlookers, could be incredibly effective in promoting the message, sympathizing the movement, and passing out literature & making converts. That rifle had better be out of his hands, and had better be unloaded (not per law; per sanity) unless he plans on using it in that peaceful location. I also think positioning him away from others like him would do much to reduce the intimidation factor of the weapon itself, giving walkers-up only one person with a gun to keep track of, worry over, and make friends with.

I posited in another thread; what would you do if a bunch of clean-cut G-man looking dudes with AR15s sauntered into your eatery unexpectedly? I'm honestly asking if it would be more alarming than if a bunch of Bubbas did the same . What if they were wearing pinstripe suits and fedoras?

But have you been to a church, lately? The concept of Sunday Best is a spotty one, at best. A lot of people truly are a bit slovenly (mea culpa, here) and probably aren't the best tools to be used for in-person promotion. A wise activist leader would understand this, and find something else that these persons could do to contribute while not being a liability. You know, strategy

TCB

I agree. I believe that a coordinated effort of individuals practicing open carry responsibly while ensuring that they are presentable would go a long way towards the goals of OCT. As I said above, they are misinformed and unorganized. Their heart is in the right place, I believe, but their actions could use some intelligent guidance.

I'm not religious, but I do understand the point you make. It's a decline in our society. It always amazed me at some of the things my junior Marines would try to wear out in town. I'm "only" 30, going on 31, so I like to think I'm fairly young, but some of the things these kids would try to get away with were just baffling to me. OCT could take some cues, and try a razor and decent attire for once. Also, you mentioned doing it alone. This would go a long way in helping to promote the normalcy of it.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

This is the point in the discussion where I think we need to get to, and remain. Completely alienating ourselves from the open carry demonstrators may seem like the most prudent thing to do, but I don't believe that it is. I think the most productive way to counter the damage they have done and to ensure we also achieve the same goals is the strive for those goals with a much better approach. Perhaps with enough responsibility, even OCT will see the light, and get on board.

 

[Frank Ettin]

What about an upbeat, well-groomed, physically fit character with a fresh shave wearing slacks and a tucked in buttoned shirt carrying a semi-automatic rifle?

How would we know? Without some actual data we'd just be guessing.

We in the RKBA community seem to have difficulty recognizing the importance of positively influencing public opinion, and are often unclear about how to do that.

During the course of my career I've had a pretty fair amount of experience working with business clients who needed to be able to influence public perception, understand how to make advertising effective and find the best ways to effectively communicate their messages.

When a lot was at stake, they didn't just guess, they didn't assume that their audiences would think the ways they did or have the same values and perceptions. They consulted with psychologists and others who have studied human motivation and perception and beliefs. They thoroughly analyzed the demographics of the audiences and tried to understand what they cared about, what they were scared of, what made them happy or feel secure, what they believed and didn't believe.

They also tested their conclusions with surveys and focus groups. They paid attention to what was happening and made adjustments in their messages and techniques if things weren't working the way they wanted them to.

We in the RKBA community need to stop dismissing our neighbors, co-workers, the people in our community, etc., who don't share our positions as emotional or unreachable or unreasonable. We need more of them on our side. We need more of those who we can't completely win over to at least be more neutral. and to do so, we need to start trying to understand them and tailor our messages to be accessible to them given their interests, values and concerns.

 

[TennJed]

Again, I have to disagree. WBC attacks the grieving family members of fallen service members, among other things. OCT may carry out some ill-advised demonstrations, but their actions are not what a reasonable person would consider "morally" wrong.

You say WBC attacks grieving familys, attacks is a strange word for you to use. By your own admission you support WBC right to protest and picket funerals. Why is that an attack when WBC does it, but not OCT. To my knowledge WBC has done nothing to actually physically attack anyone.

So if what they are doing is attacking then it is by not stretch to say what OCT is doing is using intimidation on "soccer moms"

one definition of Intimidation is intentional behavior that "would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm. Another is to force into or deter from some action by inducing fear.

It is of my opinion that in the very least they are using firearms recklessly by improper handling and at worst they are using guns in a threating or intimidating way. Lots of reasonable people would consider that morally wrong.

Again, how can you support OCT right to protest, but call what WBC does an attack?

Again, Open Carry Texas is very much the Westboro Baptist Church of 2A rights

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

How would we know? Without some actual data we'd just be guessing.

I was only asking for one person's opinion on the matter, which I received. It wasn't an attempt to gather facts. I was trying to make the point that we can certainly do better for open carry than the people he had described.

 

[barnbwt]

Well, not alone, per se; they are carrying like a thousand dollars of deadly weapon on their person. Way too juicy a target if they are just loitering in the same spot all day. I just mean to avoid the "band stand" mass of chanters, meant specifically to make a group of protestors appear more intimidating and organized to opposition. Chanting is fun and all, but it is the verbal version of massed-assault, and guns just add to the combative overtones.

I'd rather we look like a bunch of gun-totin' Mormons proselytizing at a government building or public square. Lots of people heartily disagree with that group, but few see them as threatening boogeyman to a person. That is by design, since you don't win converts by yelling at them, or by scaring them with your strangeness. A large portion of the Mormon effort is not even aimed at conversion, but rather spreading awareness and promoting toleration of their historically-maligned 'radical fringe' group.

TCB

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

You say WBC attacks grieving familys, attacks is a strange word for you to use. By your own admission you support WBC right to protest and picket funerals. Why is that an attack when WBC does it, but not OCT. To my knowledge WBC has done nothing to actually physically attack anyone.

So if what they are doing is attacking then it is by not stretch to say what OCT is doing is using intimidation on "soccer moms"

one definition of Intimidation is intentional behavior that "would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm. Another is to force into or deter from some action by inducing fear.

It is of my opinion that in the very least they are using firearms recklessly by improper handling and at worst they are using guns in a threating or intimidating way. Lots of reasonable people would consider that morally wrong.

Again, how can you support OCT right to protest, but call what WBC does an attack?

Again, Open Carry Texas is very much the Westboro Baptist Church of 2A rights

There is no need for physical confrontation to take place in order for something to be an attack. The things WBC does are targeted at specific individuals, and specific families. They seek out and strive to demonstrate at the funerals of our soldiers to solicit an extreme emotional reaction from their targets . OCT, to my knowledge, has never demonstrated at a funeral, or even specifically targeted a group of people. They are simply an ignorant group that does not understand the proper methods of achieving their goals.

I support each of their rights to demonstrate within their legal means to do so. What I do not support is the comparison of the two. It's simply not a direct comparison to make.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

Well, not alone, per se; they are carrying like a thousand dollars of deadly weapon on their person. Way too juicy a target if they are just loitering in the same spot all day. I just mean to avoid the "band stand" mass of chanters, meant specifically to make a group of protestors appear more intimidating and organized to opposition. Chanting is fun and all, but it is the verbal version of massed-assault, and guns just add to the combative overtones.

I'd rather we look like a bunch of gun-totin' Mormons proselytizing at a government building or public square. Lots of people heartily disagree with that group, but few see them as threatening boogeyman to a person. That is by design, since you don't win converts by yelling at them, or by scaring them with your strangeness. A large portion of the Mormon effort is not even aimed at conversion, but rather spreading awareness and promoting toleration of their historically-maligned 'radical fringe' group.

TCB

I don't mean to simply stand out on the corner to gather attention and shout your opinions at anyone within distance. What I mean is going about one's business while carrying. Behave like a reasonable and responsible human being and present yourself appropriately. I think that would go much further as far as easing public outcry, than any demonstration ever could.

 

[Frank Ettin]

How would we know? Without some actual data we'd just be guessing.

I was only asking for one person's opinion on the matter, which I received. It wasn't an attempt to gather facts. I was trying to make the point that we can certainly do better for open carry than the people he had described.

How does one person's off-the-top-of-his-head, unsupported opinion do that? The point I'm making is that we do entirely too much of that.

We need to get a whole lot more disciplined and rigorous about how we decide to attempt to influence public opinion and communicate our messages.

 

[barnbwt]

It is of my opinion that in the very least they are using firearms recklessly by improper handling and at worst they are using guns in a threating or intimidating way. Lots of reasonable people would consider that morally wrong.

Again, how can you support OCT right to protest, but call what WBC does an attack?

I'm somewhat inclined to agree, though I think there is a difference in intentions (at least in most cases; which is why I do partially agree). I do think there are some provocateurs in OC(anywhere) who think their "tough love" is just what those wiggly-worm sheep need to grow some chest hair and get over their gun fright. That is carrying openly in a manner calculated to cause alarm, that is illegal and wrong. I think most provOCtivists (heh? heh? ) do not carry their rifles with the desire to scare people, but are aware it is a likely outcome for at least some of the people they encounter. I think most would be relieved rather than disappointed when a carry event goes without the police being called (although a certain portion always love to mention it when the cops are called )

WBC exclusively does their dance to inflict emotional pain and abuse at their funeral events, since that gets high ratings in the news; probably only a few emotionally-deranged members truly think their actions are out of love for the people they are protesting (God, that's creepy to even think about; I'm-a crawl back outside those nutters' heads, now ). History has shown the WBC is neutralized when dutifully ignored, whereas that's precisely what OC activists strive for.

TCB

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

How does one person's off-the-top-of-his-head, unsupported opinion do that? The point I'm making is that we do entirely too much of that.

It was confined to this discussion, and injected to provoke thought on the matter.

We need to get a whole lot more disciplined and rigorous about how we decide to attempt to influence public opinion and communicate our messages.

I agree.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The things WBC does are targeted at specific individuals, and specific families. They seek out and strive to demonstrate at the funerals of our soldiers to solicit an extreme emotional reaction from their targets

WBC exclusively does their dance to inflict emotional pain and abuse at their funeral events, since that gets high ratings in the news; probably only a few emotionally-deranged members truly think their actions are out of love for the people they are protesting (God, that's creepy to even think about; I'm-a crawl back outside those nutters' heads, now ).

Do keep in mind that WBC motivation is monetary; they provoke the grieving family members or friends into attacking a WBC member, then sue them (or sue the police for not protecting them). IIRC, all but one of the WBC clan are lawyers.

 

[barnbwt]

We need to get a whole lot more disciplined and rigorous about how we decide to attempt to influence public opinion and communicate our messages.

I know we have the IRA-ILA chasing lawsuits for us; do we have our version of the RAND Corporation running strategy, marketing, research, and publication for us? I'm sure the NRA has internal groups doing this, but more for the twice-removed motivations of the NRA organization rather than in pursuit of philosophically-motivated policy goals. It sounds like we're at the point where we need a dedicated think-tank for gun issues.

I've asked around here and elsewhere about this and never got much of a response; does such a thing exist already inside some other organization? To my knowledge, tanks like CATO/etc. only occasionally do work on gun issues, where they come into contact with their broader activities. I want a body doing all guns issues, all the time, with no off-message distractions. You know, like the Anti's have had for decades generating their polls, research, and Senate bills.

TCB

"IIRC, all but one of the WBC clan are lawyers."
Ugh, it's even worse than I thought it was

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

Do keep in mind that WBC motivation is monetary; they provoke the grieving family members or friends into attacking a WBC member, then sue them (or sue the police for not protecting them). IIRC, all but one of the WBC clan are lawyers.

Good point, and it further differentiates the two groups.

 

[TennJed]

There is no need for physical confrontation to take place in order for something to be an attack. The things WBC does are targeted at specific individuals, and specific families. They seek out and strive to demonstrate at the funerals of our soldiers to solicit an extreme emotional reaction from their targets . OCT, to my knowledge, has never demonstrated at a funeral, or even specifically targeted a group of people. They are simply an ignorant group that does not understand the proper methods of achieving their goals.

I support each of their rights to demonstrate within their legal means to do so. What I do not support is the comparison of the two. It's simply not a direct comparison to make.

we can agree to disagree and we are getting off topic, but OCT very much attempts to "solicit an extreme emotional reaction from their targets (the public)" While they may not zone in on individuals like WBC they methodology is very similar to WBC.

But for the sake of getting back on topic, I venture to say we are probably both somewhat right and somewhat wrong on this. They may not be as much like as WBC as I think (your point about the individuals noted) but I venture they are probably more like them than you think. Somewhere in the middle

 

[MachIVshooter]

During the course of my career I've had a pretty fair amount of experience working with business clients who needed to be able to influence public perception, understand how to make advertising effective and find the best ways to effectively communicate their messages.

When a lot was at stake, they didn't just guess, they didn't assume that their audiences would think the ways they did or have the same values and perceptions. They consulted with psychologists and others who have studied human motivation and perception and beliefs. They thoroughly analyzed the demographics of the audiences and tried to understand what they cared about, what they were scared of, what made them happy or feel secure, what they believed and didn't believe.

They also tested their conclusions with surveys and focus groups. They paid attention to what was happening and made adjustments in their messages and techniques if things weren't working the way they wanted them to.

We in the RKBA community need to stop dismissing our neighbors, co-workers, the people in our community, etc., who don't share our positions as emotional or unreachable or unreasonable. We need more of them on our side. We need more of those who we can't completely win over to at least be more neutral. and to do so, we need to start trying to understand them and tailor our messages to be accessible to them given their interests, values and concerns.

This.

When people are put off, scared, etc., by your tactics, they are NOT listening to your message anymore.

Given that pro-gun folks comprise about 1/4 of the population and anti-gunners another 1/4 or so, we're talking the other half of the United States that are more or less a disinterested third party with no strong opinion either way. Obviously it would be hard to do the kind of precision marketing research Frank is talking about to cover 150 million+ people across every demographic imaginable, but one thing is for certain: if we scare them or otherwise make them uncomfortable, they're not going to side with us.

I've converted a handful of antis, and I've convinced more than a few fence sitters to lean our way. I did not accomplish this by being hostile, by being dismissive of their apprehensions or by using any hard-nosed rhetoric and trite talking points. I found common ground with these folks, made heavy use of analogies, used a lot of references to hard data, and in many cases, actually got them to the range.

It's a one-on-one proposition, guys. We're not going to sell it to the non-gunners wholesale, millions at a time. We each have to tactfully engage our neighbors, coworkers, in-laws, etc. in thoughtful, articulate discourse.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

we can agree to disagree and we are getting off topic, but OCT very much attempts to "solicit an extreme emotional reaction from their targets (the public)" While they may not zone in on individuals like WBC they methodology is very similar to WBC.

But for the sake of getting back on topic, I venture to say we are probably both somewhat right and somewhat wrong on this. They may not be as much like as WBC as I think (your point about the individuals noted) but I venture they are probably more like them than you think. Somewhere in the middle

I can agree to disagree.

Having personal experience with WBC, and open carry demonstrators, I can't accept that they are similar. Hatred and stupidity are very different. At best, you might compare the reactions of the groups they interact with as similar.