Ignorance on display story

[Yo Mama]

but the thing is you do sound like a hot head. just because you can carry a gun does not make you smarter or better then those that don't. I think some guys think that

Dude I don't even know what you're talking about or who you're arguing with anymore but you're not making any sense.

By the way I am smarter than most of the population because I do carry a gun.

Aaaahh.... the great "behavioral sciences/I've got a study..." response.

Sorry, but I've had too many low-keyed conversations with the likes of uber-liberal/Northern Virginia/Whole Foods crowds discussing my LifeMember jacket next to the jambalaya soup/sprouted lentils bar & check-out counter, to put much faith in those eternally cited "studies."

Tell you what... y'all that are so disposed go ahead and continue to be confrontational and loudly cite your Rights to the wide-eyed audience of gathering soccer mommies and their young kids.
I'll just quietly continue to provide object evidence that we're not all knuckle-dragging troglodytes.

Let the chips fall....

Why do you label women as soccer moms as part of your argument? Where i live soccer moms carry guns to! Oh no who wodda thought.

Why do you assume i scared anyone? The people around me were laughing not running in fear. I'm soooo sorry me raising my voice makes you uncomfortable.

Oh and instead of using book references from The Time Machine why not actually use reality instead of labeling people constantly that you don't agree with.

 

[Yo Mama]

I think I'm starting to find out where some of you folks are coming from!

http://www.guns.com/2017/03/10/liberal-gun-lovers-and-store-owners-let-their-presence-be-known/

 

[Wisco]

I think I'm starting to find out where some of you folks are coming from!

http://www.guns.com/2017/03/10/liberal-gun-lovers-and-store-owners-let-their-presence-be-known/

What do you mean by that? Some of us are liberal gun people?

 

[jim in Anchorage]

My God 5 pages on someone offended by a store greeter? But my thread on taking head shots while hunting get locked? Where's the rhyme or reason here?

 

[hq]

Exactly what "scientific principles"? You haven't shown us any.

Start with ISBN 9780674368309 for easy to comprehend reference for a layman, as mentioned earlier. The myth of exceedingly polite one-sided behavior as a method of creating a positive image of individual much less a whole group of people in general is just that, a myth. Like I described, that principle has any credibility only in very confined, tight-knit and small communities with high level of interpersonal contact between every member of reference group.

Please, study the subject as I instructed earlier in this thread, even superficially. There's no point for me to wave my clinical diploma in the air and call some posters out what scientific behavioral facts their subjective contradicting claims are based on, because the answer would be an emotional "but of course it is because everyone knows it is!!!". Nope. I've already given a number of pointers for anyone who is actually interested in the subject instead of just perpetuating their personal beliefs. That said, I sincerely hope that "haven't shown" isn't used as a conversational synonym for "haven't spoon-fed" in this context, because I have this eerie feeling I already have, quite a bit in the course of this conversation.

 

[hq]

My God 5 pages on someone offended by a store greeter? But my thread on taking head shots while hunting get locked? Where's the rhyme or reason here?

Mainly because there are very good objective reasons why head shots on game are usually not a good idea. Countering an unprovoked attempt at enforcing a nonexistent policy in a manner that's likely to make some moral "intellectuals" spit their coffee may well be, for a number of reasons that contradict common but profoundly flawed beliefs on secondary effects of social interaction.

 

[Solomonson]

It may come to many as a shock but as far as factually influencing people in a way that has any chance whatsoever changing their opinion in short or long term, it doesn't matter. It only reinforces the image among those who already are indoctrinated to the ideal and see themselves as some kinds of guardians of moral and behavioral supremacy, harshly overestimating the reflection of individual behavior to a group on a profoundly flawed layman's logic. Small community behavioral patterns simply cannot be extrapolated in a society of larger groups; towns and cities where the observer never interacts with a meaningful percentage of general population. The perceived acceptance and back-patting is real but only among a very limited number of already like-minded peers. Peers are also eager to apply pain/pleasure principle to pressure "one of 'us'" to the perceived "good" behavioral pattern, even if it's profoundly flawed in the context of accomplishing any of its claimed objectives...

It was still embarrassing behavior. While it might have made the OP feel good about himself, it did nothing else positive. It didn't educate, nor did it show a positive example for "carriers."

 

[Solomonson]

Mainly because there are very good objective reasons why head shots on game are usually not a good idea. Countering an unprovoked attempt at enforcing a nonexistent policy in a manner that's likely to make some moral "intellectuals" spit their coffee may well be, for a number of reasons that contradict common but profoundly flawed beliefs on secondary effects of social interaction.

It the way in which the "countering" was done.

 

[Solomonson]

All well and good except the OP didn't mention breaking any house rules, local laws or boogieman torts. So how is a post a "bullseye" when 99% of it is irrelevant? Many posters have mentioned the OP breaking rules or store policies yet nowhere is that mentioned by the OP. What we have here is an overly-aggressive greeter trying to push her agenda on a legal citizen for doing nothing more than shopping where she worked. She was out of line and he could have just ignored her ramblings but she was the aggressor. Personally, I am tired of coddling people who clearly are anti-gun as opposed to being on the fence.

You may be "tired of coddling people who clearly are anti-gun as opposed to being on the fence", but acting poorly while open carrying does the "carrying" community no favors.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Mainly because there are very good objective reasons why head shots on game are usually not a good idea. Countering an unprovoked attempt at enforcing a nonexistent policy in a manner that's likely to make some moral "intellectuals" spit their coffee may well be, for a number of reasons that contradict common but profoundly flawed beliefs on secondary effects of social interaction.

Look i get you've got a degree but writing in plain common speech would help you make your case.
This is not a class room where everyone is going to be impressed with your vocabulary.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Start with ISBN 9780674368309 for easy to comprehend reference for a layman, as mentioned earlier....

Nope. That's hogwash and not the way to go about things. You may legitimately be called upon at any time to defend your opinion or position. And out in the world, the way that's done is to specifically identify the evidence that supports the opinion or position and show why and how that evidence supports that opinion of position. If you actually have the academic qualifications you claim you'd know that and how to go about that.

....The myth of exceedingly polite one-sided behavior as a method of creating a positive image of individual much less a whole group of people in general is just that, a myth. Like I described, that principle has any credibility only in very confined, tight-knit and small communities with high level of interpersonal contact between every member of reference group.....

You saying that's true doesn't make it true.

....Please, study the subject as I instructed earlier in this thread, even superficially. There's no point for me to wave my clinical diploma in the air and call some posters out what scientific behavioral facts their subjective contradicting claims are based on,.....

An example of the burden of proof fallacy:

1. Burden of proof fallacy:

   ...The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever....

   
   
2. Burden of proof fallacy:

   ...The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. ....

   
   
3. Burden of proof fallacy:

   ...Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance....

........I've already given a number of pointers for anyone who is actually interested in the subject instead of just perpetuating their personal beliefs. That said, I sincerely hope that "haven't shown" isn't used as a conversational synonym for "haven't spoon-fed" in this context, because I have this eerie feeling I already have, quite a bit in the course of this conversation.

A further example of the burden of proof fallacy. You can legitimately be called upon to produce evidence of your opinions and positions. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

 

[hq]

It was still embarrassing behavior. While it might have made the OP feel good about himself, it did nothing else positive. It didn't educate, nor did it show a positive example for "carriers."

Embarrassing - your subjective claim on behavior not having a positive effect, while it actually has quite a few Bekhterevian response effects on the future behavioral patterns and likelihood of the subject engaging in a similar unprovoked behavior in the future. More often than not, "showing a positive example" as judged by individuals unnaturally fearful of their own self-image and status as artificially subdued persons signals inherent weakness and subconscious willingness to be a pushover in social context, while perpetuating a mildly hysterical fear that other individuals would objectively be considered as a representative of a broader group. This only represents the personal emotions of the fearful, submissive and overly self-conscious individual or a group who wants to keep up their own imaginary self-image.

What's behind all this? Misdirected feeling of empathy to the point of self pity, and framing associations of perceived behavior of third parties against one's own fears. Imagining that the general population would see submissive behavior as an ideal and any deviation from that, using your own words, "embarrassing", which isn't even close to reality.

Look i get you've got a degree but writing in plain common speech would help you make your case.
This is not a class room where everyone is going to be impressed with your vocabulary.

English is my 2nd/3rd language so I apologize if there are issues with my vocabulary.

To make all this as simple as possible: Submissive behavior in terms of overemphasized politeness is interpreted a sign of weakness and unwillingness to contest or counter any wrongdoing. The polar opposite of assertiveness, not arrogance. Bystanders witnessing a behavior, unless it's objectively extremely rude or aggressive - much more so than described by OP, rarely form a negative opinion of anyone voicing their take on the subject at hand. Even less of a group the person might or might not represent, in extremely rare occasions they associate the person with any group. The person who initiated the contact, however, will feel embarrassment and while the likelihood of her ever admitting to her own fault in the incident is low, will be much less likely to repeat the behavior.

Dissecting the incident, actions, behavior and responses, I'd give the outcome a solid three star rating.

 

[MEHavey]

book references from The Time Machine

Huh ?

OK... `Ya got me: Proverbs 15
(Ultimate Time Machine book report)

 

[hq]

A further example of the burden of proof fallacy. You can legitimately be called upon to produce evidence of your opinions and positions. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

There's absolutely nothing extraordinary in my claims, other than your eagerness to label them as such after they've contradicted long-perpetuated myths that you've built your own belief system on.

Conversationally, the extraordinary claims are assumptions that a single, relatively innocent incident or even a number of them would label an entire demographic group in the eyes of arbitrary, undefined general public, that a highly ineffective submissive behavioral pattern would somehow (how?) be superior and that assertiveness would commonly interpreted as aggressive behavior up to the point of risking detention. The double standard in question is quite evident if a smoker is accused of smoking in a dedicated smoking area by a staff member who isn't aware that smoking is allowed there. Smokers don't seem easily triggered if that happens and the smoker in question chooses to counter the unsubstantiated accusation, or fearful that it might in their imagination reflect badly on smokers in general.

 

[Yo Mama]

Huh ?

OK... `Ya got me: Proverbs 15
(Ultimate Time Machine book report)

Troglodytes is from the book The Time Machine

 

[Solomonson]

Embarrassing - your subjective claim on behavior not having a positive effect, while it actually has quite a few Bekhterevian response effects on the future behavioral patterns and likelihood of the subject engaging in a similar unprovoked behavior in the future. More often than not, "showing a positive example" as judged by individuals unnaturally fearful of their own self-image and status as artificially subdued persons signals inherent weakness and subconscious willingness to be a pushover in social context, while perpetuating a mildly hysterical fear that other individuals would objectively be considered as a representative of a broader group. This only represents the personal emotions of the fearful, submissive and overly self-conscious individual or a group who wants to keep up their own imaginary self-image.

What's behind all this? Misdirected feeling of empathy to the point of self pity, and framing associations of perceived behavior of third parties against one's own fears. Imagining that the general population would see submissive behavior as an ideal and any deviation from that, using your own words, "embarrassing", which isn't even close to reality...

Wow, you really don't get it, do you? There's nothing positive about the behavior the OP quite literally boasts about. It's clear he did it to feel good about himself and not to remedy the situation or educate the greeter. Then again, he may simply not know any better.

One has to wonder what drives your own comments? Whatever it is, it's not pretty, that's quite clear. You're now trying to obfuscate/derail the conversation by telling us how educated you are and with odd stories of pit bulls. In the end you lose. People like you make it more difficult for all legal "carriers."

 

[hq]

Wow, you really don't get it, do you? There's nothing positive about the behavior the OP quite literally boasts about.

If you haven't fully grasped this yet, I have little interest in "getting" a layman's subjective opinion in any behavioral matter unless he's sitting in my chair and paying me €150 + tax an hour for it. You are entitled to yours, of course. It's a free world and anyone can believe whatever he wants.

 

[ATLDave]

Those who challenge societal norms and refuse to back down when pressured to do so may be contributing towards societal change, but they frequently bear high personal costs. Ask any civil rights activist. Or Colin Kapernick, for instance.

 

[hq]

People like you make it more difficult for all legal "carriers."

Oh gosh, I missed this while pruning the litter. A real gem. In factual, real world, large scale causality, would you be so kind and explain in what way that might happen? Now this is getting very interesting, the age-old unsubstantiated accusation and blanket statement finally gets a detailed explanation. Please, do go ahead. I'm all ears.

 

[ATLDave]

hq, in my personal experience (which is not the same as large-scale survey-based data, but still a data point), there are many moderate/indifferent individuals who don't care much about concealed carry, but who find open carry to be offensive/passive-aggressive/threatening/anti-social. I have heard many such individuals wish for the OC'ing person to be robbed and shot with their own firearm, for instance. Such a visceral reaction, while irrational and unchartiable from my point of view, is perhaps correlated with a propensity to "harden" previously soft or indifferent views.

Consider the fairly large number of consumer businesses in the U.S. that had no gun policy one way or the other before the OC fad of 2013-2105, but adopted an across-the-board no-guns-allowed policy thereafter. Oftentimes, a social media campaign (no doubt fomented by astroturf, Bloomberg-funded "activists") kicked off with photos or tales of seeing an open carrier in a particular store/branch of a given chain, and then applied pressure to that chain to ban all guns. While some refused, many others complied. Thus, OC'ing has had the functional consequence of expanding "gun free" zones.

This reaction is relatively predictable and manifested in numerous settings over a period of months or years. Indeed, I think it is likely that the OP in this thread has materially increased the chances of the particular store he visited being posted as a "gun free" area in the future.

That's just how this has played out frequently in the past. You don't have to like it.

 

[hq]

That's just how this has played out frequently in the past.

There might be something to it. As noted earlier, the conditioned discrepancy between reacting to visibly armed government officials vs. private citizens is a matter of debate. So is the actual combination of motives behind administrative decisions to limit carrying of firearms; increasingly few companies (corporations excepted) are reluctant to openly admit to anti-gun agenda and risk alienating clientele hence non-issues are used as excuses to do what was to be done regardless.

As said, this is a VERY complicated issue and my crystal ball is at Hogwarts for maintenance so it's all about probabilities. It's safe to say that no insignificant issue will ever change the policies of a genuinely pro-gun company and even the largest crowds of apologetic, even lethargic concealed carriers won't prevent anti-gun companies implementing all the restrictions they want. A suitable scapegoat may suffice as an excuse, so that blame will fall on someone else than the company high brass who actually makes the decision it wants to make.

 

[entropy]

ndeed, I think it is likely that the OP in this thread has materially increased the chances of the particular store he visited being posted as a "gun free" area in the future.

I doubt it. Walmart corporately is pretty ambivalent about OC. (As long as you're not an associate.... ) I see a couple a week, and spotted many CCW's also. We had one girl on overnights follow a friend of mine around, gawking at the 327 on his hip. I caught up with her and explained that 1. Yes, it's legal and not against WM policy (Again, as long as you're not an associate..... ) 2. He does have a CCW, and works in a gun shop. and 3. You are a lot safer when he's here than when he isn't. Whenever I see him, I just say hi and peek to see what he's carrying today.

 

[ATLDave]

I doubt it. Walmart corporately is pretty ambivalent about OC. (

Fair enough, I had quit watching this thread and missed the Walmart detail's revelation.

Still, the broader point remains. OC in a store, and you increase the chances of a campaign pressuring it to become anti-all-gun.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....Submissive behavior in terms of overemphasized politeness is interpreted a sign of weakness and unwillingness to contest or counter any wrongdoing. The polar opposite of assertiveness, not arrogance. Bystanders witnessing a behavior, unless it's objectively extremely rude or aggressive - much more so than described by OP, rarely form a negative opinion of anyone voicing their take on the subject at hand......

You're assuming facts not in evidence. You're assuming that the bystanders observing the incident did not find the OP's behavior to be extremely rude, aggressive, or belligerent. That can not by any means be a foregone conclusion. Indeed, it appears that a number of persons participating in this thread would be inclined to characterize the OP's behavior as extremely rude, aggressive, or belligerent.

There's absolutely nothing extraordinary in my claims, other than your eagerness to label them as such after they've contradicted long-perpetuated myths that you've built your own belief system on.....

Ah, deflection -- a well known, cheap rhetorical trick. In other words, you're unable to support your claims with actual evidence.

Whether you accept the characterization of your claims as extraordinary is irrelevant. They are your claims, so you still bear the burden of proving them.

.....the extraordinary claims are assumptions that a single, relatively innocent incident or even a number of them would label an entire demographic group in the eyes of arbitrary, undefined general public,....

And now you're distorting the facts. No one has claimed that. What's been suggested is that public behavior of a gun owner which may be perceived by observers as extremely rude, aggressive, or belligerent is more inclined to reinforce rather than erode any negative stereotypes of gun owners.

...that a highly ineffective submissive behavioral pattern would somehow (how?) be superior and that assertiveness would commonly interpreted as aggressive behavior up to the point of risking detention. .....

And a further distortion of the facts:

1. No one, unless I've missed something here, has suggested that the OP should have necessarily responded in a submissive or sheepish manner. You appear to be suggesting that it's not possible to be both assertive and polite, and that's nonsense.
   
   
2. You are again assuming that the OP's behavior is properly characterized as assertive. There's no basis for that assumption. It's a question of the perceptions of the observers. We don't have that data, and it's entirely possible that shouting across a distance could be characterized by an observer as extremely rude, aggressive, or belligerent.

 

[Robert]

Ok folks couple of things. First off we are done here. We should have been done 5 pages ago. Second, if and when you see something that does not rise to the standard of THR please use the report function to alert staff. We can not be everywhere at all times and using the report function allows us to quickly deal with potential issues before they get out of hand.