Some people cannot be taught or influenced or persuaded because they believe they already know everything. Look at UCLA Berkeley. Does anyone here actually think you can teach people like that anything? The reason they act like they do is because they have been coddled their entire lives by their parents and their teachers. Ever watch a Drill Sgt. work? There is a reason they do not use courtesy and kindness to make a point. Because it is ineffective. Ever hear a cop use the "command voice"? They don't do that to be "rude" and "offensive" and they really couldn't care less if anyone is offended by it. Why do you suppose we are seeing constant violence in Europe by individuals of a certain "religion"? Because everyone is afraid of "offending" them.
Ignorance on display story
- Thread starter Yo Mama
- Start date
- Status
Wisco
member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2013
- Messages
- 1,239
I am partially inclined to agree. As an authority figure of the store, the greeter should've swiftly approached the OP and with knife hands pointed at the OP's pistol, in a command voice told the OP whatever she had to.
In all seriousness, no one is allowed to speak to me in a command voice until I find myself in a situation that legally requires me to obey. I can't imagine a situation where I politely say something to another human, have them come back in a command voice and have it end in any other way than me turning my back to them and walking away.
Some people lol.
I could certainly see myself responding that way depending on the kind of day I was having. Its like when an anti-gunner brings up the topic, usually I will articulate my position and answer their questions but sometimes I just don't have the patience and tell them to go to their safe spaces.
I could certainly see myself responding that way depending on the kind of day I was having. Its like when an anti-gunner brings up the topic, usually I will articulate my position and answer their questions but sometimes I just don't have the patience and tell them to go to their safe spaces.
Have no issue with someone walking over to me or even calling to me because there is a concern about me carrying my weapon. I always greet the greeter anyways. But (of course there's a but) if someone calls loudly to me to single me out in a crowd and tries to tell me something I'm doing legally AND correctly is incorrect, well...I have little patience for that.
Saying that the way it was handled gives gun owners a bad name is not factual. It's opinionated. And more than likely, if it gives anyone a bad name, it only gives it to Yo Mamma.....maybe. We don't really know what anyone there thought. If me knowing the law, abiding by the law and following store policy offends someone..... OH WELL. I'm "offended" by people's stupidity and ignorance every day.
I can see both sides of this story. It was a combination of several things that caused it to be "mishandled". And it started by the greeter probably trying to do the right thing. But her execution was poor. And.... like any conversation or confrontation, once the yelling starts, it's going to end badly.
Saying that the way it was handled gives gun owners a bad name is not factual. It's opinionated. And more than likely, if it gives anyone a bad name, it only gives it to Yo Mamma.....maybe. We don't really know what anyone there thought. If me knowing the law, abiding by the law and following store policy offends someone..... OH WELL. I'm "offended" by people's stupidity and ignorance every day.
I can see both sides of this story. It was a combination of several things that caused it to be "mishandled". And it started by the greeter probably trying to do the right thing. But her execution was poor. And.... like any conversation or confrontation, once the yelling starts, it's going to end badly.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,079
My thoughts exactly. Easy to comet o a gun forum and be heralded for putting her in her place.....but, in the normal everday world where there is still a multitude of folks(including the greeter) naive about firearms, it just showed them that the "big rude blubbering Bubba gun owner" stereotype is right on, even to the majority of folks that are relatively neutral to gun ownership. As gun owners we need to be stewards to the sport as well as supportive. This means presenting a positive image to others. I don't see the episode as explained to us as anything positive other than the OP somehow feels some of superiority over the greeter. Now the OP's kids know that being loud an obnoxious is the proper way to act when in public. Sorry but IMHO, there were many ways that would have produced the same results without making a scene. Certainly not something to brag about.
It is legal to OC in my state also, like tyhe OP while I do not do it often, I do it under certain circumstances. I know where and when it is appropriate and while it is very seldom, I do still get called out on it sometimes. Never have I found it necessary to shout across the room to make my point, especially when it's as innocent as the scenario presented here.
Someone yelling across a distance is going to be perceived as bad mannered - regardless. Let the first perpetrator be the guilty one.
As for "holster" - what if the gun was being carried in a minimalist type? Versacarry? A holster does NOT require it to be an enveloping wrapper that covers up most of the working parts. It could as well have been a belt slider no taller than the belt it was looped in, with the belt OVER it. Can't see the holster at that point.
Since casual sighting of the firearm at a distance can and will create the wrong impression, what we have is a lesson learned. If people can't see the holster, they WILL decide there isn't one, regardless of the actual circumstances and it can (and DID) create an issue.
Since we judge things by risk factor in carrying a firearm at all, the risk factor for being accused of illegal carry in this type of circumstance looks probable. I would assess it as being MORE probable than actually having to use the gun itself.
Act accordingly. IWB open carry = higher risk of being called out. Therefore you can either be an ongoing ambassador of informing those with misperceptions - or react like a jerk every time responding to someone's behavior in like manner. IE if they were being a jerk then doing exactly the same thing means you are being a jerk.
Some of us avoid the entire scene with some considered thought and preparation. Sorry for your incident but copping an attitude about it means it won't be the last time it happens. As much as the sight of your gun might trigger them, them telling you what you can and can't do means you are equally vulnerable to reacting. You basically allowed yourself to be dragged into a confrontation. That appears to be easy to manipulate.
Your choice how much of that you want to put up with.
BTW, the real tactical mistake was making eye contact.
As for "holster" - what if the gun was being carried in a minimalist type? Versacarry? A holster does NOT require it to be an enveloping wrapper that covers up most of the working parts. It could as well have been a belt slider no taller than the belt it was looped in, with the belt OVER it. Can't see the holster at that point.
Since casual sighting of the firearm at a distance can and will create the wrong impression, what we have is a lesson learned. If people can't see the holster, they WILL decide there isn't one, regardless of the actual circumstances and it can (and DID) create an issue.
Since we judge things by risk factor in carrying a firearm at all, the risk factor for being accused of illegal carry in this type of circumstance looks probable. I would assess it as being MORE probable than actually having to use the gun itself.
Act accordingly. IWB open carry = higher risk of being called out. Therefore you can either be an ongoing ambassador of informing those with misperceptions - or react like a jerk every time responding to someone's behavior in like manner. IE if they were being a jerk then doing exactly the same thing means you are being a jerk.
Some of us avoid the entire scene with some considered thought and preparation. Sorry for your incident but copping an attitude about it means it won't be the last time it happens. As much as the sight of your gun might trigger them, them telling you what you can and can't do means you are equally vulnerable to reacting. You basically allowed yourself to be dragged into a confrontation. That appears to be easy to manipulate.
Your choice how much of that you want to put up with.
BTW, the real tactical mistake was making eye contact.
Pelo801
Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2014
- Messages
- 399
The reason you cant argue with idiots is you have to stoop down to their level and then they just beat you with experience. I see a parallel in this situation.
From the sound of it, the greeter was way out of line. If you have something to say to someone, you walk up to them. Not yell across the way. The OP responding in the same manner put him on the same level. And that makes him look bad, and in my opinion, as gun owners we all look bad.
Sometimes fighting the good fight means not fighting.
But with that said, I can understand the OP's frustration from being treated disrespectfully from the initial contact.
From the sound of it, the greeter was way out of line. If you have something to say to someone, you walk up to them. Not yell across the way. The OP responding in the same manner put him on the same level. And that makes him look bad, and in my opinion, as gun owners we all look bad.
Sometimes fighting the good fight means not fighting.
But with that said, I can understand the OP's frustration from being treated disrespectfully from the initial contact.
huntsman
Member
I don't believe we(gun owners) will ever get the respect and acceptance we desire and ignorance will always be an issue with non gun owners. Sometimes education isn't what's needed but politeness is, it's situational awareness of a different kind.
Resist Evil
Member
People such as the "Greeter" are a waste of my time and I wouldn't respond at all. I'm no one's ambassador. As a decent person, I only want to be left alone to live my life as I see fit. If that includes carrying a firearm that is legally borne, then I'm going to do it. Rudeness, as is natural for leftist-types, is not an invitation to return it. Any time some character wants to tell me what I can't do, in their opinion and exclusive of having the force of law, that person is nothing to me. I have no time for liberals. I largely gave up trying to talk with liberals during the college coffeehouse phase of my life after the riots.
Excellent post.
My wife (1st/2nd grade teacher) often tells me about obnoxious co-workers and parents confronting her, and I typically comment on what I would have done which, I'm not proud to say, would be in line with the OPs reaction at the store. Then my wise and patient wife tells me her way - the better way - of handling those situations which gets the desired result without also bringing her down to "obnoxious."
I've learned much from her, and I sleep better.
We have to be better. We don't need to fertilize ill-will toward our cause.
Wisco
member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2013
- Messages
- 1,239
We do have to be better. No matter who one is or for what cause one stands, they are better received when they present themselves with clarity and tact.
This thread, among many others, leads me to think I wouldn't be able to have a conversation with about 1/3 of the members here. Rudeness knows no political or class bounds - it's prevalent across America.
There are few problems that can't be solved with diplomacy. If they can't, the next step is, historically, violence. I keep that in mind with how I speak to people.Thankfully, we live in a world where violence is no longer acceptable as a means to counter insult (both real and perceived, because we all know tough guys who like to be offended and start fights), but that has also allowed people to run their mouths at will with no repercussions.
Last edited:
Speedo66
Member
The greeter is a store employee, represents the store's interests, and is the store's first eyes for people entering. She makes contact with you based on something she sees that may be contrary to store policy. She asks to speak to you about it, you ignore her and continue to enter the store.
At that point, how is she at fault? Since you don't respond to her, she now addresses you in a loud voice to get your attention, you respond back with a negative attitude.
Based solely on information here, I'm not blaming her for anything.
At that point, how is she at fault? Since you don't respond to her, she now addresses you in a loud voice to get your attention, you respond back with a negative attitude.
Based solely on information here, I'm not blaming her for anything.
VThillman
Member
The OP lost the debate with 'she called me over'. The aftermath is on him.
huntsman
Member
^ I think his public response to the kids reveals what's really at play here, he wanted to make a statement, a "win for our side" thing. I think militancy has it's time and place I'm just not sure this was it.
George Dickel
Member
The greeter learned nothing from this incident. The only way she will learn anything is for the OP to find the store manager and in a non-confrontational manner (read adult manner), explain the situation with the greeter and how her attitude towards you reflects badly on the store. I don't get into pissing confrontations with employees, I direct my displeasure to the person who can effect change in their employees behavior.
There are two ways people can learn and change their mind on issues they already have an opinion: personal first-hand experience and realizing how unfounded their opinion is through exaggerated, negative association of their beliefs. Both require a degree of willingness to rethink everything.
After expressing a personal view or - like in this case - taken action based on an existing belief system, there's absolutely, positively no way to influence it by rational and exceedingly polite behavior. It's a pipe dream. It just reinforces the pattern; a behavior that's out of line doesn't have any negative consequences. Providing, of course, that this isn't about store policy, which question remains unanswered; considering that the greeter never called security or a manager, it's presumable that that is not the case.
A response that subjects the person in question to public ridicule is equally ineffective in changing opinions, but it most certainly affects the likelihood of the person in question repeating similar behavior in pavlovian terms. People respond to pain and pleasure, physical and mental alike, and change their behavioral patterns accordingly.
An example of what MIGHT have made the greeter rethink his/her approach could have been a third party, a bystander, joining him/her, exclaiming equal nonsense but in much more exaggerated manner ("You can't have a gun!" "Nobody should own guns!" "Are you here looking for someone to shoot and murder?!" etc.), subjecting the whole expressed point of view to a much broader, self-evident ridicule. Just risking being associated with a person behaving similarly is a massive wake-up call. This is the same philosophy that's behind an incentive of trying to call even moderately right-wing groups nazis; as a subjective claim it's preposterous and has little if anything to do with facts or reality, but the plain projection reflects the wishful thinking of the effect if it had.
I have a habit of taking every anti-gun person I meet in a social environment as a challenge. Acting even more fiercely anti-gun than they are (providing that they have no idea about your background) and escalating the claims further and further - all the way to having all military forces dismantled, disarming the police, forcible house to house searches for hidden guns and life or even death sentences for just possessing a firearm of any kind - eventually reaches the point when THEY are in the position of defending civil rights. After that it's just a matter of reeling it all back conversationally, step by step.
Exposing these mind [honk]ing techniques may not be the most ethical thing for me to do, but it's always a good idea to arm fellow gun enthusiasts with some basics of how to actually influence people. Dale Carnegie had a lot going for him but just being polite, interested and civilized doesn't quite cut it in today's polarized and self-identification based opinion environment.
So, was the OP's incident caused by store policy or not?
After expressing a personal view or - like in this case - taken action based on an existing belief system, there's absolutely, positively no way to influence it by rational and exceedingly polite behavior. It's a pipe dream. It just reinforces the pattern; a behavior that's out of line doesn't have any negative consequences. Providing, of course, that this isn't about store policy, which question remains unanswered; considering that the greeter never called security or a manager, it's presumable that that is not the case.
A response that subjects the person in question to public ridicule is equally ineffective in changing opinions, but it most certainly affects the likelihood of the person in question repeating similar behavior in pavlovian terms. People respond to pain and pleasure, physical and mental alike, and change their behavioral patterns accordingly.
An example of what MIGHT have made the greeter rethink his/her approach could have been a third party, a bystander, joining him/her, exclaiming equal nonsense but in much more exaggerated manner ("You can't have a gun!" "Nobody should own guns!" "Are you here looking for someone to shoot and murder?!" etc.), subjecting the whole expressed point of view to a much broader, self-evident ridicule. Just risking being associated with a person behaving similarly is a massive wake-up call. This is the same philosophy that's behind an incentive of trying to call even moderately right-wing groups nazis; as a subjective claim it's preposterous and has little if anything to do with facts or reality, but the plain projection reflects the wishful thinking of the effect if it had.
I have a habit of taking every anti-gun person I meet in a social environment as a challenge. Acting even more fiercely anti-gun than they are (providing that they have no idea about your background) and escalating the claims further and further - all the way to having all military forces dismantled, disarming the police, forcible house to house searches for hidden guns and life or even death sentences for just possessing a firearm of any kind - eventually reaches the point when THEY are in the position of defending civil rights. After that it's just a matter of reeling it all back conversationally, step by step.
Exposing these mind [honk]ing techniques may not be the most ethical thing for me to do, but it's always a good idea to arm fellow gun enthusiasts with some basics of how to actually influence people. Dale Carnegie had a lot going for him but just being polite, interested and civilized doesn't quite cut it in today's polarized and self-identification based opinion environment.
So, was the OP's incident caused by store policy or not?
Last edited:
Whether we like it or not, open carry is going to be perceived as anti-social, threatening, or at least passive-aggressive by large fraction of people in most suburban/urban environments. You may be within your rights to open carry, just as you would be within your rights to wear a shirt declaring that you hate children and puppies and old ladies. And in both cases, you will collect a variety of adverse social reactions. None of this should really take anyone by surprise.
Why would you think so? Police officers do it all the time and no-one objects. It's a matter of perspective, ie. the fallacy of a blue uniform and a badge giving a person perceived superiority over mere mortals. All collectivist mindsets have their best before dates and the monopoly of the state using force isn't by any means carved in stone as a virtue.
Why would I think so? Why would I think that many people will perceive an OC gun as anti-social or threatening or passive aggressive? Because it's obviously the case, as illustrated by your story and hundreds others like it.
And YES, it's a matter of perspective. From the perspective of most non-gun-focused people, it seems anti-social, threatening, or at least passive-aggressive. You or I may think that's silly, but that's how it reads to them. You are so focused on your own perspective that you are losing sight of others' perspective.
To be clear, I'm not saying you were acting badly or beyond your rights. I'm just saying the reaction is predictable, typical, and exactly what one who chooses to OC should expect to routinely encounter in most suburban/urban environments.
Disregarding the point I made, of treating a common perception as a given and perpetuating an assumption that any adverse reaction wouldn't be affected by group behavior instead of witnessing an act individually, could you elaborate, please. What do you mean by me acting in one way or another, how, where and when? I'm slightly baffled about this statement.
I've never, ever worn a gun in open sight publicly as it has been illegal in Finland since 1930's, nor have any of my CCW firearms have ever been accidentally and much less on purpose exposed or visible to anyone. In the name of common courtesy I'd suggest checking whether you're responding to OP or a completely different participant of the conversation. Thank you.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
