Ignorance on display story

[hq]

That's simply not true. I think a fair number make the claim you have to justify their own very questionable behaviors. We "carriers" do need to set example as good, no, great ambassadors.

In a genuinely civilized society that may be true, but the one we live in today has deviated quite a bit from the ideal. The deep-rooted principle of civility has given a number of people, not least the anti-gun lobby, an upper hand whenever arbitrary abuse of power and even outright lies aren't contested forcefully enough immediately after they occur. I once believed in extreme politeness, seven year as the vice president of NRA Finland was a hard lesson that taught me otherwise. And I wasn't by far the meanest pitbull NRA had in its ranks at the time; those are the people who actually get things done and profoundly influence people on both sides of the debate, no matter whether someone likes it or not. My degree in behavioral sciences helped immensely understanding the model in practise.

Off the soapbox for now. The world has changed from what it once was. I'm not happy about it either.

 

[jaytex1969]

Regardless of which side of this debate you call home, the fact of the matter is that, in the eyes of the law, legally armed persons are held to a higher standard of behavior than others.

Any minor contribution we make to the escalation of a situation can come back to bite us in the rump. I'll take a serving of humble pie over handcuffs any day!

 

[Axis II]

why not just leave it in the car. the whole point of carrying a concealed weapon is so the bad guy doesn't know you have one and you can defend yourself. Wal-Mart's aren't getting robbed cause there is too many people and cameras so what's the point of carrying open anyways. yeah i carry mine in there just cause i don't want to take it off and stash it in the car.

OP I'm sorry but you were wrong. talk to the woman and say yes I'm allowed to carry this way instead of showing your rear end. several years ago i was working for metro housing authority where we drove around to various complexes and being midnight nothing was open so i went to Wal-Mart to use the restroom. I was in full uniform, duty belt, etc. the Wal-Mart guard and i knew each other and he proceeded to tell me i couldn't take it in the store cause Wal-Mart was posted. instead of showing my ass i said look when I'm in uniform on duty I'm covered by the state not ccw so they don't apply to me. I've also had the same conversation working for brinks going into subways. I've been told i cant have a gun in there and i politely educate them and all is well. Working for brinks standing behind a counter i look up and some open carry loon is standing there with his gun showing staring me down and the cashiers looking at both of us like WTH. cover it up and quit playing tough guy its that simple. It might make you look cool to some but the knowledgeable, caring gun owners think its stupid.

I'm 1000% pro gun but i draw the line of trying to be a show off carrying a open carry gun in a crowded store or even a corner store. I was in Wal-Mart last summer and if we want to call someone an idiot it would be this guy. walking around the store in several departments with a handgun on, shirt tucked in and an extra mag on a pouch. I watched him for 15min and he never purchased a thing. it made me nervous and I'm sure the parents with kids trying to mind their own business and shop and some yahoo is trotting around with a g17 and extra mags like he's expecting a firefight with a bag of chicken.

I sure would hate to see the fit some throw when asked to leave.

 

[Drail]

So if we simply set example as good, no GREAT ambassadors to the Shannon Watts or Diane Feinsteins or Chuckie Schumers in the world, we can win them over to our side? Sorry, I ain't buying it. I do not stand up for my rights to "justify" my "questionable behavior". As I recall the people in England tried that line of thinking on Adolf Hitler (and he signed a treaty and everything) - and it didn't exactly win the Germans over. All of their great ambassadorship with the Muslim hordes doesn't seem to be working out too well either from what I read in the news. It also doesn't seem to be working today in France, Germany or Sweden. The logic that you propose here sounds suspiciously like theirs, no offense sir. I'll stick with "Don't tread on me" instead of "ambassadorship".

 

[Frank Ettin]

......As I recall the people in England tried that line of thinking on Adolf Hitler (and he signed a treaty and everything, man) - and it didn't work out too good for them. All of their great ambassadorship with the Muslim hordes doesn't seem to be working out too well either....

Good God! So you're incapable of recognizing the difference between felllow Americans in your community and foreign enemies? You treat them the same?

 

[Drail]

Good God! Do you remember that old phrase "all enemies, foreign and domestic"? To answer your question - no I guess I am "incapable". Maybe "deplorable" as well.

 

[Pelo801]

Shannon Watts or Diane Feinsteins or Chuckie Schumers in the world, we can win them over to our side?

The problem is, were not trying to win them over. Its the Suzy fence sitters were tryi g to sway.

 

[Solomonson]

In a genuinely civilized society that may be true, but the one we live in today has deviated quite a bit from the ideal. The deep-rooted principle of civility has given a number of people, not least the anti-gun lobby, an upper hand whenever arbitrary abuse of power and even outright lies aren't contested forcefully enough immediately after they occur. I once believed in extreme politeness, seven year as the vice president of NRA Finland was a hard lesson that taught me otherwise. And I wasn't by far the meanest pitbull NRA had in its ranks at the time; those are the people who actually get things done and profoundly influence people on both sides of the debate, no matter whether someone likes it or not. My degree in behavioral sciences helped immensely understanding the model in practise.

Off the soapbox for now. The world has changed from what it once was. I'm not happy about it either.

Absolutely not. Both sides of the "gun debate" include uncivil individuals. They're the ones most people ignore. Still others are offended by them.

Re-read posting #1. It may have made the poster feel good about himself (particularly in front of his kids) to act in that manner -- ego can be a real toughie. That's all that was good about it -- if even that. It wasn't a productive manner in which to deal with the greeter, nor was did it shine a positive light on "carriers." For the most part it sounds embarrassing. Some will never grasp that.

The NRA is quite effective (at pulling the political strings in smoke filled rooms and hallways -- and good for them!) for what it has in terms of money and membership. I doubt it will ever turn the corner and grow to the point where it truly has hardcore political power. The sort that NO politico dare confront. Just imagine a 20-30M member NRA. That would take a big change in how publicly communicates to the world (but not what does does behind the scenes.)

Improving its message in order to appeal to a far larger number of supporters would cause a fair number of its exiting 5M to leave and that won't be risked for a very long time. Some very limited souls thrive on the "pitbull message" sadly enough.

Posting #3 of this thread is a bull's eye:

However, if it was private property, and if they didn't want you to carry in any manner whatsoever, regardless of your local laws, they could have told you that you and your firearm weren't welcome and may have asked you to leave.

At that point no manner of argument would have allowed you to prevail. Wouldn't it have been easier to casually walk over to her, quietly explain your situation, and shown that you were willing to abide by their house rules instead of conducting a shouting match with her?

I think that all of us need to be good ambassadors instead of acting like righteous jerks.

 

[larryh1108]

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.

 

[hq]

It wasn't a productive manner in which to deal with the greeter, nor was did it shine a positive light on "carriers." For the most part it sounds embarrassing. Some will never grasp that.

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.

Hold on to your chairs now: this is how riots work, too. A consensus between the peers of a behavioral model being correct overrides and objective and scientific approach and many participants simply yield to peer pressure, no matter how ineffective the model is to further their cause.

While I could recommend spending three years studying a clinical degree in behavioral sciences, that's unrealistic to most people. There are a number of books on the subject out there and if a pile of textbooks and lectures is too much at first, "The Enigma of Reason" (by Mercier/Sperber) might be a good start. Principles that work in small, confined communities where everyone knows each other and interaction is restricted to 1st and 2nd degree contacts are being perpetuated out of proportion in this thread, ad nauseum. In grand scale of behavior, any model this side of an actual temper tantrum that'll get you arrested is equally ineffective as a method to influence anyone's opinion, especially of a group as a whole.

 

[MEHavey]

Whenever confronted, I always advise that individuals of our persuasion act with the greatest civility. You are on display for all to see and judge as representative of the rest of us.

You'd be amazed to know how many fence-sitters are convinced more by a manner that says the carrier can be liked & trusted, rather than the carrier has his "rahts".

 

[Axis II]

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.

No where in the op did it say the greater had an agenda. maybe the greeter didn't know it was allowed to be open or appear to be shoved in his pants. I've politely walked up to guys and said hey your showing when they bend over and it comes uncovered. Happened 2 times in about 10yrs. I always get a thanks and they cover it.

Seems like others have an agenda exercising our rights in a fashion that most people including pro 2nd amendment people see as a black eye. If I was standing at Walmart and heard the op go off on her I would think just another idiot trying to show off. he also doesn't mention whether it was posted or not. if he was wearing a shirt which I'm sure he was why not cover it up to keep issues from arising. I would have said oh sorry I'm licensed and covered it. Op probably doesn't even have a ccw license so tries to skirt around the ccw law by claiming open carry law.

 

[hq]

You'd be amazed to know how many fence-sitters are convinced more by a manner that says the carrier can be liked & trusted, rather than the carrier has his "rahts".

You'd be amazed to know how comprehensively that myth has been debunked in behavioral sciences. Really. Scientifically. No kidding.

 

[larryh1108]

I guess you just didn't read the OP very well. Here, let me help.

Where I live open carry is legal. I normally don't, however after going out shooting in the desert today with my kids I happened to only have an undershirt on. I was carrying my sidearm XD mod 2 with an inside the waistband holster.

So, he was showing because he was open carrying. He was shopping, not strutting about showing off his manhood.

Seems like others have an agenda exercising our rights in a fashion that most people including pro 2nd amendment people see as a black eye.

Yeah, how dare he open carry on her turf. Shame on him.

he also doesn't mention whether it was posted or not. if he was wearing a shirt which I'm sure he was why not cover it up to keep issues from arising.

I guess you didn't read the OP as stated. He wasn't wearing a shirt to cover it, he was OC and it is legal where he is. The greeter had issue with him carrying without a holster. Really? The OP didn't mention that there were signs posted stating "No open carrying without it being secured in a holster". So, let me guess since that seems to be what your post is all about. The greeter calls him out instead of politely approaching him, yells at him that he doesn't have a holster when, in fact he did. So, if not an agenda on her part, please explain her actions since you like to guess anyways.

Like I said, I am done trying to appease an anti-gun crowd that is a lot more vocal than our polite society. Yeah, sometimes you just have to stand up for what is right. She needed to be put in her place and he did it. Perhaps his comments to his kids went overboard but she was out of line and did her job poorly enough to be reprimanded and/or fired, IMO.

 

[Yo Mama]

No where in the op did it say the greater had an agenda. maybe the greeter didn't know it was allowed to be open or appear to be shoved in his pants. I've politely walked up to guys and said hey your showing when they bend over and it comes uncovered. Happened 2 times in about 10yrs. I always get a thanks and they cover it.

Seems like others have an agenda exercising our rights in a fashion that most people including pro 2nd amendment people see as a black eye. If I was standing at Walmart and heard the op go off on her I would think just another idiot trying to show off. he also doesn't mention whether it was posted or not. if he was wearing a shirt which I'm sure he was why not cover it up to keep issues from arising. I would have said oh sorry I'm licensed and covered it. Op probably doesn't even have a ccw license so tries to skirt around the ccw law by claiming open carry law.

Well this was at Walmart

Fyi, in AZ you dont need a ccw but i still have mine. So we can oc or ccw. Is that ok with you? That meet your minimun requirements?

Ive carried a gun for the last 15 years so im no newbe.

Read my op why i had no overshirt on.

Really you make a lot of conjecture that is bs but if you want to keep guessing thats fine.

 

[Axis II]

I guess you just didn't read the OP very well. Here, let me help.

So, he was showing because he was open carrying. He was shopping, not strutting about showing off his manhood.



Yeah, how dare he open carry on her turf. Shame on him.


I guess you didn't read the OP as stated. He wasn't wearing a shirt to cover it, he was OC and it is legal where he is. The greeter had issue with him carrying without a holster. Really? The OP didn't mention that there were signs posted stating "No open carrying without it being secured in a holster". So, let me guess since that seems to be what your post is all about. The greeter calls him out instead of politely approaching him, yells at him that he doesn't have a holster when, in fact he did. So, if not an agenda on her part, please explain her actions since you like to guess anyways.

Like I said, I am done trying to appease an anti-gun crowd that is a lot more vocal than our polite society. Yeah, sometimes you just have to stand up for what is right. She needed to be put in her place and he did it. Perhaps his comments to his kids went overboard but she was out of line and did her job poorly enough to be reprimanded and/or fired, IMO.

Dress for the occasion. unless its 110 degrees and your wearing a tank top type undershirt no reason the gun couldn't be covered.

as I said maybe the greeter was attempting to tell him it was uncovered. and as far as open carry in Ohio we have open carry and guess what just because your open carrying doesn't mean your above the law and can enter a building that's posted.

I'm not the one guessing your the one who keeps babbling about the greeters anti gun agenda. being a Walmart there is probably a lot of people walking past and its a large entrance so she probably said hey sir to get his attention and by him saying he already knew what she wanted tells me that he knew 100% what his agenda was and imo its a big f.... you I do what I want.

so someone should lose their job for telling someone they need to cover their gun and stop trying to be a hot shot? SMH.

 

[Yo Mama]

Dress for the occasion. unless its 110 degrees and your wearing a tank top type undershirt no reason the gun couldn't be covered.

as I said maybe the greeter was attempting to tell him it was uncovered. and as far as open carry in Ohio we have open carry and guess what just because your open carrying doesn't mean your above the law and can enter a building that's posted.

I'm not the one guessing your the one who keeps babbling about the greeters anti gun agenda. being a Walmart there is probably a lot of people walking past and its a large entrance so she probably said hey sir to get his attention and by him saying he already knew what she wanted tells me that he knew 100% what his agenda was and imo its a big f.... you I do what I want.

so someone should lose their job for telling someone they need to cover their gun and stop trying to be a hot shot? SMH.

Well it was 95 degrees............oh and i can do what the hell i want. I live in a state that gives me legal ability to carry in the manner i want. Whats it to you calling me a hothead for carrying a gun? Seriously? i let the person know she was wrong in a way i felt was warranted.

 

[MEHavey]

....amazed to know how many fence-sitters are convinced more by a manner that says the carrier can be liked & trusted

...you'd be amazed to know how comprehensively that myth has been debunked in behavioral sciences....

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....

 

[Wisco]

i let the person know she was wrong in a way i felt was warranted.

Which was equally as rude as her calling you out.

That's the point of this whole thread, you posted how proud you were of dressing down a woman in public so you could show your children the way you want them to interact with society when it irritates you.

Some here agree with you, because people with other 2A opinions than ours matter less. Others disagree with your actions because they choose not to react to people that way - taking the high or at least slightly higher road.

 

[TarDevil]

So if we simply set example as good, no GREAT ambassadors to the Shannon Watts or Diane Feinsteins or Chuckie Schumers in the world, we can win them over to our side? Sorry, I ain't buying it. I do not stand up for my rights to "justify" my "questionable behavior". As I recall the people in England tried that line of thinking on Adolf Hitler (and he signed a treaty and everything) - and it didn't exactly win the Germans over. All of their great ambassadorship with the Muslim hordes doesn't seem to be working out too well either from what I read in the news. It also doesn't seem to be working today in France, Germany or Sweden. The logic that you propose here sounds suspiciously like theirs, no offense sir. I'll stick with "Don't tread on me" instead of "ambassadorship".

In my wildest dreams I can't envision gentlemanly behaviour or "ambassadorship" as winning anyone over. Not the point.

But I certainly never want responsibility for propogating oft held opinions that gun owners are loud, hot-headed and confrontational...as did the OP. Carrying a gun or not, I never want to come off looking like a jerk...and I especially don't while carrying.

 

[salt&battery]

Well it was 95 degrees............oh and i can do what the hell i want. I live in a state that gives me legal ability to carry in the manner i want. Whats it to you calling me a hothead for carrying a gun? Seriously? i let the person know she was wrong in a way i felt was warranted.

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

 

[hq]

I'll just quietly continue to provide object evidence that we're not all knuckle-dragging troglodytes.

By sneering at scientific principles when they contradict your opinions, no less. Good job.

 

[larryh1108]

no reason the gun couldn't be covered.

No reason he needs to cover it. Open carry means carrying it out in the open. He explained he was in the desert and stopped in the store.

for telling someone they need to cover their gun and stop trying to be a hot shot?

Huh? The guy stopped in the local Walmart on his way home from being in the desert. Why does he need to cover his gun to appease a Walmart greeter?
Because you would does not mean everybody else has to especially is a desert area where OC has been very common for a long time. The greeter is supposed to greet shoppers, not to impose her own ideas of who should or shouldn't carry in a holster. If you remember from reading the OP, he was chastised because his gun was not in a holster. So please tell me what that has to do with 1) Store policy. 2) Local laws. 3) State laws. 4) Federal laws. So, if no laws or postings were being violated what right did she have to verbally accost a guy who just wanted to pick up a few things on his way home? Oh, wait, she just wanted to make sure he carried responsibly and safely. Yeah, that must be it since she wasn't trying to further any personal agenda she may have since the guy, obviously, was breaking some kind of law or policy.

 

[TarDevil]

No reason he needs to cover it. Open carry means carrying it out in the open. He explained he was in the desert and stopped in the store.

Huh? The guy stopped in the local Walmart on his way home from being in the desert. Why does he need to cover his gun to appease a Walmart greeter?
Because you would does not mean everybody else has to especially is a desert area where OC has been very common for a long time. The greeter is supposed to greet shoppers, not to impose her own ideas of who should or shouldn't carry in a holster. If you remember from reading the OP, he was chastised because his gun was not in a holster. So please tell me what that has to do with 1) Store policy. 2) Local laws. 3) State laws. 4) Federal laws. So, if no laws or postings were being violated what right did she have to verbally accost a guy who just wanted to pick up a few things on his way home? Oh, wait, she just wanted to make sure he carried responsibly and safely. Yeah, that must be it since she wasn't trying to further any personal agenda she may have since the guy, obviously, was breaking some kind of law or policy.

Correct on all the above.

Except the part where the OP lowered himself to her level.

 

[Frank Ettin]

By sneering at scientific principles when they contradict your opinions, .....

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

All we have is your naked claim that:

You'd be amazed to know how comprehensively that myth has been debunked in behavioral sciences. ....