OC vs. CC Best PR move

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think this really boils down, from a PR perspective, to whether you want to:
Blend in with the crowd, not bring up the subject, and keep the status quo.
-or-
Stir up thoughts and maybe convince some antis to swap sides.

The problem, I think, boils down to how prepared you are to defend your point of view with an understanding of what the antis will say to counter your arguments. If your points will get you a fist-bump from the pro-RKBA folks, but will give fuel to the antis, then you shouldn't OC for PR reasons.

If you are ready to explain your points rationally (like a Marine quoted in another thread here), then it could be very good PR.
 
That was my point Coromo.

The CC crowd wants to keep the status quo. There may be antis, but we can still carry. If we OC, the CC crowd thinks the antis will realize how many people have guns, and how far behind they are on getting them all taken away, and will ramp up their efforts.

The OC crowd realizes the same thing - antis will see how many people have guns if we all OC'd. However, they expect a different response - they expect that the antis will realize that the vast majority of armed civilians are not a threat to them. This epiphany will convert someone, weaken the anti cause, and be very good for RKBA.
 
Skribs said:
If your points will get you a fist-bump from the pro-RKBA folks, but will give fuel to the antis, then you shouldn't OC for PR reasons.

I haven't had the opportunity to discuss the firearm at length with an anti-all-guns person. If I did, I would say the same thing as I do to the concealed carry only person:

I carry my gun openly to increase the chance that I will never have to use it. I carry my gun openly to increase the chance that I might save myself and my family the trauma of a criminal attack and possibly having to shoot in self defense. Concealed carry cannot do that. By openly carrying, I hope the criminal will see the gun, and faced with the possiblity of losing his life over my meager possessions will simply wait two minutes for me to leave, or go down the street one block where there is the rest of the 99% of the population available to target who aren't known to be carrying guns. I openly carry a gun to promote peace in the immediate area around me.

I would hope that by promoting peace, the same as an anti-gun person claims to do, that we would at least have a common basis upon which open an intelligent discussion.

I have had the concealed carry only person actually argue that I would then be responsible for the criminal attack on the little old lady or the woman and child down the street if the criminal passed me up because of my gun.
 
Last edited:
If the little old lady had a gun, then you would be responsible for her having to shoot the criminal instead of you. Actually in either case the criminal is responsible, but the old lady should have a gun.
 
Nobody is going to consciously say "oh that guy with the gun on his hip was nice, i was wrong in my views about guns". However, many on the fence or who have no real opinion one way or the other may be positively influenced by positive interactions.

I believe the key is that people dress and act in a some what 'professional' manner when open carrying so that they appear to almost be just a plains officer cop without a badge. I say that only because people are used to that and don't panic even if the badges aren't immediately visible on regular clothes cops. Obviously i am NOT advocating impersonation of a police officer.
 
If we don't provide a PR image to the public of firearms carried by responsible Americans doing normal everyday American things, the only PR image the public will see is that presented by the Brady Campaign. Like open carry or not, which PR image of firearms would you rather the public see?
 
I would hope that by promoting peace, the same as an anti-gun person claims to do, that we would at least have a common basis upon which open an intelligent discussion.
This is good. I like that. We do need to try and find common ground with those we disagree with.
Interpersonal communication will teach us that if we attack defenses go up. If we gently approach a topic the guards stay down and logic can have it's way. A person in a defensive position is not a logical person. All attempts to reason will fall off their shield and they will remain in their secure bunker of ignorance.
Even if they attack first a calm and soft tone will disarm them. Prov 15:1 A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. Solomon was the wisest man that ever lived. I think he may be a good person to look to in this.
 
I have discovered that most anti-open carry sentiment comes from people who have never tried it, and usually from gun restrictive states as well.

I open carry everywhere, every day when I am out and about. I have open carried in places such as Pike's Place Market in Seattle and SEATAC International Airport. I open carry a Taurus PT-145 with stainless steel slide in a Fobus Paddle Holster with passive retention, so basically everything of the gun behind the trigger guard is completely exposed. I open carry in clothes that are completely average - usually jeans with no holes, something just "above" a t-shirt like a pullover polo shirt or button up western style shirt and tennis shoes.

In my experiences, and those who I have met with who open carry every day agree, open carry is a great public relations tool, at least in Washington State. It provides Joe Public with the visual image of normal everyday Americans doing normal everyday American activies who just happen to wear a gun as a tool for self protection. If Joe Public doesn't SEE us doing this, then all that they will see is the anti-gun image provided to them by the Brady Campaign and anti-gun media.

In day to day life, about 98% of the public population has no reaction at all to the gun, probably don't even notice it. About 1.5% have a positive reaction to it. I've gotten everything from verbal thank you's to thumbs up signs, to people asking questions about why and legality and going away with a more positive idea/attitude than before. Only about .5% of the public that we encounter in Washington have negative reactions. 4 out of 5 of those negative reactions come from concealed carry only "pro-gun" people that tell us we should cover up our gun.

I think a major issue we have in "gun politics" is the fact the we, as gun owners, are so willing to treat the gun like it has some inherently evil properties about it. All this talk of telling a police officer about your gun during a traffic stop when not required to by law because it will make them feel better, talk about asking for permission to bring your concealed carried gun into a friend or relative's home when visiting.

I think a lot of positive PR would happen if we simply treated the gun for what it is - an inanimate tool incapable of evil on it's own that has a specific use just like the jack in your car or cell phone in your pocket. I wish that we would quit believing that the gun somehow has evil attached to it as an object, which is what the Brady Campaign has been shouting from the rooftop for decades. Treat your gun like an expensive cell phone - take sensible personal precautions against it being stolen/falling into the wrong hands and other than that treat it no differently than your cell phone. I don't feel the need to hide my cell phone away because soccer mom by be upset at the sight of it, I don't feel the need to tell a police officer or friend about my cell phone at first opportunity, and neither do I feel the need to do those things with my gun, either (unless required to do so by law, of course.)

Navy, You have just posted my experiences exactly.
 
OC as an event just rubs peoples nose in it a la California. Oc as a casual thing in states that it is legal is a maybe yes it is good to maybe it isn't a good thing. Who knows what goes through the hearts and minds of those in the public. I live in Tn. I was shopping in Walmart the other day when I see a very sloppily dressed man with dirty clothes on carrying OC with a very sloppy holster and a gun that looked like it hadn't been cleaned in a while either. I was embarrassed that he was representing gun owners. I didn't say anything. Just finished my shopping and left as quickly as possible. YES HE MADE ME UNCOMFORTABLE. Bad PR. I carry concealed cause that is what I feel comfortable doing. I carry OC in the woods without reservation.
ll
 
lloveless said:
I was shopping in Walmart the other day when I see a very sloppily dressed man with dirty clothes on carrying OC with a very sloppy holster and a gun that looked like it hadn't been cleaned in a while either. I was embarrassed that he was representing gun owners. I didn't say anything. Just finished my shopping and left as quickly as possible. YES HE MADE ME UNCOMFORTABLE.

Funny how you were made uncomfortable by appearance and objects rather than by behavior. Some people find it hard to accept a person who doesn't appear the way they would like them too, even though they are actually doing nothing different than those around them with a more "acceptable" appearance.
 
Funny how you were made uncomfortable by appearance and objects rather than by behavior. Some people find it hard to accept...
Certainly, we can always check ourselves for preconceptions and prejudices. Fair enough.

However, in this "what's good for P.R." discussion, it is only being honest with ourselves to admit that we -- and EVERYONE else -- make judgments of others based on how they present themselves, or on what we believe/perceive we see when we look at them.

Not fair? Maybe, maybe not. But it's part of our biology, and old survival instinct. And a facet even of what we call situational awareness.

Maybe it really isn't fair, but if you wear a gun openly, you do represent the gun owner (and certainly the gun CARRIER) to many people. You can wish they didn't judge you negatively because you dress like a (fill in the blank) but that's the opposite of working to improve our public relations.

If you really believe you can improve the way the general public looks at us gun toters by carrying yours visibly, daily, and leaving a trail of positive experiences in your wake -- GREAT -- but you're going to have to dress and act in a way people react positively to to get them over the "hump" that you're carrying what to some of them might as well be a rattlesnake on a leash.

How many times in various different kinds of threads have he heard someone say, "Well, part of my 'situational awareness' is that I look like a big mean guy who's always frowning -- most folks instinctively keep their distance?" (YES, I've read that exact sentiment multiple times here.) Or, "I dress in the latest urban street fashion (or like I was dragged behind a log truck for 5 miles), and I have a tattoo of Hitler eating a baby on my forehead, but it's my right to dress how I want and the old fogies just need to get over their bias..."

What you have the right to do, and what improves our PR are very different things.
 
Last edited:
Funny how you were made uncomfortable by appearance and objects rather than by behavior. Some people find it hard to accept a person who doesn't appear the way they would like them too, even though they are actually doing nothing different than those around them with a more "acceptable" appearance.
I can't disagree with your post, but the person in question did convey several things. A tattered and/or sloppy holster doesn't project an image of a mindset of safety to the public, and a filthy weapon doesn't tell me it's been fired to improve the much needed accuracy needed in a SD shooting. The public mindset is a funny and fickle thing, and I believe anyone offended by OC is silly, but again it's their right to be silly just as it's our right to open carry.

LD
 
What you have the right to do, and what improves our PR are verpy different things.
Im not trying to put words in your mouth, but would you say that our best PR move would be to yield some of our rights to help make others more comfortable with our OC?
Or as I would call it common courtesy and kindness.
 
Would you say that our best PR move would be to yield some of our rights to help make others more comfortable with our OC?
Why SURE! But only 1st Amendment, freedom of expression ones. Not 2nd Amendment right to BEAR arms ones.


:)
 
Ok. Lol.

If it's good for the cause to give up our first amendment rights why would it be bad to sacrifice (temporally of course) our second amendment rights for the sake of the greater good?
 
Seems self-evident to me. If the point is to open up the right to carry a firearm where you will, then NOT doing so is a step in the wrong direction.

How you dress and how you speak to others is not, to me, a right that is under contention. The right to BEAR is. You've got several ways you could make folks uncomfortable. If you want to stretch out the (social?) boundaries here you're going to have to accept that you'll make some folks at least mildly uncomfortable in one of those ways. You do have the ability to limit how uncomfortable you make them in other ways at the same time.

What are you fighting for? The right to bear arms? Or the right to dress and act like a social toad? If you want to expand the right to bear arms, then bear arms. If you want to fight for the right to act like a misfit, then act like a misfit. I don't personally believe you can advance both agendas successfully at once. And while I don't think that abrogating either right reinforces that right, being and acting like a toad is not my personal cause célèbre.
 
So it's not really yielding a right if it's not something you even want to do. If I'm understanding your (french?).

I'm not telling anyone to sit in the back of the buss. This is not to human rights movement. Those that were being treated wrongly never had rights. We do have those rights and they are being removed when possible. Someone that is trying to make a stand and change the law because it leaves them out, should do just that. Stand!
We on the other hand have the 2A on our side. We don't have to stand to be seen. Our battle to keep our 2A rights happens in a voting booth and in lawmakers hands.
Standing up and making a stand shows a desire to change what is. We know very clearly what is. And it's on our side. We have to fight to keep it that way. Less conflict helps that a great deal.
They have to try and remove our rights. If our rights don't bother them why would "they" want to remove them? True the squeaky wheel gets the grease but the infected tooth gets pulled!
 
But you're still arguing -- don't exercise the right or they'll take it away. I don't see any value in that.

That's like Mrs. Parks gaining the right to sit where she chooses, but saying, "Naaah, I'll stay back here in the rear so I don't bother the white folks. I know I've got the right, hypothetically, but I don't want to rock the boat. If I sit where I please, they'll take away my right to sit where I please!"

Rather, to continue the analogy, why not be proud, polite, professional in demeanor, but insist on exercising that right. "I will not be rude, I will not be antagonistic or confrontational, I will present myself well. But I WILL sit where I please, and they WILL get used to it." And that's exactly what happened.
 
I think we can exercise our rights without getting them pulled. But it could help us out a great deal to yield them a few times.

That's like Mrs. Parks gaining the right to sit where she chooses, but saying, "Naaah, I'll stay back here in the rear so I don't bother the white folks. I know I've got the right, hypothetically, but I don't want to rock the boat. If I sit where I please, they'll take away my right to sit where I please!"
Mrs. Parks didn't have the Right! She was seen as a lower class and not like the White people. She had no rights. We are in a very different situation. We have all the rights listed clearly for anyone to read in the 2A. Some try and remove them because... (insert liberal reasoning here) Lets not make the fight about the 2A. If we do they will work to get rid of that. Instead lets show them that we can concerned citizens we care about those that are around us. I can juggle knives in a restaurant if I want. I don't because it makes others uncomfortable. If I do it all the time will they get used to it? I doubt it. What will happen is that I get asked to leave because i'm upsetting the customers.
We cannot keep a right by using it. The battle to take away our rights is not happening on the streets, so why do we try and win that battle there?
If I feel that I should have a right to walk my elephant down main street (it's illegal to do in my town. I have no idea why) I would make a large display by doing just that. I would then get the attention of the lawmakers and show them that I can do it responsibly. We then could work to change the law. This doesn't work if the law is in place and some feel uncomfortable about me and my elephant. To maintain my right to walk my elephant I would cover it up. lol
 
The problem, Coolluke, is there ARE people who want to take our 2A away. Sam is absolutely right. If you can't exercise your rights for fear of it being taken away, then it already has been taken away.
 
Yes but not on the street. They are not looking for small victories where they get some guy that has a carry permit to stash his gun. They are fighting this on a political level.
What good can we do on the street? No much. What harm can we do? Lots
 
What good can we do on the street? No much.
That is obviously your opinion. Many here do not agree with you and have anecdotal evidence that runs contrary to this assertion.

Again, might be an impasse between our points of view. You feel we can only harm, or are only likely to harm. Others see this as building awareness and positive "political capital" among the average person.
 
coolluke01 said:
Mrs. Parks didn't have the Right! She was seen as a lower class and not like the White people. She had no rights.

Very wrong. She had rights all the time. The government and most of the people around her did not recognize or honor those rights. She did not fight to obtain her rights, she fought to have those pre-existing rights recognized and honored.

That's a basic concept found in the Declaration of Independence that this country was founded upon.

What's all this point you are trying to make, coolluke01, about fighting for rights that you turn around and say in the next few words that we should not use? What difference does it make? I would rather have the government flat out make something illegal, because that provides me with the opportunity to fight it in court, rather than have something be legal....oh but don't do it because you will make enough people uncomfortable that they will legislate against it.

We got to where we are today with laws such as in California, New York and New Jersey because of compromise, with these laws hidden behind the disguise of "reasonable regulation".
 
I can see that my comment may have been too harsh. I know the street can be a good place to help correct the wrong image many have of those that carry. So, I say carry on.

I do think there may be more opportunity than is taken advantage of.

Much of the anecdotal evidence shown here has been negative.

I guess I would challenge those that OC to do your best. I do trust those i've talked with on here to do just that. I don't want to make it look like i'm saying you guys are destroying our right to carry. I know that's not the case.

Our attitude will be remembered more than our gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top