Johnska keeps calling the civil rights comparison a false dichotomy, but it isn't. It's the exact same thing.
No, what I'm calling a false dichotomy is the repeated assertion that it's got to be all or nothing. That the only alternative is not OC'ing at all.
I agree that the civil rights parallel is a good one. The point I was making is that the biggest advances in the civil rights were accomplished in a prudent manner. That is, making a clear statement but in a very calculated manner.
The problem with taking a 'reasonable' or 'under favorable circumstances' approach to open carry is that these idea are very subjective.
People are very subjective. If you want to effectively influence them you're going to have to learn to deal with this challenge
constructively.
It's impossible. should we wait forever to do it when we aren't offending anyone?
It's not impossible and again, no one is saying to STOP or WAIT FOREVER, but rather to be prudent in the way one exercises this right.
I will settle for letting them be surprised that someone is carrying a gun, and asking someone; "Isn't that illegal?" finding out it isn't, and learning to live with it.
Except that they don't have to learn to live with it. They can begin a campaign to change the laws and if there is sufficient support then they will very likely accomplish their goals.
Even if you do your best to exercise judgment to make sure you don't offend anyone, you never know when you will bump into someone who would be offended by your gun no matter what the circumstances are.
A person can't do any better than their best. As has been pointed out, there are definitely people who won't be convinced and won't find OC reasonable under any circumstances. Those folks are a loss--can't do much about them. But that doesn't mean that we should assume that everyone is a loss. The hardcore antis aren't going to be convinced but there are folks out there who CAN be convinced and their attitude will be affected by the confluence of circumstances. Whether the venue is appropriate and whether the attitude, actions and appearance of the OC'er are good or bad.
So all of you total OC prohibitionists, what is your solution? throw away the right?
THIS is exactly the false dichotomy I'm talking about. First of all, there aren't many "total OC prohibitionists" on this thread. I'm certainly not one. Second, it's not an "all or nothing" kind of situation. Saying that folks should be prudent in the exercise of the right is NOT the same thing as saying we have to "throw away the right".
The anti-OC folks on this thread are not willing to take real life examples.
First of all, there aren't many anti-OC folks on this thread. It's counterproductive to keep pretending that this discussion is pro-OC vs. anti-OC when it's really about PRUDENT OC vs. folks who don't like the sound of that. Second, scenario busting is an endless endeavor. For every scenario one works out there are 10 more. You are correct that no one is willing break this down into a binary decision tree and the reason is that it's impossible to find the bottom of that deep pit.
But that doesn't mean there's not an answer for when to OC and when not to. It's really very simple. Be prudent. Be aware of the circumstances. Be careful about your attidude, actions and appearance.
Be a good representative for gun owners.
I can tell you that the way to help someone overcome fear is to help them face it.
Again, this is ALMOST right. For a person who WANTS TO OVERCOME THEIR FEAR, the best way to help them is to help them face it and IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT.
What you're ignoring is that the average person on the street isn't trying to overcome their fear of OC (to the extent they have such a fear), they're just going about their business. You don't help a person overcome fear by putting them face to face with their fear without warning, on the street.