"Us v. Them" mentality/Gun Ownership and Carry

[pianoman9701]

Some friends of mine came for dinner last week and we discussed concealed and open carry. She initially was shocked when my friend Jeff and I told a story about a time we'd been mushroom picking and stopped in Safeway for water and snacks, and security not only followed me around (I was open carrying), but called the cops. She wanted to know why I thought I needed to carry a gun into a store. I answered "Clackamas" - the shooting at the mall a few years ago. She asked why I'm afraid. I told her I wasn't afraid and didn't want to end up dying like all the kids in Roseburg; helpless and unarmed. She's never owned a gun. Her parents are '60s peaceniks and they never owned guns. She's now decided that if she has to die at the hands of a madman, she'd rather do it fighting. She's getting a gun and I'll be training her how to use it. I have some training which makes me a good teacher for a beginner to be safe, shoot well, and maintain their firearm.

So, she posts this on Facebook. The response is about half and half, negative/positive. One comment struck me as completely insane, but I think it represents the thinking that our liberal politicians and anti-gun fanatics have been trying to achieve with the general public. The comment was "Don't  do it, Mary, because then they win. Use that money and donate it to a mental health program." "They win." They, in this case, are people who believe that they should be able to protect themselves and others with legal firearms; or Us. The poster doesn't see the perpetrator in this as the "they", at all.

So, I think the conversation needs to change. This is very similar to the hunting/anti-hunting discussions. We need to show reasonable people that the "they" are really the crazies who want to kill us and our families. We need to communicate in such a way as to show that the anti-gun fanatics are preaching mass victimization. There are 85 Million legal and law-abiding gun owners in the US, at least, who don't murder people any day, at any time. And I think this is important. If it were possible to end all human-on-human violence immediately, right this moment, I would do whatever it took, including giving up my guns, to do so. Yes, I would embrace Utopia right now. But Utopia has never existed and will never exist, regardless of the fact that man has searched for it since the beginning of civilization. Denying that there are people who would do us harm will never make them go away. It'll only empower them when they wish to hurt us and others. If we can communicate these things in a way which is non-confrontational and informative, some people will understand the facts. My friend did. She understands that hoping for peace while doing nothing to protect yourself in case we don't achieve it is naive and dangerous.

Any Thoughts?

[300rum]

Turn the tide one by one.  There are a lot of people who are interested but don't know where to go.   

Please, make sure you know what you are actually doing or get the training if you don't know, before you teach someone else.  (not specific to you pianoman)

If you are showing someone how to shoot (especially a lady/child).

1.  Start with the 4 rules of firearm safety.
2.  Start them off with a .22 rifle or pistol.  Nothing larger the first time!
3.  Show them how to "Double Plug", Ear plugs and Ear muffs. (Especially a lady)
5.  For the first few shots at least, use a big target and bring it real close.
6.  Use a reliable firearm, not a jammomatic.  There isn't anything more frustrating then a firearm that doesn't work.     

[pianoman9701]

Great tips. I've discovered some of these over time taking my neighbors and relatives shooting. A lot of damage can be done by not observing these. Thanks! 

[pianoman9701]

One more thought: What do you call a violent act which kills lots of people, seeks the most publicity, and injects the most fear into our society? If we thought of these mass killings as terrorism, which they are, the conversation would be totally different. When Osama attacked our people, we, as a whole country, wanted to hunt him and the members of his organization down and kill them. Why then can't we look at those who would commit mass murder as terrorists and hunt them down in the same way? Why do we wait around for them to attack and then blame their tool instead of blaming them?

When we hunted Osama, we weren't focused on which weapon he'd use to attack us next. We focused on finding him and his followers and killing them before they killed us. This is how we should be operating now with mass murderers.

[Special T]

There is a reason. Why the NRA hosted a shooting day for members of congress. Most people fear what they dont know or understand. This is very apparent when you hear Nancy Pelocy flaaping her gums about guns... she abviously knows nothing about them

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk

[DOUBLELUNG]

I think open carry in an urban environment is stupid.  Carry concealed.  Yes, it is your right.  No, it does not help the gun rights cause.  As you note with the anti-hunter/nonhunter analogy, there is no point trying to convince the antigunners.  The ones you want to sway are the voting majority, gun owners and non gun owners, who are shocked and/or scared when they see open carry.  A criminal with a concealed firearm has every advantage over a citizen open carrying, and if they are looking to commit mass murder, they'll start with the guy with the gun they can see.  Open carry is fine for the woods, open fields, rural areas, and your own property - it is legal, but counterproductive, when it confronts the majority of urban Americans.  My 2 cents. 

However, I am completely in favor of exposing people to safe shooting who have never held a gun.  I've made the offer many times, and rarely does somebody turn down the opportunity.  Then, they discover it is enjoyable to shoot - and usually the next step is buying their own. 

[jaymark6655]

Calling something stupid because you don't agree with it is probably not the right way to go, unless you forget all the people who think that carry is stupid or owning a gun is stupid.

[DOUBLELUNG]

Calling something stupid because you don't agree with it is probably not the right way to go, unless you forget all the people who think that carry is stupid or owning a gun is stupid.

Counterproductive suit you better?

[Special T]

I think the OC debate is different than exposing first timers to gun. I rember walking into the bar in NV walking up to the bar to order a drink next to a cowboy with his 6 shooter strapped on. When I asked about the legality and out state he asked me what good what it would do in the glovebox in his truck? I had to chuckle.

I wish more oc advocated were promoting 2a education while doing so instead of trolling for a confrontation with leos. That said I wish more leos actually knew the laws they are there I to inforce.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk

[pianoman9701]

Calling something stupid because you don't agree with it is probably not the right way to go, unless you forget all the people who think that carry is stupid or owning a gun is stupid.

Counterproductive suit you better?

I think that certain OC is counter-productive. Stupid is a judgement call. Some gun owners are feeling more and more backed into a corner and I understand their form of protest even though I may disagree with it. I don't see the purpose of carrying a Modern Sporting Rifle into a department store. On the other hand, when I was on my way to the woods to pick mushrooms, going into a store with a sidearm shouldn't have been an issue. It certainly wasn't with the police. They never even stopped us. There are degrees of display. I usually CC. But I also OC from time to time as a mater of convenience.

[jaymark6655]

I don't think OC should be thought as anything, just another way to carry.  It is like saying people shouldn't hunt with a compounds because that archery season  was meant to be tough and compounds are going to result in shorter seasons. 

I know there are some that carry that way for shock value and I am not sure how feel about that.  On the one hand they are upsetting people, but on the other hand wiping ones butt with the flag upsets people and both are legal and changing those laws would be a really bad road to start down.

I think were it looks confrontational is when approached by someone who is opposed to it or doesn't know the law and neither side wants to back down.  Imagine though if a cop stopped you on the street found out you were CC and started detain and lecture you because he felt like CC was wrong, completely ignoring the fact that you have a permit and that its completely legal.  The video of that probably wouldn't look all that great and there would be people saying well he should have just complied and acting that way doesn't do us any favors or portray us in a favorable light.

The way I look at it in Washington you can open carry without having to submit to any restriction on your second amendment right or paying a tax (background check fee).  Why anyone would want to pay a fee to gain access to a right is beyond me.  Your lucky, in Indiana you have to pay a fee for any type of carry; in fact I think I have to get a license to carry my handgun anywhere including the range to practice with it.

Saying stupid just kind of pisses me off, because your not really saying OC is stupid.  It really comes off as anyone that OC is stupid.

[trophyhunt]

I have a cwp, and it's been years since I've read what the laws are on Open carry.  Can anyone open carry in Wa state?  Legal gun owners only of course.

[300rum]

First, I'm not a big open carry guy.  I only open carry when in the outdoors.  I also open carried at Glacier National Park while hiking and I thought some Asian visitors where going to flip.  I doesn't matter to me that they were Asian, not a race thing, only that I couldn't understand what they were saying and whatever it was, it was a bit weird for both of us I imagine.

How about we go back and read what our founding father's said about Open Carry?  Let's find out from them what our responsibilities are as far as owning them.  The right is God given, that's a fact, but many of the founding father's had something to say about our responsibilities as far as having them close at had at all times and carrying them with us. 

After reading about what some of the founding father's had to say, Sam Adams in particular, my view on open carry has changed.  The majority of city/suburban dwelling citizens have become way too soft and have given up their rights and their capabilities.   

[pianoman9701]

The original purpose of this thread was to point out that non-gunners have in their heads that this is a fight between them and us, which is patently ridiculous. My point is that we need to make sure their conversation turns into a fight against these attacks instead of other law-abiding US citizens. The open carry discussion was not my intention.

[headshot5]

Here is a pretty accurate write-up on the situation.  I read this quite a few years ago (4 or 5 years), but it is still as true today.   

http://www.gunblast.com/Grossman_Sheep-Wolves.htm

[jaymark6655]

I think the type of person that is saying "don't do it, they win" is not open to hearing anything.  "They" want to create that they vs us mentality and spread because they know dividing people is the only way to shut down discussions on a topic and gain support in pushing for confiscation.  If people are willing to listen than truth and fact can overcome their attempts to spread fear and push people to make decisions purely on emotion, not what they want.  Obviously all non-gunners are this way and those are the ones that discussing and range time can show them that what they have been led to believe is not true, like your friend.  I also think we have to stop fighting among ourselves.  Hunters cannot condemn other hunters based on method (mod archery vs traditional vs BP vs modern FA) or gun owners cannot fight about what types of carry should be allowed or not.  Anti's love this, because we are arguing for them.  I cannot count how many times this week I have read that most firearms owners support stronger gun regulations and only fanatics and the NRA oppose more regulation.  All it takes is one guy saying that owning firearms for hunting is okay, but there is no need for anything else and the anti-gunner has support and can say, "see that gun owner he supports a pistol ban or a magazine capacity reg; you don't need more than one shot for hunting."

[pianoman9701]

Here is a pretty accurate write-up on the situation.  I read this quite a few years ago (4 or 5 years), but it is still as true today.   

http://www.gunblast.com/Grossman_Sheep-Wolves.htm

Good write up with great points about the different views people have of the world and of violence.

[pianoman9701]

I think the type of person that is saying "don't do it, they win" is not open to hearing anything.  "They" want to create that they vs us mentality and spread because they know dividing people is the only way to shut down discussions on a topic and gain support in pushing for confiscation.  If people are willing to listen than truth and fact can overcome their attempts to spread fear and push people to make decisions purely on emotion, not what they want.  Obviously all non-gunners are this way and those are the ones that discussing and range time can show them that what they have been led to believe is not true, like your friend.  I also think we have to stop fighting among ourselves.  Hunters cannot condemn other hunters based on method (mod archery vs traditional vs BP vs modern FA) or gun owners cannot fight about what types of carry should be allowed or not.  Anti's love this, because we are arguing for them.  I cannot count how many times this week I have read that most firearms owners support stronger gun regulations and only fanatics and the NRA oppose more regulation.  All it takes is one guy saying that owning firearms for hunting is okay, but there is no need for anything else and the anti-gunner has support and can say, "see that gun owner he supports a pistol ban or a magazine capacity reg; you don't need more than one shot for hunting."

Well, and I think that sometimes, people realize they don't want to sit there and just die if this happens around them. My friend came to that realization last week. If there's a mass shooting, she doesn't want to go out with a whimper. Many of the rest don't understand yet that non-violence isn't an option when dealing with one of these scenarios. As in the narrative that Headshot posted, these people are sheep with their heads in the sand. If there's no sheepdog when the wolf shows up, they die, period.

[Netminder01]

I'd enjoy a reasonable conversation over beer/BBQ with a group of HuntWa members with opposing views of what the problem is - and what needs to be done.

The public dialogue is a growing title wave against the 2nd amendment and there are more people than ever looking to institute radical change and forking over $$ to support efforts; many of whom are not informed. We (broad pro 2nd amendment folks) need to get out of only defending our position and creating strategies to help inform & educate people otherwise ground will continue to be lost by us.

I've said plenty on this topic but I believe a new, much more modern organization is needed than the ones facing massive brand perception problems like the NRA.

[Fl0und3rz]

Congratulations on reaching one rational thinker and changing a perspective.


Cross posting this, showing no correlation of firearms restrictions with (Intentional Homicides + fatal gun accidents).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/


In the US v. Them context, it may help to show that a person genuinely concerned about reduction of homicides and fatal gun accidents can recognize that more restrictions on lawful owners prove fruitless. 

[300rum]

I personally think that gun owners and the NRA are doing a great job.  Our rights were much more on the ropes in the 80's and 90's then they are now.  Most Americans believes in the right to own and use firearms in defense.  Back in the 80-90's they believed that guns we're o.k. for hunting.  Big, Big change.  The news media has towed the liberal line, that is what hasn't changed. 

[pianoman9701]

I'd enjoy a reasonable conversation over beer/BBQ with a group of HuntWa members with opposing views of what the problem is - and what needs to be done.

The public dialogue is a growing title wave against the 2nd amendment and there are more people than ever looking to institute radical change and forking over $$ to support efforts; many of whom are not informed. We (broad pro 2nd amendment folks) need to get out of only defending our position and creating strategies to help inform & educate people otherwise ground will continue to be lost by us.

I've said plenty on this topic but I believe a new, much more modern organization is needed than the ones facing massive brand perception problems like the NRA.

What do you think of the new orgs. like NAGR?

[Netminder01]

I'd enjoy a reasonable conversation over beer/BBQ with a group of HuntWa members with opposing views of what the problem is - and what needs to be done.

The public dialogue is a growing title wave against the 2nd amendment and there are more people than ever looking to institute radical change and forking over $$ to support efforts; many of whom are not informed. We (broad pro 2nd amendment folks) need to get out of only defending our position and creating strategies to help inform & educate people otherwise ground will continue to be lost by us.

I've said plenty on this topic but I believe a new, much more modern organization is needed than the ones facing massive brand perception problems like the NRA.

What do you think of the new orgs. like NAGR?

Beyond a quick glance at their website which they should hire me to help, I've not looked into them at all.  Are they a group that you support and how do you compare & contrast them to the NRA?

[pianoman9701]

I'd enjoy a reasonable conversation over beer/BBQ with a group of HuntWa members with opposing views of what the problem is - and what needs to be done.

The public dialogue is a growing title wave against the 2nd amendment and there are more people than ever looking to institute radical change and forking over $$ to support efforts; many of whom are not informed. We (broad pro 2nd amendment folks) need to get out of only defending our position and creating strategies to help inform & educate people otherwise ground will continue to be lost by us.

I've said plenty on this topic but I believe a new, much more modern organization is needed than the ones facing massive brand perception problems like the NRA.

What do you think of the new orgs. like NAGR?

Beyond a quick glance at their website which they should hire me to help, I've not looked into them at all.  Are they a group that you support and how do you compare & contrast them to the NRA?

I support them with an annual membership. Their tactics initially were to attack the NRA as the old guy in town. I wasn't thrilled with trying to break up the forces. But they're a growing org. I also belong to several others, mostly more local - SAF CCRKBA, etc.

[Fl0und3rz]

A converted "Us" story.

Every time a tragedy like the recent one in Roseburg, Oregon takes place there is a knee-jerk reaction to blame the gun. Right on cue there are calls for more gun control, more background checks, and more arguments by politicians aiming to convince you that disarming law abiding citizens will stop senseless acts of violence. What you rarely hear in the media are the stories of people who have used guns to protect themselves.

Not “gun nuts” as some would like to call them, but regular, average, everyday people. People who at one time believed because they lived in a small town they were safe. People who grew up with a dad as a police officer and believed the police could always protect them.  People who never really even wanted a gun in their home. People like me.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/06/guns-are-not-the-problem/

[Stein]

IMHO, the NRA has perception problems because they are big and effective and thus a target.  Any org that does well will face equal attention from the anti crowd.

[smittyJ]

The public dialogue is a growing title wave against the 2nd amendment and there are more people than ever looking to institute radical change and forking over $$ to support efforts; many of whom are not informed. We (broad pro 2nd amendment folks) need to get out of only defending our position and creating strategies to help inform & educate people otherwise ground will continue to be lost by us.

I've said plenty on this topic but I believe a new, much more modern organization is needed than the ones facing massive brand perception problems like the NRA.

I respectfully dissagree, I believe they are a very vocal minority. That being said, I have had several respctful discussinos lately with antis and when they truly listen you can shift the discussion to root causes and get some agreement. One of the issues is changing their view of the NRA from a manufacturers mouthpiece to an organization of average citizen / voters like you and I that was created to promote gun safety!

[pianoman9701]

The vocal minority mixed with the loud-mouth press and liberal politicians, added to the focus on these mass murders confuses and scares the people on the sidelines who aren't gun people and don't understand those who are. Many have no access to guns or the people who own them. Much of the state of CA are sheep who believe that if they don't own guns they're somehow helping the effort to reduce gun violence. My wife grew up in CA. It wasn't until she moved to WA and was married to a man from KS that she ever even held a gun, never mind fired one. We have to change the conversation.

When politicians tell people that it's the all-powerful NRA that's at fault in all the killings, we have to show people that it's murderers who are at fault and the NRA is only powerful because they represent 5+million people in the US. People who don't know say that concealed carry people should be required to take courses. We need to point out that there are virtually no gunfights in our streets between CCL people and the these people are statistically the most law-abiding citizens in the nation by far. That up to 2,000 illegal acts per day are thwarted by armed citizens. How many of those might have turned into murders? Our gun murders in the US are down 50% since 1991 while gun ownership has doubled. We need to emphasize that the NRA trains more people in gun safety, including government employees, than all other sources combines, including the military. We need to emphasize that there are an estimated 85 million gun owners nationwide who don't kill someone everyday, every year. We need to emphasize that gun control historically kills far more people than gun rights. 8 million killed by Hitler. As many as 50-60 million killed by Stalin. tens of millions by Mao. 2-3 million by Pol Pot. 1 million+ in Rwanda (mainly killed by machete). 1 million in Sudan by the Janjaweed militia. This is far from the whole list.

[Netminder01]

The public dialogue is a growing title wave against the 2nd amendment and there are more people than ever looking to institute radical change and forking over $$ to support efforts; many of whom are not informed. We (broad pro 2nd amendment folks) need to get out of only defending our position and creating strategies to help inform & educate people otherwise ground will continue to be lost by us.

I've said plenty on this topic but I believe a new, much more modern organization is needed than the ones facing massive brand perception problems like the NRA.

I respectfully disagree, I believe they are a very vocal minority. That being said, I have had several respectful discussions lately with antis and when they truly listen you can shift the discussion to root causes and get some agreement. One of the issues is changing their view of the NRA from a manufacturers mouthpiece to an organization of average citizen / voters like you and I that was created to promote gun safety!

Respectful disagreements are perfectly fine by me; I get just as much satisfaction by swaying your perspective than those disagreements which are not respectful!! Let me provide a bit more detail to what I mean by stating the NRA has a brand perception problem.

This is not a subjective point of view, but rooted in facts and supported by data. It's not to say the NRA isn't effective in the areas they're most known to support and fund (lobbyists, lawmakers, etc) however, the war on our rights has a new and more modern front line; it's social and media channels. Effective strategies have been created and being implemented to alter the narrative and target those who've been on the fence and usually uninformed (the middle).

Each time there is a social flashpoint (let's say a mass shooting), via targeted social and digital strategies, messages are being quickly sent to influencers who have a large following and then disseminated to their own followers through social sharing. This is all being tracked and monitored through social tools illustrating the tactics being used are antiquated and the youth (Millennial and younger) believe the NRA are out of touch. One example of this is that the visceral reaction people have with the NRA brand and the assumption they know what it stands for. Another example is Hillary's comments just yesterday comparing the NRA stance on guns to that of Iran's on social justice issues.

This younger demographic are the primary recipients of targeted marketing messages intelligently seeding those sound bites / talking points and it's working. This is the area the NRA is lacking the most and in the long run, by not evolving, it will weaken our rightful hold on the 2nd amendment, the actual conversation we should be having and seizing the opportunity to educate the public and those mostly prone to be influenced - and to influence others.

Just by having a FB page, YouTube and Twitter does not mean you're resonating with the younger demographic. The method (content and social strategy) for interacting with the younger demographic is entirely different than say 45+ M/F and my position is the NRA is not only losing this fight - but not even in it.