Last week I was confronted with an incident of "gun owner image" and didn't know quite what to do. I was in a retail clothing store (yes, there are a few of them left) and I saw this other customer walking around looking at the merchandise. The issue was his appearance and what he was wearing -- he had long, stringy, uncombed hair; tatoos up one arm and down the other that included offensive images; and a black torn tee shirt on which was printed "<removed> Your No Gun Zone". Just couldn't help but think of the damage he was doing to owners of firearms. I wanted to ask him what he thought he was accomplishing by being so offensive, but I just shook my head and didn't say anything to him. I did, however, say something to the cashiers after he left, explaining that all gun owers were not such idiots. They seemed to understand, but again, I just couldn't help but imagine all the damage this walking billboard for was causing. What would you have done? Thanks
You aren't going to change someone's mind like that in one conversation, or even overnight. As far as "source for change" a stranger isn't all that likely to be a stimulus for invoking the desired change. Getting a "rise" out of people - getting attention - are what those folks are after, it's what their brain is telling them they need, whether they acknowledge or are aware of the fact or not.
Most folks respond fairly well over time to general peer pressure, but when you are talking about someone who is quite comfortable with being offensive to everyone / anyone around them by wearing overt profanity, you sure got your work cut out for you.
Like most ideas out there, the "good neighbor" concept will take time to spread, take root, and evolve.
It also has the danger of being taken too far, or the wrong direction. Example; the image you want to portray is "I'm a good dude, who just happens to be a gun owner." Not the attention seeking alternative of "I'm doing good things *because* I'm a gun owner."
Cart and horse, and all of that. If you are pulling good deeds along by the nose of overt intention, it comes across as a self righteous crusade.
This is where the NRA screwed up, in my opinion. Their "Good Guy with a Gun" and "Arm Teachers" was founded in good intention but drenched in politics.
If they had carried the message across just a shade differently; reversing the cart and horse, they might have been more successful.
Such as, "if more good people took responsibility for their selves, friends, families, and communities, and took an active interest in self-defense, criminals would have a much harder time selecting easy prey."
Instead the message comes across as "good guys with guns are required to stop bad guys" - the guns lead the parade, not the other way around. As if, you can't be a good guy unless you carry a gun and your
mission is to stop bad guys. That reeks of vigilantism, alienates people who don't carry guns (What, I'm not a "good guy" because I don't carry a gun??) and so on.
Subtle changes in context mean an awful lot, but it's all in perspective. When you are delivering a message to the public at large, it needs to be done in a fashion that compels thought and not emotion. Emotion is fleeting, and that tactic is impatient and reckless. However, sowing a seed of thought; that can grow with time? That's really something, because that one phrase or interaction will grow over time as the person mulls it over.
The NRA would have been better served by pushing their Refuse to be a Victim campaign. Pushing instructors to get involved with the community with free or low cost self-defense clinics, and so on. But instead they turned even THAT on it's head with this "blended learning" stuff, and replaced a lot of that time you'd sped with students with a computer program the student takes online.
There's been a lot of mistakes made on our side recently, nothing incurable, but if courses don't get corrected these off-target messages sent by the larger organizations and individual encounters by extremist gun owners ("ef your gun free zone" types), will continue to accumulate measurable damage over time.
The message is simple; good neighbors look out for each other.
If WE individually act as good neighbors, and during the course of our interactions (not even the first encounter) with folks let slip we are gun owners, that will be much more successful. "Sure, I can help you replace that water heater; I'm free Saturday afternoon after I'm done with shooting practice."
Whoa, suddenly you aren't promoting an agenda. It just became common knowledge that you are a gun owner without any pretense of an agenda, while you also happen to be a Good Neighbor.
Simple, and effective.