In re: "Army vet disarmed of his AR and 1911 by cop"

[Frank Ettin]

...To be absolutely fair and balanced, though, it would be best to point out that desensitization is a proven scientific and sociological phenomenon....

Absolutely (it's also a way to treat allergies) -- but a lot depends on what, where and how. A mild annoyance when people think there's nothing they can do about it -- sure. Something that too many people find a serious annoyance, and when someone running for the legislature promise to pass a law to "fix it" -- not so much. Some places desensitization hasn't seemed to work for wrecked cars up on blocks on folks' front lawns.

...But in time, jeans with a jacket become acceptable dinner wear, longer hair and an earring become unobjectionable -- even on your doctor, two men can hold hands in public without being beaten up,...

But consider in more depth how some of those things came to be. It wasn't just a matter of the guy at the convenience store, the clerk at the grocery, the local bartender, etc., wearing an earring. It wasn't just a matter of seeing a high school teacher and his "friend" holding hands at the mall.

New fashions generally take hold when validated by the public conduct of the "trend setters" -- the actors showing up in jeans with a jacket on Jay Leno, the sports figure wearing long hair and an earring when being interviewed on ESPN. Who thinks we can look forward to Tom Cruise sporting an openly carried 1911 at some glitterati garden party?

The broadening public acceptance of gays is another, and more complex matter:

• There has been significant support for gay rights from mainstream media, academia and even some influential religious organizations.
  
  
• Many people active in the struggle for gay rights were straight.
  
  
• The gay rights movement was tremendously helped by the fact that it turns out that many gays were well liked, well regarded, prominent and influential public figures (especially in the arts), all of whom had well established public personae independent of their sexual orientation prior to the revelation that they are gay.
  
  
• Many of those gay public figures are also extremely affluent and have been able to pour considerable money into support of politicians who support gay rights. (And many of those public figures are also using their money and influence to promote gun control.)

...maybe even black people can sit wherever they want to on the bus...

And when considered in depth, reaching this point also involved a well orchestrate journey guided by savvy leaders down well thought out paths. For example:

• On 1 December 1955, Rosa Parks was the third African-American since March of that year to be arrested for violating the Montgomery bus segregation law. That night, Jo Ann Robinson, head of the Women's Political Council, printed and circulated a flyer throughout Montgomery's black community starting the call for a boycott of Montgomery's city buses.
  
  Martin Luther King, Jr., as president of the Montgomery Improvement Association and pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, together with other Black community leaders, then organized the boycott of the Montgomery bus system. That boycott reduced Black ridership (the bulk of the bus system's paying customers) of Montgomery city buses by some 90% until December of 1956 when the Supreme Court ruled that the bus segregation laws of Montgomery, Alabama were unconstitutional (Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903 (1956)).
  
  Mrs. Parks actions and arrest were part of a well orchestrated, well organized, program leading to a successful conclusion.
  
  
• The Civil Rights Movement of the '50s and '60s had broad and deep support. The goals of the Civil Rights Movement were promoted regularly in sermons in churches and synagogues all across the nation and editorials in major mainstream media. The Civil Rights Movement had charismatic leaders like Martin Luther King who could inspire the country.
  
  
• Civil Rights demonstration were joined and actively supported by many Whites.

Taking a close look at the gay rights and Civil Rights movements give us some idea of how far behind the PR curve our RKBA movement is. Gay rights and Civil Rights made the progress they did in part because of sympathy and active support from straights and Whites, respectively, as well as support from mainstream media.

...A right exercised frequently, commonly, and openly becomes unexceptional and increasingly less objectionable....

Sometimes and in some places.

 

[316SS]

Taking a close look at the gay rights and Civil Rights movements give us some idea of how far behind the PR curve our RKBA movement is. Gay rights and Civil Rights made the progress they did in part because of sympathy and active support from straights and Whites, respectively, as well as support from mainstream media.

I don't see that you conclusion follows from your premises. The success of the gay rights and civil rights movements and the setbacks of the gun rights movement can all be explained by the trend of urbanization, toward socially liberal values that continues to occur in American society, rather PR successes or failures. Your analysis of the both the civil rights and gay rights movements also neglects the defiance and lack of manners and decorum that characterized both those movements, at least from some viewpoints.

Exercising open carry privileges, where they exist, will both desensitize and irk others, and the consequences will follow. But not to open carry for fear of the consequences is indistinguishable from not open carrying because it is illegal, from a practical standpoint.

 

[Billy Shears]

Originally posted by 316SS

I don't see that you conclusion follows from your premises. The success of the gay rights and civil rights movements and the setbacks of the gun rights movement can all be explained by the trend of urbanization, toward socially liberal values that continues to occur in American society, rather PR successes or failures. Your analysis of the both the civil rights and gay rights movements also neglects the defiance and lack of manners and decorum that characterized both those movements, at least from some viewpoints.

I would say the defiance and lack of manner came more from the other side, burning churches and lynching and so forth. And again, a crucial difference, I point out, is those people were exercising a right where it was illegal to do so, and were willing to take the consequences as a display of civil disobedience to an unjust law. That is not what is happening when you openly carry in a jurisdiction where it's legal.

And don't underestimate the PR angle. Frank Ettin is absolutely right. One of the reasons civil rights legislation passed is that, with the help of the media, and influential public figures, the rest of the country came to see the racist laws in the south as retrograde and immoral. We don't have anything like that kind of influence on our side as yet.

Originally posted by 316SS

Exercising open carry privileges, where they exist, will both desensitize and irk others, and the consequences will follow. But not to open carry for fear of the consequences is indistinguishable from not open carrying because it is illegal, from a practical standpoint.

Not at all. To exercise that right responsibly -- that is to say, to openly carry, where and when there is a valid reason, related to self defense -- will help preserve it. There may be times when OC makes the most sense and is the most practical option. And on those occasions, it should be done, and the right should not be infringed. And people who carry for that reason might actually help show non-gun owners that law-abiding gun owners are just ordinary people they don't need to be concerned about. But to OC solely for the purpose of drawing attention to oneself or making a political statement, or to provoke and videotape a confrontation to "raise awareness" is actually counterproductive grandstanding that will alarm and alienate people, not persuade them.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The success of the gay rights and civil rights movements and the setbacks of the gun rights movement can all be explained by the trend of urbanization, toward socially liberal values that continues to occur in American society, rather PR successes or failures....

Are you suggesting that the successes of the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement were purely evolutionary and that the changes would have occurred without the efforts of the various individuals and groups who participated?

But certainly there was a synergy there. The urbanization and trend toward more liberal social values probably helped fuel the civil rights and gay rights movements just as those movements helped fuel the trend toward urbanization and liberal social values. And just as the trend toward urbanization and liberal social values inhibit the gun rights movement.

So we can either give up or deal with the fact that the current direction of societal change makes our job tougher. While the civil rights and gay rights movements road a favorable current of societal change, we must buck that current.

How will alienating people help us do that? Or do we just give up?

Open carry if it's legal and you find it a convenient way to go about armed. But don't delude yourself that doing so makes a positive contribution to the promotion of the RKBA.

 

[texasgun]

A guy OC'ing an AK when running errands and thinking that this will advance the 2nd amendment is like:

two gays making out in public in front of a catholic church - thinking that this will advance the LGBT movement

 

[316SS]

So we can either give up or deal with the fact that the current direction of societal change makes our job tougher. While the civil rights and gay rights movements road a favorable current of societal change, we must buck that current.

How will alienating people help us do that? Or do we just give up?

Open carry if it's legal and you find it a convenient way to go about armed. But don't delude yourself that doing so makes a positive contribution to the promotion of the RKBA.

Since you asked I don't think alienating people will help our cause, and I make an effort not to alienate those who are open to at least considering my point of view. In other words, I attempt to be an ambassador for gun ownership and responsible use. And I do open carry when and where legal (there are still a few of both here in CA, as you know). But whether or not it makes a positive contribution to the promotion of the RKBA(which, you admit, neither of us knows for sure), if I were to avoid OC for fear of the potential consequences, then the whole question is moot. "The terrorists have already won," as they say.

 

[BigBore44]

So Frank,
What you're saying is until we do a little "live societal research", all arguments are basically moot becaus no one really knows for sure what the perception will be. Obviously some will be offended no matter how they/you/we OC. But some may perceive our actions in a positive manner and that may in turn either further our cause or "dull the senses" of some to not be so quick to overreact.

If that's true, and I understand you correctly, I completely agree. But I feel very strongly that those who choose to OC are voluntarily becoming the face of 2A supporters. And they should understand that, and act as ambassadors.

 

[Sam1911]

...To be absolutely fair and balanced, though, it would be best to point out that desensitization is a proven scientific and sociological phenomenon....

Absolutely (it's also a way to treat allergies) -- but a lot depends on what, where and how. A mild annoyance when people think there's nothing they can do about it -- sure. Something that too many people find a serious annoyance, and when someone running for the legislature promise to pass a law to "fix it" -- not so much. Some places desensitization hasn't seemed to work for wrecked cars up on blocks on folks' front lawns.

Yup. Not a perfectly linear path, nor one without pitfalls. On the other hand, just keeping it hidden forever does nothing for us. So there's a balance to be struck.

Keep pushing that boundary when, and where, it is advantageous to do so and the "envelope" widens.

Now, how much damage will the "grandstanders" neener cause? Only time will tell. Could they do catastrophic damage that hurts the main push? Quite possibly. That's always a risk in any such endeavor. You must push just as hard as you can, but no harder. Knowing where that line is is the real magic.

...But in time, jeans with a jacket become acceptable dinner wear, longer hair and an earring become unobjectionable -- even on your doctor, two men can hold hands in public without being beaten up,...

But consider in more depth how some of those things came to be. It wasn't just a matter of the guy at the convenience store, the clerk at the grocery, the local bartender, etc., wearing an earring. It wasn't just a matter of seeing a high school teacher and his "friend" holding hands at the mall.

I'm enough of a student of history to have considered in quite a bit of depth how these things came to be.

New fashions generally take hold when validated by the public conduct of the "trend setters" -- the actors showing up in jeans with a jacket on Jay Leno, the sports figure wearing long hair and an earring when being interviewed on ESPN. Who thinks we can look forward to Tom Cruise sporting an openly carried 1911 at some glitterati garden party?

That certainly helps, but it isn't the whole chalupa. A bunch of hollywierd types doing odd stuff doesn't make a grass-roots change happen. You've got to know people, and see people every week, in your own community, doing this new thing to really begin to understand that the change does not threaten you. You know how WEIRD it was when one of my own school teachers "came out" back in middle school? Pretty unsettling to a lot of people for the first year or so. But you know what? I didn't have to wait for Will and Grace to air before I was "cool" with gay folks.

The broadening public acceptance of gays is another, and more complex matter:

• There has been significant support for gay rights from mainstream media, academia and even some influential religious organizations.

• Many people active in the struggle for gay rights were straight.
• The gay rights movement was tremendously helped by the fact that it turns out that many gays were well liked, well regarded, prominent and influential public figures (especially in the arts), all of whom had well established public personae independent of their sexual orientation prior to the revelation that they are gay.
• Many of those gay public figures are also extremely affluent and have been able to pour considerable money into support of politicians who support gay rights. (And many of those public figures are also using their money and influence to promote gun control.)

That's true to a point. But if we don't have a bunch of rich elites open-carrying on our side, what are we to do? Wait until we do? Naaah. Probably not a great plan.

And when considered in depth, reaching this point also involved a well orchestrate journey guided by savvy leaders down well thought out paths. For example:
...
Taking a close look at the gay rights and Civil Rights movements give us some idea of how far behind the PR curve our RKBA movement is. Gay rights and Civil Rights made the progress they did in part because of sympathy and active support from straights and Whites, respectively, as well as support from mainstream media.

Sure! And we have groups doing somewhat similar things occasionally. (Open holster protests. Guys "grandstanding" on youtube going viral. Open Carry rallies. Open Carry dinners out and days in the park, etc., etc.)

A big part of our "problem" it seems is that we're NOT as hated as the black community was. That we don't garner the extremes of social antipathy that Ms. Parks and others churned up. We don't have ANYWHERE near as "far to go."

All we have to do is keep it out in the open a bit more each year and it becomes acceptable. It won't take a march on Washington and an "I Have a Dream" speech. It just becomes something that folks DO.

...A right exercised frequently, commonly, and openly becomes unexceptional and increasingly less objectionable....

Sometimes and in some places.

Eventually and hopefully in ALL places. Not all at once tomorrow. But sooner than we'd believe possible.

 

[Sam1911]

While the civil rights and gay rights movements road a favorable current of societal change, we must buck that current.

I don't agree. I'm looking at the history of the last 20-30 years and the advancement of gun rights is NOT a retrograde trend right now. It was so, leading up to the beginning of the 1990s, but then the nation started to shift.

Now is "strike while the iron is hot" time.

 

[Superlite27]

Now is "strike while the iron is hot" time.

As long as you "strike" them as polite and courteous, and your "iron" is carried in a responsible and appropriate manner.

I think the demeanor and professionalism of the carrier has 90% more to do with public perception than the tool strapped to an OCer's side.

 

[Sam1911]

I'd agree 100%. Give ZERO reason for any observer (officer, citizen, grandmother, store keeper, etc.) to mistrust you, be afraid of you, or think poorly of you. Let the gun on your hip or sling be the only possible bone of contention between you, and force the other person to decide just how much of a "problem" they really have with you after all.

When I look over the pics that NavyLCDR, Mainsail, and many others have posted of themselves and their pals open carrying, I see average looking, pleasant, professional/casually dressed folks, going about their business with a cheerful demeanor. Great ambassadors for guns and gun rights.

While you have the RIGHT to go armed looking and acting like you just got kicked out of the Pagans for being too unfriendly, that's not going to help the cause.

 

[BigBore44]

Bangarang Sam1911!!!

 

[Frank Ettin]

So Frank,
What you're saying is until we do a little "live societal research", all arguments are basically moot becaus no one really knows for sure what the perception will be. Obviously some will be offended no matter how they/you/we OC. But some may perceive our actions in a positive manner and that may in turn either further our cause or "dull the senses" of some to not be so quick to overreact.

If that's true, and I understand you correctly, I completely agree....

And that's my point.

...But I feel very strongly that those who choose to OC are voluntarily becoming the face of 2A supporters. And they should understand that, and act as ambassadors....

Well, we all the the face of Second Amendment supporters and are all ambassadors -- good or bad as we choose.

...Now, how much damage will the "grandstanders" () cause? Only time will tell. Could they do catastrophic damage that hurts the main push? Quite possibly. That's always a risk in any such endeavor. You must push just as hard as you can, but no harder. Knowing where that line is is the real magic....

But as I pointed out, defining a line doesn't need to be "magic" or just chance. We aren't using some of the tools available and that are used in regularly in business and politics. As far as I can see, we're not really looking closely at our audience and considering, in a disciplined and rigorous way, how to communicate our message. We're not paying attention to how they are responding to us and making adjustments in how we tell our story based on such observations.

These are all things I've seen used effectively in business, and they are techniques applicable to us as well.

I'd agree 100%. Give ZERO reason for any observer (officer, citizen, grandmother, store keeper, etc.) to mistrust you, be afraid of you, or think poorly of you....

For some of the people I know, the mere fact that you're wearing a gun would be reason enough.

...When I look over the pics that NavyLCDR, Mainsail, and many others have posted of themselves and their pals open carrying, I see average looking, pleasant, professional/casually dressed folks, going about their business with a cheerful demeanor...

But the point is that's not necessarily what everyone sees.

 

[Skylerbone]

Problem with that is not everyone fits the profile of "normal" looking. When I eat at a traditional "Mexican" restaurant, the waitstaff speaks to me in Spanish. I've been asked if I am Hawaiian, Hispanic, Italian, Japanese, Somoan and an Arab, among other things. Where I live, the acceptability factor of me openly carrying, IMO, would be low. I don't care to be hassled, I dislike it when the first question I'm met with is "What are you?" or "YOUR ENGLISH IS VERY GOOD!" Not everything plays in Peoria so, rather than become the source of 911 phone calls, I stick with CC. In other places, I might "look" normal but that isn't where I live.

PS: I don't live in IL, for those unfamiliar with the Peoria reference.

 

[316SS]

But as I pointed out, defining a line doesn't need to be "magic" or just chance. We aren't using some of the tools available and that are used in regularly in business and politics. As far as I can see, we're not really looking closely at our audience and considering, in a disciplined and rigorous way, how to communicate our message. We're not paying attention to how they are responding to us and making adjustments in how we tell our story based on such observations.

These are all things I've seen used effectively in business, and they are techniques applicable to us as well.

I nominate Frank to convene some focus groups and get to work on this on behalf of the "RKBA Movement."

 

[BigBore44]

^^Amen to that.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I nominate Frank to convene some focus groups and get to work on this on behalf of the "RKBA Movement."

I'd just need someone to pay the bills.

 

[Sam1911]

For some of the people I know, the mere fact that you're wearing a gun would be reason enough.

Right! As I said, let that be the ONLY thing that puts them off. And accept that we'll never make every single person happy to see us. Just like there's plenty of people who still hate black folks, or still cringe and hurl epithets when they see two guys "together." At some point we don't have to care because they don't represent a large enough block of society to do us any harm. We're not quite there yet, but with patience and perseverance, we will be.

But the point is that's not necessarily what everyone sees.

Of course, but when there's nothing whatsoever, besides the presence of that object, to indicate a reason to think otherwise, perception eventually is informed by (positive) experience. For most folks anyway. Enough good experiences will lead to social acceptance.

 

[Beaux Nehr]

Open carry should only be practiced by individuals who will be perceived positively by the general populace.
It's a harsh truth, but it's true.

If you're unattractive, smelly, and inarticulate, you should not carry.

I know you're gonna cry, "BUT MUH RIGHTS!!! U CANT TELL PEOPLE WHO CAN CARRY!"
Deal with it.

It's a harsh truth. If we want people to think it's "normal", then we need exemplary people to carry. Unfortunately, it's usually the weirdos who practice it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Enough good experiences will lead to social acceptance.

A reasonable enough conjecture, but merely conjecture nonetheless.

 

[Sam1911]

Conjecture? Sure! As is any similar suggestion that a person's general decision to open carry sometimes (or always, or never) causes more harm than good in the broader picture.

Upon some theory must all action be founded. I imagine when we all get to wherever we're going, whomever is expected to meet us at our own version of the pearly gates will finally let us know if all our actions panned out as we'd hoped in the end. Give us a final score card, you know? And on that final score card, somewhere down near the bottom I'd bet, it will say, "Folks influenced positively for gun rights: 3,281. Folks influenced negatively against gun rights: 3,279 -- You WIN!"

Till then, we'll never really know...

 

[Frank Ettin]

Conjecture? Sure! As is any similar suggestion that a person's general decision to open carry sometimes (or always, or never) causes more harm than good in the broader picture....

Sam, a while ago you wrote this in another context:

...We do tend here to look beyond a minimum sufficient answer and try to discern the best possible response to a given problem....

I submit that same perspective applies here.

• If one's purpose for open carrying is simply to conveniently go about armed (when legal), that's one thing.
  
  
• But if one claims his purpose in open carrying, or when wants to justify his choice to open carry (even though he really doesn't need to), as benefiting the RKBA and promoting greater acceptance of people carrying guns in public, he really needs to support that with something better than mere conjecture.

 

[Lonestar11]

With respect to the original post and the video in question, I have the following observations, first the open carry of a rifle in Texas is legal, as long as done in a safe manner. The low slung carry of a rifle is not considered to be a safe manner to most LEO. Since the subject in question was military, he was probably carrying as trained, not necessarly in compliance with the law.

The number one rule of most encounters with LEO is don't piss off the authority having jurisdiction. The LEO had every right to disarm the subject until he determined his intentions. The subject stated that he was concerned about Cougar and hog attacts. This is pure BS!, both animals are nocturnal, this was a public highway in the middle of the day.

Lastly and in this case and most importantly, this individual had an attitude. Right or wrong, you will never win a road side argument with an LEO, save you breath. Save your argument for a court of law.

By the way, there is no such law as "rudely displaying" a firearm.

 

[Sam1911]

I submit that same perspective applies here.
If one's purpose for open carrying is simply to conveniently go about armed (when legal), that's one thing.

One thing? Separate from any other concerns? When does a person ever do anything that's purely one-dimensional? And are you suggesting that it is "ok" to carry openly if you have some "good and sufficient reason" (in who's opinion)? That good and sufficient reason then trumps concerns over the opinions of observers we might offend? At some point this becomes absurd, I think.

But if one claims his purpose in open carrying, or when wants to justify his choice to open carry (even though he really doesn't need to), as benefiting the RKBA and promoting greater acceptance of people carrying guns in public, he really needs to support that with something better than mere conjecture.

The trap of demanding unobtainable statistics as a means of stifling action.

How many more points of (soft, fuzzy) "data" do we really need on this score? I could pull up hundreds of testimonials right here on THR from folks who report positive social interactions when they carry openly. And I could also extract a very small handful of negative reports, too.

Then we can compare the old, highly situationally/racially weighted data from the CA experience with the Black Panthers back in the day, and try to come to some consensus about how relevant that really is to the current situation (almost no relevance, honestly).

Then into the balance pans we dump all our speculations about the (few, some, a lot, or many) folks who observe our open carrying friends make negative assessments but never say anything about it. Oh, but then we also have to count up all our opposite speculations about people who react positively but never say anything about it! Then we have to calculate, to our highest degree of precision, how many of each hypothetical set of non-reacting observers then act in some physical way (calling representatives, voting, supporting or opposing candidates solely or partly based on their observations) that actually affects us and our goals. How many significant figures do you think we should record? What's the margin of error here? 50%, plus or minus...uh...all of it?

The upshot is that, in the face of no recordable hard data, we all fall back on our own preferences and prejudices, informed by our own experiences.

The open-carry side can't "prove" that they make net positive social change, and the anti- side can't "prove" that they make net negative social change.

So, in my opinion, you do what you want and work for the change you want to see.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...When does a person ever do anything that's purely one-dimensional? And are you suggesting that it is "ok" to carry openly if you have some "good and sufficient reason" (in who's opinion)? That good and sufficient reason then trumps concerns over the opinions of observers we might offend?...

It's not my place to decide if it is okay. But I also strongly object to the "I open carry and therefore am a true champion of the RKBA" business. There is no good basis for such claim, and it doesn't help our interests to thus fool ourselves.

...The trap of demanding unobtainable statistics as a means of stifling action....

No, the trap we set for ourselves is letting anecdotes and wishful thinking guide our strategy.

...Then into the balance pans we dump all our speculations about the (few, some, a lot, or many) folks who observe our open carrying friends make negative assessments but never say anything about it...

No, that is not how it's done. I've already discussed some of the ways it is done, in other contexts, when people who want to influence public opinion and care about doing so effectively make decision about what they do.

The problem, of course, is that kind of thing cost money. Studies need to be well constructed and executed by people who know what they are doing, and they don't work cheaply.

...The upshot is that, in the face of no recordable hard data, we all fall back on our own preferences and prejudices, informed by our own experiences...

Yes, that is indeed what we do. Is that the best thing to do? Would other ways be more effective? Do we not want to look for better answers? Did you not really mean it when you wrote:

...We do tend here to look beyond a minimum sufficient answer and try to discern the best possible response to a given problem....

...So, in my opinion, you do what you want and work for the change you want to see...

Like the folks in Florida who wound up helping getting open carry banned shortly after winning "shall issue" concealed carry (see post 20). Like the folks in California who, in the last few years, wound up helping get laws banning the open carrying of unloaded handguns and long guns enacted.