Seems some OCers in Michigan scared the townspeople at the library. Like carry a shotgun into the library scared the townspeople. Yeah, it was legal. It was also stupid.
The whole point of Open Carry is to normalize gun ownership. You're trying to demonstrate that normal people own guns. You are basically engaged in a marketing exercise, to persuade the great undecided middle of the electorate that people they know and like own guns, and that it's no big deal.
Scaring them isn't accomplishing what you set out to, duh.
But a bigger fail is what people wrote in comments over at Breda's place when she expressed her distaste of the whole escapade. Comparing Breda to Japete? Srlsy?
FAIL. Not only are you not convincing the great undecided middle, you're now alienating your own team. Failfailfailfail.
You want to normalize the perception of gun owners, you need to be polite. Otherwise you'll make people think that gun owners are jerks. Eyes on the prize, people.
Unless, of course, your point was to show that you have a big swinging one. In which case, stop pretending that the point of OC is to normalize the perception of gun ownership.
UPDATE 14 February 2011 12:52: Papa Delta Bravo has an outstanding post on this topic.
29 comments:
glad to see this. I was one of the counter posters there. I have spent a fair amount of time on the opencarry.org forum and generally support open carry but the posters who were in support of a young man carrying a shotgun into a library were just beyond crazy.
Your correct in that this kind of thinking will only hurt our cause.
The sad thing is it's all about public perception, and not rights.
In AZ, 40 years ago, there was no CCW, legally. But in rural areas, open carry was commonplace, and even in downtown Phoenix, was generally accepted. But, as more people emigrated here from the East and CA., so did their attitudes. On more than one occasion, nightime excusions to the market were met with the exclamation "OMG - He's got a GUN!"
from some idiot at the end of the aisle. And, with the passing of the CCW law, it became 'polite' to conceal, lest one encounter idiots.
Open Carry remains legal in AZ., but is frowned upon more and more, especially in urban area. And, now we have Constitutional Carry.
Which is GREAT! But, it doesn't address the sociological issue of hoplophobia, against visual weapons.
I had a feeling that the universe was running low on FAIL.
Where they assaulting the library? Where they expecting the library to be assaulted?
Why would you need a shotgun in a lbrary to repel a roving band of book theives?
If they where doing this just to prove the point that it was legal, they need a boot up their ass.
WTF! F'N Morons.
Josh
Ps. As they are walking aound with shotguns I would launch that boot from a potato gun from distance, because I'm not a moron.
First of all...the comparison to Japete was, in my humble opinion, not too far off the mark in one respect:
Breda put up a post that was disparaging in nature and engaged in name-calling (granted, she used the strikeout feature, to disguise her name-calling as snark, but it is what it is), she also relied completely upon the accounts found in media outlets...historically not an accurate place to find characterizations of gun rights activities...upon which to base her opinion, and mischaracterized what the incidents were about.
Then, when she was called on these particulars, she played the victim card and asked those who had the temerity to disagree with her to leave.
Sounds pretty Japete-like to me.
That doesn't mean that I think she AGREES with japete or supports japete's positions in any way...just that her response to comments disagreeing with her smacked of the same tactics.
If one isn't prepared to vigorously defend one's positions on controversial subjects, I'd respectfully submit that one should probably avoid posting on said positions on a blog with open comments.
Furthermore, if one is going to become all offended about name-calling and disparaging comments, one should probably avoid engaging in same in the initial post.
To the subject at hand...
While I don't necessarily support the idea of carrying a shotgun in public, the fact that it was in a library was irrelevant. I don't know the details of what happened because the only available account was through a media outlet....where pro-gun activism is mischaractarized in the most egregious and misleading terms with almost religious regularity and ferver.
The fact is that Michigan has pre-emption. It is ILLEGAL for public libraries in Michigan to preclude lawful gun ownership. The libraries were breaking the law and no one was doing anything about it.
The Michigan activists were simply bringing attention to the issue that was otherwise being ignored.
This may result in a law being passed banning guns in libraries and, if that happens, so be it: that's what representative government is all about.
But we went through the same thing here in Virginia starting close to a decade ago and, contrary to the prognostications of all those who revel in telling other people what is acceptable and unacceptable in defense of their rights, it has NOT resulted in guns being banned in Libraries here in Virginia, but has resulted only in forcing the libraries to obey the law.
The bottom line is that those of us who've been a bit more "in your face" in our activism than the more pragmatic gun rights supporters appreciate, have had many more successes than we've had failures. The facts simply don't support the contention that outgoing activism is damaging to the cause and all of the disparaging, insulting uninformed posts in the world won't change that.
20% are friendly to gun rights, 20% anti rights, and 60% believe what is fed them by the other 40% but otherwise wouldn't care. There was a time when the Washington post helped the 20% antis get most all that large group on their side. Now, we've captured a lot of that magic middle to our cause. Being an ass is a good way to lose those gains even if you are 100% right.
There are a few political issues that I don't care about one way or another. I am certainly influenced by how their various proponents act when forming an opinion. Every Pride parade with a gentleman wearing assless chaps is a good way for me be pushed agin them on their issue.
In your face OC is like a leather clad queen? To some folks, yes.
Sailorcurt -
If they thought there rights where being violat by the law, file a law suite chalinging the law as unconstitusional and push it threw the courts. Don't poke the bears and act the ass.
FYI - if a law is passed it is the law until a higher court strikes it down.
So, if they brought the gun into the library and there is a law on the books saying not to do that they broke the law. Period and should be prosecuted.
If as it sound the library was braking the laws file suit aganst the library or the city if it is a city ordinance for violating your civil rights. Stili no need to bring the gun into the library to do that.
We don't get to choose which laws we follow and which we don't, and nether should they.
No where in any of there action did they help the cause, and they probable did just for the attension.
My point is stil valid. If they did this to prove a point, they need a boot up their ass.
Josh
Also if they where arrested that is money wasted on there defence which could be spent in better ways.
Well, you're entitled to your opinions...even when they're wrong.
You're opinions are based on your feelings about it.
The facts simply don't support you.
I would add a rule on the open carry issue, which refers to the photo of the OCer that was in Breda's article.
Never open carry with your gun on your back hip where any idiot can grab it and take it from you.
Other than that, it was a good article over there and here as well.
Oh just to add something here, all this talk of filing law suits and have the courts decide what is what? That is just wrong on so many levels.
I agree that one shouldn't walk into a library with a shotgun legal or illegal, it's stupid.
However, having courts decide what should or shouldn't be law is a disaster. First of all, it's not their job to decide what the law is, or is not.
Courts render opinions on what they think the law says. Law should be objective, not based on opinion alone.
This idea that if you don't like a law bring a suit is in part, what is wrong with this country. Want an example? See Federal Govt. vs. Arizona, Roe v. Wade, etc.
Granted, there are times when suits are necessary; but I really don't like the idea of a court serving as a legislature, which is the untended outcome of a court system that is over-used.
Sailercurt -
If you going to play the fact card state them or you are just waisting my time.
Of course you idiots goto court more often as your getting charged with braking a law.
If thats how you want to spend your time say hight to Buba. I'm sure he's going to want to make friends with you.
My point is you don't have to break it to chalnge a laws legality.
Seeing as you want to spend the money on your defence why not just donate it to one of the gun rights groups and save your self some jail time.
:-)
Josh
I agree the law makers should make sure when they pass a law that it follows The US Constitusion and the State Constitusions. But that is not always the case. Our only defense agains an unjust laws is to chalenge them in the courts.
Two avenues of ack are: one vote in people that will follow the constitusion and two challenge bad laws in court.
I to like option one better.
Josh
Where they assaulting the library? Where they expecting the library to be assaulted?
Why would you need a shotgun in a lbrary to repel a roving band of book theives?
You forgot to add in the obligatory 'compensating for the size of their penis' jab.
Keep up those lines of reasoning and you'll get an invite to the next Brady campaign function.
I'd like to gently suggest that we are, in fact, all on the same side. People have opinions that they hold passionately. Let's not let that passion fracture our side.
We don't have to agree on everything, but let's not start casting out heretics.
Let's keep the discussion non-personal.
Sorry, I shouldn't have been throwing the idiot tag around so much.
But there is no purpose for caring the shotgun into the library.
Other than to make a point and to make people uncomfortable. Which is rude, and I can't stand rudeness.
I did not say it should be illegal for them to do so. If they have legitimate business with a thought for other.
If a guy walks into a library with a shot gun and doesn't appear to have business there, I going to keep an eye on him or ask him to leave.
By acting the ass you make us all look bad. (That was a genral statemnt of conduct not directed at anyone.)
Josh
Facts?
The blog is Breda's. She gets to set the parameters of discussion and tone. Don't like it? Don't post. Go somewhere else. Like she said. Go post your own blog.
Breda had a valuable point of view and wanted to make her points which she did in a most appropriate way.
She does not have to answer to people who think they have to man the barricades so that future generations of idiots who think carrying a shotgun into a library is a good idea or appropriate for whatever reason.
I am 60 yrs old and have been standing up for our second amendment rights all my life. Open carry taken to extremes is absurd and only makes us look like nuts.
I support open carry and have considered joining in that effort. I just have the sense to know that packing a gun openly is not always wise nor prudent. Discretion is called for. Our communities are not combat zones at all places. I think Concealed Carry is available to just about all of us and is both socially and tactically superior.
It is not Breda's fault that she is just ignorant, nor Joshkie's -
Where they assaulting the library? Where they expecting the library to be assaulted?
WTF! F'N Morons.
Josh
Google, Bing, or whatever your poison is, "bloomingdale library rape" you just might catch a clue.
WTF do you expect those library patrons >=18 to <21 to store their long arms between their cars and the front door?
There are those who are dumb because they cannot learn.
There are those who are ignorant because they did not know.
And there are those who are stupid because they can learn but refuse.
Druid- expect them to carie an appropriate carry weapon.
When innocent bystanders are around you might want to be selective in your choice of defensive weapon.
Which I beleave a shot gun is not one. If you have a shot gun with you and you don't have a carry piece. You don't feel comfortable leaving the shottie in th car trunk. Or don't have car because you are walking. You do have the right to go in and do business in the library with your guns.
Just going in to make a point and test a rule or a law is stupid and makes you look like an ass.
With people like this making decisions, I can understand why some would feel uncomfortable in the presence of some with a gun.
Josh
BorePatch -
I might of called some an idiot or called in to question how smart their actions where. I might have said some are acting like ass', but I at lest made a arguement for why I feel that way.
Others seem to just like making blank statements and treating them like fact. If they have an arguement for why they feel I'm ignorant or wrong I would be open to hear their thoughts.
Josh
I googled "bloomingdale library rape" and it is an emotional and heart breaking story.
I'm not sure what lesson I'm supposed to learn.
Is it that she was 18 could not carry a pistol. Then we need to change the law for any adult to be able to carry.
I'm not sure what use a shotgun or even a pistol is in one on one personal encounter in hand to hand range. Maybe there is a more appropriate tool (mace) or skill set to use (MA/SD) in that kind of situation.
We do have a right to defend ourselves. A gun is not always the best way to do that, and doesn't insure your safety.
If we're googling things here's one: shot with own gun.
Josh
Druid, let me again point out that we're on the same side. We all want the same thing - re-normalization of gun ownership. We all want to see the end to, say, restrictions on 18 year olds.
The issue is tactics.
I'm a firm believer that when dealing with non gun owners, the best advice is to embody the saying "An armed society is a polite society." This is even more important when doing OC.
Because then we start getting the message through to those who fear guns through ignorance. They will begin to realize that the nice guy they saw in the Library isn't a threat.
Josh, NP. I'm glad to see a spirited discussion. People hold their beliefs with passion - this is a very good sign for our side.
Wow. You just used a phallic comparison. Just like the anti's. Go fugg yourself. I'm seriously finished reading the "gun rights advocates association of NRA negotiate our rights away" crowd. The entire bunch of you can continue your sausage fest without me. Publishing and then hitting the little red x in the corner.
And Smith and Wesson sux.
Anon, re-read my post carefully please. I was discussing motivations. If you open carry and are NOT motivated to convince the great undecided middle, then why do it?
Isn't OC a political statement? Isn't politics aimed at convincing people to come around to your side?
I'm quite frankly mystified why anyone would go to the bother (and risk) to OC if they WEREN'T motivated by this. Nothing esle makes sense.
Wow. I read some of the comments on Breda's site, but don't have posting privileges there. Of the comment here I'll say sailorcurt comes closest to my position. There are a couple of things I'll say "Up Front".
Yes OC'ers should be polite, erudite, educated on the law and even "well-dressed" since this IS a perception battle.
That said, the whole "Why do you NEED a shotgun in the library?" smacks of the antis whine of "Why do you need a gun at all?".
Brash (and mispelled) posts of putting "boots" in "asses" is counter productive as well as annoying.
Yup we ALL get emotional and may use words that on reflection were inappropriate to calm and reasoned thought. A more dispassionate (and likely more accurate) account might have addressed the young person's handling of the shotgun; slung? "brandished"? I don't know; and STILL don't know from the comments or other accounts.
Anyone remember the young man with the AR outside the Obama rally in AZ? The "news coverage" and "commentary" on that one?
A line from a favorite movie goes something like "We're all growing donkey ears here, let's go home before we really get stupid"
Good advice.
Oh, full disclosure; I regularly OC'd and participated in OC events in VA. I consider VCDL to be easily the finest civil liberties organization I've ever had the privilege of associating with.
OC can be - or be used as - a "political statement" to be sure. But as for "otherwise why do it?" the answer is pretty simple; if OC is the only way one can legally carry (such as when I was on temporary assignment in VA and my VA CCW permit had expired) then one either OC's, goes unarmed or violates the law. The latter two were equally unappealing to me.
What I found OC'ing was that I HAD to be ready to respond civilly, accurately and repeatedly to the reactions of others. It takes a good deal of effort to do this well and I greatly respect those who do so.
Boat guy- you and others seem to be pick and choose what to focus on, and I'm sorry if my spelling is not up to your standards. And, you believe that my spelling "is counter productive as well as annoying." I find this ironic.
Joshkie - (this was brash and made with snark.)
"Where they assaulting the library? Where they expecting the library to be assaulted?
Why would you need a shotgun in a lbrary to repel a roving band of book theives?
If they where doing this just to prove the point that it was legal, they need a boot up their ass.
WTF! F'N Morons.
Josh
Ps. As they are walking aound with shotguns I would launch that boot from a potato gun from distance, because I'm not a moron."
The central them of of my post was this, and noticed the use of the word if. "If they where doing this just to prove the point that it was legal, they need a boot up their ass."
Since you and others are stuck on my wording in the first comment let me repost this reply and clarification.
"Druid- expect them to carie an appropriate carry weapon.
When innocent bystanders are around you might want to be selective in your choice of defensive weapon.
Which I beleave a shot gun is not one. If you have a shot gun with you and you don't have a carry piece. You don't feel comfortable leaving the shottie in th car trunk. Or don't have car because you are walking. You do have the right to go in and do business in the library with your guns.
Just going in to make a point and test a rule or a law is stupid and makes you look like an ass.
With people like this making decisions, I can understand why some would feel uncomfortable in the presence of some with a gun."
And,
"Then we need to change the law for any adult to be able to carry.
I'm not sure what use a shotgun or even a pistol is in one on one personal encounter in hand to hand range. Maybe there is a more appropriate tool (mace) or skill set to use (MA/SD) in that kind of situation.
We do have a right to defend ourselves. A gun is not always the best way to do that, and doesn't insure your safety.
If we're googling things here's one: shot with own gun."
So this is my position,
Josh
Boat Guy that was my point too. We need to work on changing the laws and presenting ourselves in a good light.
So we agree on that.
Josh
Post a Comment