Ammo For Sale

« « Shoot to reset | Home | Because when you normalize OC » »

More on Michigan OCers taking shotguns to libraries

Labrat wonders if they’re high.

Sebastian notes there could be something to it:

OTOH, if the folks who are engaging in attention seeking behavior now need to up the ante to rifles, because pistols just don’t grab attention like they used to, maybe there is something to the OC theory.

Good point.

More discussion at Robb’s.

And, finally, Melody brings it:

In order to get open carry back, you need to normalize open carry all over again. In order to do that, you need to make as little of a deal of it as possible. In other words, in order to normalize open carry TRY ACTUALLY LOOKING NORMAL. Be polite. Be kind. Be unobtrusive. Be so normal that when people notice the gun they don’t assume you’re a criminal. Do it enough and open carry will be normal again, instead of just being a recognized right.


30 Responses to “More on Michigan OCers taking shotguns to libraries”

  1. HardC0rps Says:

    1. The analogies with the gays isn’t quite the same because they were practicing civil disobedience to laws, carry long guns is only an offensive marketing tactic. If you want to open carry a pistol in Chicago and New York, we’d all be on board with that.

    2. 18-21 y/o. Same situation. If someone is so concerned with their personal safety and rights, they can open carry a pistol under 21.

    3. Long guns are not effective self-defense weapons. You can’t even walk properly with them. I know because I carried one for 6 years in the Marine Corps. Not even cops carry long guns on them, and they are the people actively confronting other humans, where OCers are just strolling along their merry way, apparently in such little danger they can sit and read a book in a library.

  2. Barron Barnett Says:

    Traffic stops are one of the most dangerous situations for police officers. They don’t walk up to your car with a long gun despite the statistical probability that if they need to use a weapon during their career it will most likely be during a traffic stop.

    Long guns are for use when you know that you’re entering a hostile situation. Pistols are for the unexpected.

    While I wont immediately engage someone I see carrying a long arm openly, despite what people say, my ass is going to Orange. There are three possibilities, two of which can result in my death.
    1)The know of a danger that I do not.
    2)They are there to do harm to others.
    3)They are expressing their capability of force.

    #3 is why supposedly there’s officers carrying rifles on trains. Why do you see officers with AR’s in airports? It’s a show of force. This expression of force by a civilian is what causes problems and discomfort.

    ND’s happen because of unnecessary handling of firearms, I can put my holster on and leave it on. Constantly slinging and slinging a long arm, you could end up muzzling someone, and you have to handle it. Most officers who have long arms leave them in the car, and resort to them when necessary. They don’t sling them up and carry them everywhere. Unless they’re creating a show of force, or know something is going down.

    I have yet to hear a solid argument of why carrying a long arm is necessary or a good idea. All I have heard is “it’s my right to do so”, and while that may be, it’s not necessarily a good idea.

    Yes, Melody nailed the whole thing on the head.

  3. John Smith. Says:

    TRY ACTUALLY LOOKING NORMAL??? You mean average? Then I should shop at walmart for ill fitting clothes in tasteless metrosexual styles… I feel normal just pondering that nightmare. I would have to wear makeup and get plastic surgery to make me uglier so I could be normal… Maybe start drinking beer and get a nascar flag for the front lawn. Lets not forget to cut my hair in some fag cut and shave off my beard.. Maybe some skin bleaching to make me into a white person. Almost forgot the sensitivity training… That is a must have. Then I could sponser a boyscout troop and sing kumbaya around a fire… So basically I should pretend to be someone I am not in order to exercise my legal rights…

    All that to carry open so I do not hurt someones peelings because I look big meanie an scawwry…. Poor babies…

  4. Jake Says:

    HardC0rps: You’re right, the analogy isn’t quite the same, but it’s still applicable. The civil disobedience* was in addition to the “marketing” to the general public.

    Sebastian’s quote in Uncle’s post is really the heart of it – and why I say the “in your face” strategy is valid when combined with the “don’t scare the straights” strategy. People will be shocked and offended by the simple carrying of long guns in public, no matter what, until they have seen it enough that it’s no longer shocking. This is what has happened with OC of pistols in many places.

    What has to be remembered is that it is possible (and necessary) to be “in your face” while being courteous and polite at the same time. The presence of the long gun is the “in your face” part all by itself, so there is no need for additional attention-getting behaviour.

    The additional benefit is that, to those who are shocked or offended by seeing a long gun openly carried in public, an openly carried sidearm can suddenly seem less significant. Just like someone who sees one of the gay “kiss-ins” or the over-the-top pride parades is less likely to think of seeing John and Joe walking through the mall holding hands as significant. It’s just not as shocking anymore after seeing more much more blatant behaviour.

    * Of course, at the time, simply having a relationship at all, even privately, was “civil disobedience”, because any homosexual act at all was a felony, even if it was in private.

  5. Robb Allen Says:

    I’m tiring of this subject because 99.9% of the people scared out of their comfortable panties seem to be gun owners who simply do not approve of someone else doing something they do not like in a way they wouldn’t do it.

    I guess I’m a bit more sensitive to this because I’m trying to get Open Carry legalized here in Florida, and I’ve heard the exact same arguments on why we shouldn’t have OC as are being used against the guy with the shotgun.

    “Openly carrying a firearm *scares* people!!!!!!”
    “The only reason you would carry a pistol on your hip is to be ‘in your face’ about it”
    “We won’t gain rights if people rock the boat too much!”

    The Open Carry event we had where the guy carried the AR-Pistol strapped to his back? We had more conversations started because of that. Nobody saw our pistols on our hips. And while one elderly lady freaked out about it, SB 234 is *still* slated to pass out of committee next week.

    Acting like an asshole is bad. Simply having a firearm that other people don’t agree with is NOT automatically asshole-behavior.

  6. REB Says:

    Amen Robb.

  7. Barron Barnett Says:

    Robb, I’m tiring of it as well because this seems to have flown from a “Don’t be a dick” discussion to a “why can’t we carry long arms” discussion. I never said you can’t, I just don’t think it’s worth it, and can end up costing more than it’s worth. Which is the main vibe I’m getting the more comments I actually read from those “anti-open carriers”. I’m glad in your case it paid out.
    My main issue is many of the “rabid” it’s my right dammit crowd, is that they’re not always polite or courteous but is instead rude and insolent when people are upset by them carrying a firearm. Instead of having a polite discussion and trying to educate the individual and tame fear, the just talk down to them. Spouting about how it’s their right and to get over it. Teaching is selling, and we’re selling open carry, if you are brash and rude though you’re not teaching, you’re being a dick. Someone who may have never even seen someone open carry a pistol carrying a rifle is going to be like tossing a frog in a pot of boiling water. If you can’t accept the frog is going to freak out, and be willing to take the time to calm the frog down patiently, you shouldn’t be doing it. You also need to expect to be dealing with the biased media after causing the frog to freak out.


  8. Some Guy Says:

    As long as the assholes like John Smith are the face the media portray for gun rights, we will be looked down on by reasonable people who otherwise would be on our side. Constitutional right or not, guys who go around yelling, “IT’S MY RIGHT TO CARRY THIS SHOTGUN IN CHURCH!” make us look like loons. We have to try that much harder to demonstrate how safe and responsible we are with firearms.

  9. REB Says:

    “My main issue is many of the “rabid” it’s my right dammit crowd, is that they’re not always polite or courteous but is instead rude and insolent when people are upset by them carrying a firearm.”

    Can you point to an incident where something like this occurred?

  10. REB Says:

    Some Guy,
    Your language and behavior is not exactly going to win any hearts and minds either and it isn’t making me be proud to be on the same side of the 2A fence as you.

  11. John Smith. Says:

    Thank you for the complement….Some guy…

  12. John Smith. Says:

    Here is a bit of juicy irony. Quite a few of the ccw people here treat the oc people the exact same way the anti-gun/anti-ccw bunch treats the ccw crowd.. CCW’s in bars for instance…

    Guess the old adage is right. Imitation really is the the ultimate form of flattery…

  13. SayUncle Says:

    Quite a few of the ccw people here treat the oc people the exact same way the anti-gun/anti-ccw bunch treats the ccw crowd.

    Yes, because me saying that maybe some guy shouldn’t carry a shotgun in a library is exactly like me wanting to ban guns.

  14. John Smith. Says:

    The anti gun people also believe you should not carry in a library… That puts you on their side….

    You have two choices of which side to be on either pro or anti… I would not be caught dead supporting the same thing as an anti-gunner… Makes you seem wishy washy. That would be like me saying I am pro gun in “certain” situations but not in others.. Part time pro-gunners are what most people call politicians….

  15. SayUncle Says:

    False dichotomy.

  16. John Smith. Says:

    Only when it isn’t true… There are exceptions to most rules…. Sort of like honest politicians and generous bankers… Oh and pro gun, pro ccw, pro oc, anti oc at certain places, pro shotgun, anti shotgun if it is in a library or restaurant…

  17. NukemJim Says:

    “You have two choices of which side to be on either pro or anti…” Written by someone with either extemely little imagination, knowledge of history, interpersonal skills or all of the above. Many problems have more than two sides.

    ” I would not be caught dead supporting the same thing as an anti-gunner…” That is a realy INTERESTING way to choose a position on a subject. I will take a good idea wherever it comes from regardless of source*.
    Myself, I prefer thinking to choose my positions, but hey to each their own.

    *By the way to refuse to consider an idea from a different group is a quite common and strong form of prejudice. NJ

  18. John Smith. Says:

    So jim you have actually considered banning all weapons an ammunition and seizing the weapons away from american citizens by force is necessary??

    Is it prejudice that I refuse to consider such things???
    Is it prejudice I believe in obeying the law???

    Some things are not worth consideration.

    You opened the door jim…

  19. mike w. Says:

    The anti gun people also believe you should not carry in a library… That puts you on their side….
    The anti’s want to use the force of law to PROHIBIT carry. If you can’t see the difference between that and pro-gun folks saying that it might not be the best way to further your cause from an activism standpoint I don’t know if I can help you.

    Seriously, I haven’t seen Unc, Breda, myself or any other pro-gun bloggers saying OC in public libraries should be illegal. Not one. In fact, I am damn sure Breda would like to see both OC and CCW become legal in public libraries nationwide.

  20. Bill Says:

    Breda would like it as long as it didn’t involve long guns, I assume?

    I’m sorry, I still don’t understand why OC of a long gun is more offensive to anyone than OC of a handgun. The effective range of a shotgun and pistol are similar, so the effective ability to wound or kill is the same. Why is one worse than the other.

    Put another way, why are black guns worse than hunting rifles? To the MSM, its because of the way they look!

    Its the same thing here, a long gun LOOKS more dangerous than a pistol?

    Come on guys, there is NO difference.

    Being upset about this is ridiculous. Carry what is legal to carry where you are carrying. People will eventually figure it out. There will be MSM yelping, but even they will get over it.

    I do agree that being polite and appropriate while doing so will help. Being dressed in clean clothes that don’t look like you are a gangster or otherwise a threat helps too.

    BUT…if we can’t make people here get it, there is NO chance that those who aren’t involved in the 2nd Amendment struggle will!

  21. John Smith. Says:

    Well said Bill… I am for cw and oc.. EQUALLY!

  22. Rob K Says:

    You know, everyone’s thinking of this in terms of carrying for self-defense, but I think we need to look at it from a different perspective. Say Johnny is on his way home from school, where he has participated in his schools rifle team practice (say it’s 1921 when that was still possible). As he’s walking home, Johnny needs to stop by the library to get a couple of books. Is anyone at the library going to freak out because Johnny has his rifle with him? No one (sensible) would have thought that odd.

  23. REB Says:

    Rob K

    I wouldn’t find it odd, I would commend the kid for safe handling (assuming it applied). I know as recently as the 50’s in Connecticut there were places where youths could walk through the center of town on their way to go shooting or hunting with rifles and shotguns slung and the worst reaction they would get is an officer checking to make sure they were carrying safely (chamber open).

  24. Bill Says:

    In a sign of how far we have fallen, even some 2A “believers” seem to be intimidated by the fact that someone is carrying a long gun in an unexpected place.

    Its a weapon folks, regardless of how it looks. This is so reminiscent of the attitudes of some of the main stream gun media to black rifles, except directed at open carry.

    It really should NOT be a big deal. Period. He chose to carry a long gun instead of a pistol, period. Statement or not, it still doesn’t change the fact.

    As believers in the 2nd Amendment, many of us carry a pistol because it is convenient, he chose to carry a shotgun because carrying a pistol was inconvenient under the winter circumstances and the laws of that place.

    There is more in the blogosphere about this incident than in the MSM, and too many 2A supporters are freaked about it. It makes NO sense.

  25. HardC0rps Says:

    Barron knows what he’s talk about, and so does Jeff Cooper:

    “The practical use of the pistol is a study equally applicable to male and female, since it is conceptually defensive. In these days of aggressive feminism, women are often expected to be unprotected by men, and thus should be able to protect themselves. Consequently it is not difficult to motivate most women to educate themselves in practical pistolcraft. With the rifle the matter is somewhat difficult since the rifle is an offensive weapon. If you stop fights with a pistol, you start fights with a rifle – or that is the theory. Thus it is not always easy to encourage a woman to study the rifle. Killing things is not exactly ladylike, and while ladies are out of fashion in today’s culture, they still exist, and thank God for that. A woman may enjoy shooting a rifle, not because it is a killing instrument but because it is fun, and rifle shooting is fun. It is important, however, to be sure that a woman should not be introduced to the rifle unless she clearly and distinctly wishes to be. If she does not have a natural drive in that direction, forget it.

    Long Gun= Offensive weapon
    Pistol = Defensive weapon

    To those educated in the combat arts will continue to view these temper-tantrums with contempt.

    And please, it’s like ohh this woman just chose to wear a thong bikini to the grocery store in the middle of winter in michigan. Though obviously discomforted by the choice of accessory to display in public, she whined “why doesn’t anyone support me?”

    “he chose to carry a shotgun because carrying a pistol was inconvenient under the winter circumstances” <– hahahahah, no one believes that.

    "..make sure they were carrying safely (chamber open)"
    wow! From the same letters Cooper addresses this fallacy:

    This preoccupation with safety in gunhandling has assumed truly ridiculous proportions. I have been associated with personal firearms, both in and out of the service, for all my life, and so-called negligent discharges have never been any sort of a problem. (There is no such thing as an “accidental discharge.” If a weapon is fired inadvertently, somebody has violated at least one of the four basic rules – and usually more than one.) Safety is an illusion, since life itself is not safe. We avoid hurting ourselves, or each other, insofar as this is practicable, but when we redouble our efforts after having lost sight of our goal, we become ridiculous. I have worked with thousands of fighting men, all of whom were armed with deadly weapons, and I never saw a reason to place safety above efficiency. In the first place, it cannot be done. And in the second place, it should not be attempted.

  26. Bill Says:

    Hmmm….millions of soldiers who used their rifles as defensive weapons must be wrong then. The guys at the Alamo, used rifles. The guys defending at Gettysburg, used rifles. The guys in the trenches during both wars, used rifles.

    An old marine once said, “My pistol is my defensive weapon for as long as it takes me to reach my rifle.”

    For most of the history of firearms, pistols have been nothing more than curiosities, and often considered inadequate in every way. Real men carried rifles, period. For the Founders, pistols were inferior at best. At the time, they were relegated to very specific uses: duals, or assasins at close range, etc. That was because they were considered unreliable.

    Only in the last 125 years or so has the pistol reached a status where people consider it reliable enough for defense, and even then, only when a rifle wasn’t available for most of that.

    The argument that rifles are offensive weapons and pistols defensive is a poor analogy, even if espoused by the sainted Colonel Cooper, because it simply is not so.

  27. Tango Says:

    Bill, because every conflict you listed either used long distance fighting or RIFLES ARE ALL THEY HAD. A pistol is notoriously crappy at long distance shooting. However, if you look at modern conflicts from WWII on, pistols were had by many members of the military when they could.

  28. Bill Says:


    Please show me a single instance where, given a choice for self defense, someone CHOSE to use a pistol over a rifle.

    No one WANTED a pistol for self defense, its why the M1 carbine became so popular, and why the Thompson survived into Vietnam.

    We choose them because sidearms are more convenient, but anyone, even today, given the choice between the two, and recognizing that they would have NO choice but need it, would choose a carbine or rifle, a long gun.

    For actual defense, there is no comparison.

    Or as the Texas Sheriff replied when asked by a wealthy matron if he expected trouble and thats why he wore a pistol, “No Ma’am, if I EXPECTED trouble I’d be carrying a rifle.”

    We carry sidearms because we don’t expect trouble, but want some measure of protection regardless.

    If you expect trouble, you want a long arm.

  29. John Smith. Says:

    You are quite correct Bill. Pistols are indeed a last ditch weapon when everything else has failed and death was just a short distance away.. Mere dangerous toys… I will take a paratrooper Fn fal over a pistol any day of the week… Of course I would take just about any rifle this side of chauchat over a pistol.

  30. Laughingdog Says:


    You forgot reason #4 for walking into a place with a long gun slung on their shoulder.

    It’s less likely to be stolen from me than from the back of my car.

    A large part of any open-carry is about appearance and context. If I walked in with a shotgun slung on my shoulder while being clean-shaven and reasonably well dressed, I’m much more likely to get a “well that’s odd” response than if I do the same with messy hair, sloppy clothes, and a beard. The former hints a bit too much at Unibomber.

    But, realistically, if you want to OC a long gun to make a point about gun rights, it’s a lot more effective to do it as part of an organized gun rights event.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges