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.
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.
Yes.
February 17th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
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.
February 17th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
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.
February 17th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
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…
February 17th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
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.
February 17th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
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.
February 17th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Amen Robb.
February 17th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
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.
B
February 17th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
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.
February 17th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
“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?
February 17th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
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.
February 17th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Thank you for the complement….Some guy…
February 17th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
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…
February 17th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Yes, because me saying that maybe some guy shouldn’t carry a shotgun in a library is exactly like me wanting to ban guns.
February 17th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
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….
February 17th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
False dichotomy.
February 17th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
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…
February 17th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
“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.
NukemJim
*By the way to refuse to consider an idea from a different group is a quite common and strong form of prejudice. NJ
February 17th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
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…
February 17th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
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.
February 17th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
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!
February 17th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Well said Bill… I am for cw and oc.. EQUALLY!
February 17th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
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.
February 17th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
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).
February 17th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
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.
February 17th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Barron knows what he’s talk about, and so does Jeff Cooper:
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:
February 17th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
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.
February 18th, 2011 at 12:02 am
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.
February 18th, 2011 at 12:51 am
Tango,
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.
February 18th, 2011 at 2:00 am
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.
February 18th, 2011 at 10:21 am
Barron,
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.