Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer
About police again - we've found that if the gun is handled by someone who seems competent, less negative ideation is primed. However, a citizen carrying at a rally is an unknown and if seen as inappropriate - may not be trusted.
Precisely. The point I was trying to make is that if perhaps over time enough people openly carry without acts of violence occurring, then the private citizen may eventually lose the distrust of the public at large. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that if the public becomes accustomed to law-abiding citizens with firearms, they'll likely lose a great deal of their fear. Familiarity breeds comfort.
The issue needs to be brought to the public's attention - our discussion is what is persuasive.
Unfortunately, the mainstream media seems unwilling to allow us any positive coverage. Our discussion is not persuasive at all if no one outside the "choir" hears it. By displaying our firearms in a peaceful manner at high profile events, we bring our argument to the forefront of the public's awareness.
For example, to return to education - in our department newsletter about our research and activities - we have the picture of me at the Polite Society, with a Glock, protecting a baby in a scenario. Thus, quite a few young people will see a responsible educator who is a gun user.
Exactly, we need to represent private use of firearms is a positive light. Perhaps through the public seeing responsible citizens openly carrying at high profile events such as Presidential Town Halls without the death and destruction that the anti's always predict, we can do this.
Originally posted by Wildalaska
Our cultural norms reinforce that hardwiring of our brains. Time and place of weapon display is part of that hard wiring, since under certain circumstances, a display of weaponry is not seen as a threat. Witness the chimpanzee just holding the branch, or showing its fangs in a non threat environment.
You're missing my point. I think that if the public becomes accustomed to seeing private citizens with firearms, then their mere presence when not used in a threatening manner will eventually cease to be viewed as a threat.
Quote:
And yet Ken there were times in our countries past that the sight of a firearm in public did not provoke said response since it was a big part of life at that time
Wrong again....time and place
Quote:
Ah, but merely having a weapon is not the same as threatening someone with it.
Wrong again...time and place....
WA, again I think you're missing the point. Because there was indeed a time and place where the mere sight of a weapon, so long as it was not used in a threatening manner, did not provoke fear, we must conclude that weapon=fear isn't hardwired into the human brain. While the presence of weapons does intimidate the public here and now, the fact that this is a conditioned response rather than an instict shows that it can be reversed. If the public becomes accustomed to private citizens bearing arms without the "wild west shootouts" and "blood running in the streets" that the anti's have predicted for years, eventually the mere presence of a weapon will cease to represent a threat.
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildalaska
Wrong again....time and place
To be sure however does "who" enter into your equation?
That brings up another key point. Intimidation is not necessarily a bad thing so long as the right people are intimidated. For example, the Secret Service openly carrying submachineguns and assault rifles at Presidential events
is partly meant to intimidate certain people. The key here lies in
who they're trying to intimidate. As a law abiding citizen, I am not intimidated by the police or USSS openly carrying weapons because I know that they won't be used on me. However, those who would consider trying to harm the President most likely are intimidated by display of these weapons as they know that they'll likely be on the wrong end of them should they attempt to carry out their violent intentions. This intimidation, I think, is intentional on the part of the police and USSS.
As private citizens, what we ultimately want is for only those who wish us harm to be intimidated by our weapons. This concept obviously worked for Mr. Kostric as the thug in the youtube video, upon seeing Mr. Kostric's gun, decided to take his assaults elsewhere. Kostric's gun being present and visible acted as a deterrent and helped to prevent a situation in which it's use might have become neccessary.
Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer
This is a variant of the popular mantra that a gun is a tool and the choir chortles. However, those outside the choir see them as instruments of lethal force.
Incestous choir chatter is not helpful in convincing the general public. Research on decision making clearly shows that group think and failure to take the perspective of others leads to poor analysis.
While singing to the choir does little real good other than make some of us feel better, If we can persuade those outside the choir that a gun is just a tool, then we have something powerful.
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
So, how then do you gun toters engender the same attitude within our civilian non-gun toting brethern? I suspect it will be a long process but is it plausible to have civilians wearing firearms openly where others will not be afraid (other than crooks)? Or will we need to keep them concealed for the near term?
In short, we need to do both. We need the open carriers so that the public will become familiar with them and ultimately lose their fear, but we also need the concealed carriers so that the crooks will never know for sure who has a gun and who doesn't (thusly being intimidated by everyone).
Originally posted by Hkmp5sd
Quote:
To state that the private person carrying a gun is not threatening to some and that the government employee carrying the gun is more threatening is not really useful. That is an interpretation of the poster.
In fact, I think it is the "government employee" that decreases the fear of the firearm in the general public. Seeing an LEO with a gun or a soldier with a gun doesn't really bother people because they grew up seeing them. It is a common, everyday event. Cops are everywhere. Soldiers are in most parades and sporting events. Both are all over television and the movies. Watch children around a uniformed LEO the next time you see one and their eyes will be glued to the gun. It is something they are unfamiliar with and are intrigued by, but there is no fear.
Seeing hundreds of re-enactors with black powder guns doesn't raise a hair because of their attire. The same with seeing a cowboy at a theme park. It is something we are very used to.
In most states, we never see a civilian walking around with a sidearm. As such, they are going to attract attention and intimidate those around them just by their presence.
While it will be a long process, if we can make OC common enough eventually the public will become accustomed to it in the say way they are to Military and LE. Remember, openly armed police weren't always accepted by the public (the NYPD did not openly carry handguns until just a little over 100 years ago) but unless someone starts a trend, it will never be accepted.
). 
).