Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Open carry experiment on TV

  1. #1
    Regular Member Eeyore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    on the move
    Posts
    558

    Open carry experiment on TV

    Sorry I can't find a direct link to the video:

    http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/...ocal-news.html

    No surprises: most people don't notice, those who do quickly realize there's no threat, the police chief is opposed.

    The big take-away from this experiment, IMHO, is that a gun is only one part of a subconscious threat assessment people automatically make. The presence or absence of erratic, violent, or obnoxious behavior is a much larger factor for whether or not people get worried. Thus, open carry by people who are obviously just peacefully going about their business is quickly analyzed as non-threatening by the majority of people.

    My theory is that the vast majority of MWAG calls are made by people who believe "they shouldn't be allowed to do that" (value judgment/personal opinion, like the last woman in the video) rather than people who have genuinely assessed the OCer as a threat.
    Guns don't kill people. Drivers on cell phones do.

  2. #2
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279


    To copy a youtube video link, just right click on the video, a box will appear then left click on the video address.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,202
    Unless the old media is harping how bad guns are must people don.t notice, don't care or think it is just fine.

    Making a non story into a story.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  4. #4
    Regular Member Vader33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    Unless the old media is harping how bad guns are must people don.t notice, don't care or think it is just fine.

    Making a non story into a story.
    I think it's quite the opposite. Here in Colorado I think the consensus is different in the wake of what happened in Aurora and at Arapahoe HS. We need more people who are willing to OC in public to set the standard and to let the public know that, "Hey, I'm a regular guy/gal and I'm OC'ing to protect myself and those around me from any kind of threat."

    I think the woman in the restaurant who was uneasy about the OC was naive in the sense that she may have thought that everyone who carries a gun on their belt, unless their LE, is a criminal and/or a madman.

    I had this same discussion with my mom a while back when I told her I bought my first gun and that I can and do openly carry it. Her first thought was that I would be arrested and that seeing someone with a gun in public automatically meant he/she was about to commit a crime. After a quick lesson on the laws of OC in my state and assuring her that there are many more good guys than bad guys, she settled down and it's become a non-issue.

    Bottom line, we need more instances of this type of experiment to show the public that OC is not only legal, but overall makes the public safer.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Vader33 View Post
    I'm pretty sure the Bible never mentioned anyone in America had a right to beat arms. I hate when people refer to the 2A as a "God given right." It makes them sound ignorant.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    The Bill of Rights enumerates (counts them out) the unalienable natural rights of the Declaration of Independence endowed by our Creator.

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    The natural law right to life is the natural law right to defense of ones life.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vader33 View Post
    Bottom line, we need more instances of this type of experiment to show the public that OC is not only legal, but overall makes the public safer.
    No disrespect, but I think you need to spend a little time understanding our American history and learn and understand the differences between rights and privileges. And where those rights came from.

    This should be a good starting point.
    “Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong.”
    “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

  6. #6
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    No disrespect, but I think you need to spend a little time understanding our American history and learn and understand the differences between rights and privileges. And where those rights came from.

    This should be a good starting point.
    Inasmuch as none of your "Quotes" appears in this thread, I'm curious as to what thread you purloined the from. It makes things a bit confusing when members quotes are imported from elsewhere. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    Inasmuch as none of your "Quotes" appears in this thread, I'm curious as to what thread you purloined the from. It makes things a bit confusing when members quotes are imported from elsewhere. Pax...
    If you click on the blue and white arrow next to posters name in the quote, it will take you right to their actual post where the quote came from. I hope this helps.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Originally Posted by Vader33

    I'm pretty sure the Bible never mentioned anyone in America had a right to beat arms. I hate when people refer to the 2A as a "God given right." It makes them sound ignorant.
    I'll just skip over the "right to beat arms" thing, and go directly to the "hate" and "sound of ignorance" parts... 2A per se, is not "God-given"! What 2A is, is simply the formalized, documented acknowledgement and affirmation of a God-given/natural right. It is the concept of a "right to keep and bear arms" that is "God-given", not the confirmation of that right by placing it upon paper. A "God-given/natural" right exists on it's own... without the paperwork. When people do not understand the difference between the two, it makes them sound ignorant. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Open carry experiment on TV

    IMO, the RKBA is not a GGONIYP right. It is an enumerated and protected right.

    The GGONIYP right is the right to defend oneself.

    BTW, was that enough acronyms for ya?

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
    <O>
    Last edited by eye95; 01-02-2014 at 04:25 PM.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Stafford, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    Unless the old media is harping how bad guns are must people don.t notice, don't care or think it is just fine.

    Making a non story into a story.
    I thought it was a pretty good story. The reporters were pretty neutral and the cop was wound a little tight (but he has his job to do.)

    I thought it was interesting that 6 of the 8 people interviewed about their thoughs on carrying had carry permits.

  11. #11
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    there were a few things in the story that caught my attention.

    first one was "it is legal to carry, if you are 21". please correct me if i am wrong, but i thought you could carry at 18in PA

    second; i really wonder what they thought would happen? a bit pleased they gave a run down of different people. they really had to look for the one person that was against. she seemed not to be against just surprised you don't need a permit.

    i would love to see this done at other places. might even be a good bit for "what would you do". though i think MSNBC would try and twist it.
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Vader33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    I'll just skip over the "right to beat arms" thing, and go directly to the "hate" and "sound of ignorance" parts... 2A per se, is not "God-given"! What 2A is, is simply the formalized, documented acknowledgement and affirmation of a God-given/natural right. It is the concept of a "right to keep and bear arms" that is "God-given", not the confirmation of that right by placing it upon paper. A "God-given/natural" right exists on it's own... without the paperwork. When people do not understand the difference between the two, it makes them sound ignorant. Pax...
    Haha obviously "beat" was a typo. Autocorrect missed that one, but I digress. I completely understand what you're saying and I agree that when it was written, the Founding Fathers had the underlying tone that to defend yourself against a threat was a right given to us by our Creator. That said, when a person uses the phrase, "My God given right" in reference to owning a firearm, makes them sound as if they're just looking for a quick rebuttal to the argument. Kind of like a child coming back with, "Nuh-uh" or, "Yeah but still."

    Sorry to incite such a flame war here...sheesh!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    The RKBA is a natural preexisting right. Read the wording of the 2A. And it's long history of the right to resist oppression, tyranny and the state.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    I liked the report. Would have been nice to have a little history on where the RKBA comes from - like the 2A and PA law under the 10A.

    Would have been nice for the Mayor of the Tnwshp of the Chief (is that a non-PC term now? Like 'Redskins') to dress the Chief down in that unless he was against the 2A, he and his 'little-chiefs' needed to respect the Constitution and rights not granted to the Govt - those rights enumerated to the 'little-indian-braves' as they OC their little bows and arrows (not to exceed 5 in the quiver).
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post


    To copy a youtube video link, just right click on the video, a box will appear then left click on the video address.
    Can anyone explain what the LEO meant when he said, WE Have a job to do?

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  16. #16
    Regular Member mdak06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Manchester, New Hampshire
    Posts
    61
    Overall, I thought it was a very fair report. It was nice to see one in which the reporters were relatively neutral, and not displaying hostility towards armed citizens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    Sorry I can't find a direct link to the video:

    http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/...ocal-news.html

    No surprises: most people don't notice, those who do quickly realize there's no threat, the police chief is opposed.

    The big take-away from this experiment, IMHO, is that a gun is only one part of a subconscious threat assessment people automatically make. The presence or absence of erratic, violent, or obnoxious behavior is a much larger factor for whether or not people get worried. Thus, open carry by people who are obviously just peacefully going about their business is quickly analyzed as non-threatening by the majority of people.

    My theory is that the vast majority of MWAG calls are made by people who believe "they shouldn't be allowed to do that" (value judgment/personal opinion, like the last woman in the video) rather than people who have genuinely assessed the OCer as a threat.
    I think that your assertion - that people make a threat assessment based on far more than just a gun - is probably true for many people, but also not true for a significant number of people. I'd say that it depends in part upon what they've been exposed to. Someone whose only experience with guns is bad (e.g. living in a bad neighborhood where the people with guns are simply thugs that are killing themselves and innocent people) or someone who has been brainwashed into thinking that guns are only used for bad things may automatically assume that anyone with a gun is a threat. Someone who has grown up in a place where OC is common and good guys carry all the time may have a radically different viewpoint.

    If one is not ignorant of firearms, then yes, I think the presence of a weapon is only one small part of a threat assessment. But for some, the weapon alone is enough to serve as the entire threat assessment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    Unless the old media is harping how bad guns are must people don.t notice, don't care or think it is just fine.

    Making a non story into a story.
    I disagree that it is a non-story. Many people are unaware that open carry is perfectly lawful in various states, and this story informs them of that. It's not a breaking news event, but it is a legitimate news story.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader33 View Post
    I think it's quite the opposite. Here in Colorado I think the consensus is different in the wake of what happened in Aurora and at Arapahoe HS. We need more people who are willing to OC in public to set the standard and to let the public know that, "Hey, I'm a regular guy/gal and I'm OC'ing to protect myself and those around me from any kind of threat."

    I think the woman in the restaurant who was uneasy about the OC was naive in the sense that she may have thought that everyone who carries a gun on their belt, unless their LE, is a criminal and/or a madman.

    I had this same discussion with my mom a while back when I told her I bought my first gun and that I can and do openly carry it. Her first thought was that I would be arrested and that seeing someone with a gun in public automatically meant he/she was about to commit a crime. After a quick lesson on the laws of OC in my state and assuring her that there are many more good guys than bad guys, she settled down and it's become a non-issue.

    Bottom line, we need more instances of this type of experiment to show the public that OC is not only legal, but overall makes the public safer.
    I'm glad your mother was fine with your OCing once she knew the facts.

    I agree that we need more people OCing. I'm not necessarily sure that more of these experiments would do any good. What I think would be nice is if the OC community in a given location found a reporter who is going to give at least a neutral story (or even a friendly one). Have them interview a well-spoken person who knows OC law and can present a positive image of open carriers. Bonus points if the expert is a well-respected member of the community.

    That, and more OCing by good folks, should help.

    Quote Originally Posted by HPmatt View Post
    I liked the report. Would have been nice to have a little history on where the RKBA comes from - like the 2A and PA law under the 10A.

    Would have been nice for the Mayor of the Tnwshp of the Chief (is that a non-PC term now? Like 'Redskins') to dress the Chief down in that unless he was against the 2A, he and his 'little-chiefs' needed to respect the Constitution and rights not granted to the Govt - those rights enumerated to the 'little-indian-braves' as they OC their little bows and arrows (not to exceed 5 in the quiver).
    I'm not sure that going into a history of the RKBA would have been appropriate in this report. Giving people too much information at once is going to make them forget most of it. This report was focused on open carry, and I'm fine with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    Can anyone explain what the LEO meant when he said, WE Have a job to do?

    CCJ
    Uh ... not sure. I will say I was a bit irritated by the chief's other comments ...

    First he says that "people get a lot of courage because they're wearing a gun on their side." I'd say that poeple have less fear of being robbed, raped or assaulted. If that means "more courage" then that works for me.

    I suspect he's trying to covertly suggest that those who carry guns openly may be more reckless because they have a gun with them. I'd say the opposite is true ... most people I know who open carry want to avoid confrontations in the first place, not get into them. That's part of the reason for OC. I open carry, but the last thing I want to do when I OC is actually be forced to use my firearm.

    Then, "there's too many guns out there now as it is" ... well I guess that's true if you think a guy with a gun is automatically a bad guy. If that's his assumption, then it's a shame that he's a police chief. The issue isn't too many guns - it's too many bad guys, and not enough law-abiding citizens who are prepared to stop them with guns.

    As far as open carriers trying to "push those limits" ... any limits regarding firearms in public aren't (and shouldn't be) related to open carry. If someone is open carrying, and then pulls out a gun and misbehaves with it, that's inappropriate - but the issue isn't open carry. It may be unwarranted brandishing (if one is displaying the weapon but not threatened), or perhaps (?) reckless endangerment (if they're waving the gun around), or even assault (if they're actually threatening someone). But those things also apply if they're carrying the gun concealed. They are unrelated to open carry. If the issue is that they OC, a business asks them to leave and they refuse, the issue again is not OC - it's trespassing, for failure to leave the property when asked to. The same thing would happen if they were being an (unarmed) loudmouth buffoon, they were asked to leave, and then refused - it would be trespassing.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by mdak06 View Post
    Overall, I thought it was a very fair report...
    Outside of the fact that they did not interview a counterpoint to what the LEO was saying.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  18. #18
    Regular Member mdak06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Manchester, New Hampshire
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Outside of the fact that they did not interview a counterpoint to what the LEO was saying.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    There wasn't a direct rebuttal of all of the police chief's comments, but there was significant evidence that the people did not care about other folks carrying guns. They included the fact that six of the eight people they interviewed had concealed carry permits (that could have been edited out if they had more of an anti-gun slant). They also had the gun shop owner state that "the people that are carrying guns, they're not the crazy gun-toting people that you think of; these are normal, good, everyday citizens that really believe in the ability to protect themselves and their families."

    As I see it, it's not supposed to be a full back-and-forth half hour debate - it's only a four minute news segment. There's only so much they can fit in to that time, and the main part of the story was the public's reaction to open carry - which for the most part was great. If there are two viewpoints, only one of them can have the "last word." In this case, they gave it to the police chief.

    Yeah, I would have been happier if they had more of a direct response to some of the chief's comments. But overall, I can't complain too much about the segment. Perfect? No. Fair? I'd say "fair enough."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •