• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Open carry experiment on TV

Eeyore

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
551
Location
the meanest city in the stupidest state
Sorry I can't find a direct link to the video:

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum...cussions/181069-oc-experiment-local-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.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
[video=youtube;-yA2MavZeLw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-yA2MavZeLw[/video]

To copy a youtube video link, just right click on the video, a box will appear then left click on the video address.
 

Vader33

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
65
Location
Littleton, CO
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
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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.
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.
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.”
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
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... :lol:
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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... :lol:
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.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
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...
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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:

jegoodin

Newbie
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
337
Location
Stafford, Virginia, USA
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.
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
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.
 

Vader33

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
65
Location
Littleton, CO
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
 

HPmatt

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
1,467
Location
Dallas
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).
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
[video=youtube;-yA2MavZeLw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-yA2MavZeLw[/video]

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
 

mdak06

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
59
Location
Manchester, New Hampshire
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.

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

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum...cussions/181069-oc-experiment-local-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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 

mdak06

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
59
Location
Manchester, New Hampshire
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."
 
Top