Why Talk to Citizens?

Please do and thank you. I would not have had to edit my OP if you had actually read it. "Ninja Edit". Laughable considering I have "EDIT" in big letters... :cuss:

Outdoorsman1 said:

I think your OP is a little confusing as it gives 2 definitions of your intened topic of discusion.


I talk to Citizens #1 to inform and educate and only if spoken to first.
I (might) talk to citizens #2 with a either a slight sarcastic answer or just a smile as I walk away with the intended affect of letting them know their complaints, attitude, (whatever), mean nothing to me and will have no effect on me other than a little humor....

Click to expand...

"Citizen" to make clear as mud I wasn't talking about the police. I LIKE the word "citizen".


Addressing your highlighted answer...

They also have no authority to stop me and demand explanations and answers. So why do we answer. That was really my only question. Thank you for actually take the time to read my OP. Thanks for the answer.

Why go out in public when you can order online?

Sometimes, you can't tell someone is raving nutsoid until you're already interacting.
Like others, I'd try to be polite & take what looks like an opportunity to answer questions, educate.
But once you reach the realization that the person is raving nutsoid, disengage ASAP & walk away with no further waste of energy.

HandyHamlet said:

No kidding.



You can't educate someone who thinks they are right. Won't listen. Is pissed, on a power trip, vindictive, and just plain hates guns and doesn't care what the law is. If we could there would be no threads about an OCer getting kicked out of a store, bank, or event where it is actually okay to OC. Kicked out by some assistant manager, employee, or rent-a-cop. Because the OCer would just set them straight with a brief conversation and move on with his/her day... Right? In reality this does not seem to happen. At least not judging by the posts here. And if that is the case then why talk to them in the first place? Answer their questions?

Click to expand...

And while the initial approach we see from "them" may indicate how the encounter MAY progress until we make at least one CIVIL attempt to converse with them in a conversation. If they allow a conversation, simple back and forth communication then great --- Carry on! IF they don't allow a civil conversation then bid them adieu and be on your way having proved to yourself that it is unwise to cast your pearls before swine or attempt to teach a pig to talk!

I see the point. If the person comes up to you, say in a store, and asks "are you a cop/LEO?" it may be in your best interest to ignore them, tell them to move along, or defuse the issue rather than answering their question, which they really have no right to know. Say you're off-duty LEO, you have a right to privacy and a need perhaps not to be outed to just anyone. Not all LEOs carry off duty.

If the inquiry seems harmless and maybe even friendly, you could turn it around and ask a question. 'Are you store employee? Are you a manager, here?' Maybe they'll say 'I'm just a private citizen'. Your answer is obvious. "I'm also a private citizen not on duty", and without implying you are a cop, defuse the question.

Now, people OC for many reasons. The ones who do it to educate and to enforce and apply 2A rights feel free to answer with pamphlets and brochures and informative lessons. Those who do so for other, more personal reasons, should have the right not to be bothered. If someone comes up and says 'Sir, do YOU wear your seatbelt?' do you give them a friendly lesson in preventative auto safety? I doubt it. You'd probably think 'kook' and move on after saying 'go bother someone else, please, I'm busy'.

Also, if you're alone, then it's another story. I'd be more prone if I was OC-ing and alone to answer a question. But since there's a risk of stirring up trouble, if I was with a friend, loved one or something, I'd be more prone to shrug the guy off not wanting to have my friend witness police being called.

So, IMO, it's within one's rights to politely ignore such inquiries - it certainly is a personal thing, one's business, profession, privacy.

$.02

Badger Johnson said:

I see the point. If the person comes up to you, say in a store, and asks "are you a cop/LEO?" it may be in your best interest to ignore them, tell them to move along, or defuse the issue rather than answering their question, which they really have no right to know. Say you're off-duty LEO, you have a right to privacy and a need perhaps not to be outed to just anyone. Not all LEOs carry off duty.

Click to expand...

NO! DO NOT SAY THIS AT ANY TIME UNLESS IT IS TRUE!

Badger Johnson said:

If the inquiry seems harmless and maybe even friendly, you could turn it around and ask a question. 'Are you store employee? Are you a manager, here?' Maybe they'll say 'I'm just a private citizen'. Your answer is obvious. "I'm also a private citizen not on duty", and without implying you are a cop, defuse the question.

Click to expand...

Yes, good way to get a convo started ... you may even make a point or two that gives them reason to actually think about their position and why they are on one side or the other of the issue.

<<snip some stuff not relevant to my response>>

Badger Johnson said:

So, IMO, it's within one's rights to politely ignore such inquiries - it certainly is a personal thing, one's business, profession, privacy.

$.02

Click to expand...

Exactly, it is your right to ignore ... it is also their right to be made to look like an idiot by their actions and being ignored by you :monkey

okboomer said:

NO! DO NOT SAY THIS AT ANY TIME UNLESS IT IS TRUE!

Click to expand...

No you mis read my comment. It was 'say you are...' as in 'let's hypothesize...' not 'speak that phrase'.

"Let's say, for the sake of discussion you are an off-duty LEO. You have a right to privacy." Is that better?

well,,,

If I am asked, If i am a cop,
I smile and say, No, im retired.
My last check said dept of the treasury.
before that they said dept of defense.
before that they said dept of the Navy.
before that they said Mcdonalds.
by now they have become confused, I Never said I Was an LEO,,,, ever!

Badger Johnson said:

No you mis read my comment. It was 'say you are...' as in 'let's hypothesize...' not 'speak that phrase'.

"Let's say, for the sake of discussion you are an off-duty LEO. You have a right to privacy." Is that better?

Click to expand...

Ahh, now I understand

Although I am yet to oc,I dont see what bizness it is of anyones, why I carry,whether it be oc or cc. I cant imagine bothering some stranger in a store {that is doing nothing wrong} just to ask a stupid question like that. If they asked me,are you a cop,I would laugh and say not as far I as know, and keep walking. If they then persisted and asked why I have a gun. I would say because I have a right to. Look it up.

HandyHamlet said:

You can't educate someone who thinks they are right. Won't listen. Is pissed, on a power trip, vindictive, and just plain hates guns and doesn't care what the law is.

Click to expand...

But you don't know this until you talk to them. I have had people express anti-gun remarks or ask me to leave a property, and they stuck to that. But I've had other people approach me with the same initial attitude or request to leave, and talking to them softened their stance or caused them to withdraw the request to leave.

You don't know if you're dealing with a true hardhead such as you describe until you talk to them. Your implied suggestion that you do know before talking to them seems to require mind-reading ability I don't possess, and it definitely doesn't match my OC experience (which has included a few initially negative non-LEO encounters which turned out to the positive or at least neutral).

HandyHamlet said:

the OCer would just set them straight with a brief conversation and move on with his/her day... Right? In reality this does not seem to happen. At least not judging by the posts here.

Click to expand...

You're making the mistake of judging by the posts here. Actually, more precisely, you're mistakenly judging by however many posts you have read here. I have read posts of positive outcomes with initial anti-OC sentiments or requests to leave. I also know there are more incidents of that unwritten. Over my four years of OC, I have had two initial requests to leave businesses which were withdrawn by the requestor based on my talking further with them.

HandyHamlet said:

They also have no authority to stop me and demand explanations and answers. So why do we answer. That was really my only question.

Click to expand...

Because it does work sometimes. See above.

There are occasions, rare I admit, where I will start a conversation with an open carrier by saying "Are you a cop or somethin?"

Part of it is just to see how they respond to the question, perhaps I can add to my own repertoire. Of course if they respond with "yes" I say have a nice day and I move along.

I would be open to talking because I do want to educate others to the legality of open carry.

I don't want to come across as a smart alec to a citizen who MIGHT have an open mind.

"Are you a cop?"
"No. Why do you ask?"
"You've got a gun!" or "Why do you have a gun?"
"Oh, that? This state allows you to openly carry a handgun."

After this much interaction, their level of rationality should start to show.

If they say something like, "Oh, really?" or "I didn't know that." or "Is that true?", you should be able to have a decent conversation and share some knowledge.

If you get a negative response, or if they raise their voice or get that panicky look on their face, you are probably dealing with an anti. Walk away.

MyWifeSaidYes said:

...This state allows you to openly carry a handgun...

Click to expand...

I would suggest slightly different phrasing: This State does not infringe on my right to carry openly.

The State does not give us permission. We have that naturally. The State may attempt to stop us from OC, but that would be and infringement as barred by the 2A.

It depends on the motives of the OCer. I agree 100% when Badger Johnson said, we all OC for our own equally valid reasons. Without the desire to educate, some OCers would see the questioning person as an obstacle and not a possible convert. An obstacle is fought and destroyed, while a possible convert is persuaded. IMO if educating is not part of your OC decision, then you should not seek to engage in a conversation; you could make the job of educators more difficult.

I'm new to OC but I keep to myself unless someone directly tries to communicate with me or comes up to me. IF they do, how I respond (in what tone, with what words, etc) depends on what their tone and attitude is. Someone genuinely asking a question about my choice-- I will use the opp to educate them on the law, and tell them my personal reasoning.

Usually I don't give people that much time of day, but I don't simply ignore them--I'm from the South, and I guess I consider it rude to ignore folks straight out of the gate. Now, if they get on a tangent about no guns, anti-gun rhetoric, etc. then I will gladly ignore them and K.I.M. (keep it moving).

A person who asks me chastisingly in a mocking tone why I have a gun I will likely give a sarcastic, mocking answer to, and say something like, "because I can (its my right), I want to, and because the law does not infringe upon that right." Or, I may simply say, "read up on NC gun law and the NC Constitution (also the 2A) before you judge, or try to tell me what I'm allowed to do."

I keep my words to a minimum with some folks. The Scriptures say NOT to argue with a fool (and I'd rather not end up looking like one for doing so). If they ask if I'm a cop/LEO then I will say no, and K.I.M. If they persist, then depending on my mood I may stop and educate or explain why I OC. I may ignore them.

But I can't imagine either bothering someone about a gun or asking a prying question when they are not doing anything wrong. Maybe that's just me--I'm a private, loner-type.

MiaStar,
We've all had to decide how to deal with various public reactions to OC. Like you, I discuss the subject in a freindly manner to anyone who seems genuinely interested, and those types seem to be a distinct majority, at least now. I've yet to come across a confrontational anti, so I can only suggest what you might do. I agree it would be impolite to simply ignore someone completely, and I agree that down here, that sort of thing is considered impolite. I'd also suggest NOT using the really "drop dead" sarcastic remarks. That can lead to a "p*ssing contest" in which we might be seen as aggressive and intemperate. That makes us a poor example of the diplomacy we're supposed to show in public. Wouldn't you be uncomfortable if an unknown armed man started to get into an altercation with someone else? If someone challenges you with a chip on his shoulder, it would be best to say "my reasons for carrying are very valid, as well as legal, but they're very private, so I don't care to discuss them with a complete stranger". What's wrong with that? It is a valid answer, not impolite, but firm in its conviction that you are doing no wrong, and wish simply to be left alone. You can then turn and walk away, and ignore the person further. If he or she keeps making an issue, then the anti becomes the one that others will disrespect, not you. Win-win for you.

In the Washington forum and in some of the others I have wandered through, the idea that an OCer(is that even a word?) is an ambassador is one that I find appealing. The idea is that we, by our normal, everyday behavior change the culture to one of acceptance of our behavior. This would include educating the curious and politely interacting with those who are less interested in our behavior, than pushing theirs on us.

Because if we don't talk to citizens, we will never reach an understanding. If we do talk to citizens, we may reach an understanding. Is it worth the time to talk? I think so as long as they are calm and polite when they question me. If not I'll say "Good-bye".