• 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.

How to handle confrontational people (non-physical)

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Agree! Do not follow anybody, especially someone who has had, or you have had words with, let them be on their way.
The reason for following was explained in the comments. The confrontational man had stated certain intentions when he approached, and he was continuously filmed while in the vicinity of the group for accountability purposes. However, generally speaking, I'd agree that you shouldn't follow him. EDIT: Not saying that is or isn't a legitimate enough reason, just that it's a reason that was given.

Note that the confrontational man commented on the video also. I don't want to derail this thread, as I'm mostly trying to come up with talking points on how to handle situations like these so that I can offer direction to others on how to handle themselves, but I found it very interesting that he keeps making a point to say, and I quote, "I completely support the second amendment"

Like I said, I COMPLETELY support the 2nd Amendment. The part you seem to glance over is "well regulated". We do not live in a war zone. We do not need people walking around armed like it's the apocalypse. You're welcome to your firearms in your house, in your car, at the range, even concealed, but you are not welcome to brandish them around civilians and children.
Thanks for the opinions thus far. So, don't follow the confrontational people with a camera. Anything else? Personally I feel like, while nothing very bad was said, I'd still have probably said about 75% less. Like I said, I'm just trying to come up with some points to use as direction on how to conduct oneself in a situation like this.
 
Last edited:

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
I'd like suggestions and opinions on how to handle non-physically aggressive or confrontational people.

Do you think that the group in this video handled themselves well? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LEip7Wck5U
Absolutely NOT. There was NO reason to follow/harass the guy with the big video camera. The only people I saw being "non-physically aggressive or confrontational" in this situation were the firearms carriers. What were they trying to prove?
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Absolutely NOT. There was NO reason to follow/harass the guy with the big video camera. The only people I saw being "non-physically aggressive or confrontational" in this situation were the firearms carriers. What were they trying to prove?
The reason for following was explained in the comments. The confrontational man had stated certain intentions when he approached, and he was continuously filmed while in the vicinity of the group for accountability purposes. However, generally speaking, I'd agree that you shouldn't follow him. EDIT: I'm not saying whether or not that's a legitimate enough reason, just saying that is a reason that was given.

Another thing I can think of is to not intentionally block another's filming, so far as standing in front of their camera or what-not.

So, following him with the camera has been covered. Is there anything else that you'd change or suggest?
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
I suggest they go about their business as normal, that is what we are trying to accomplish as well as promote handgun carry for Texas. For the normalization of firearms in public. Arguing with people for any reason in public serves no purpose, armed or not.

That is what we have the internet for, so we can safely argue with the anti gun nuts. You have to be careful in person, they may be carrying and point a gun at somebody legally carrying. Or think they are a cop wannabe with duty to harass legal gun owners. In any case it just is not worth it.

Destroy their delusions online, use their own stupidity to show them for the dumbarses they are.

ETA all antis claim they support the second amendment, it is that "but" where their true intent lies.
 
Last edited:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
I suggest they go about their business as normal, that is what we are trying to accomplish as well as promote handgun carry for Texas. For the normalization of firearms in public. Arguing with people for any reason in public serves no purpose, armed or not.

That is what we have the internet for, so we can safely argue with the anti gun nuts. You have to be careful in person, they may be carrying and point a gun at somebody legally carrying. Or think they are a cop wannabe with duty to harass legal gun owners. In any case it just is not worth it.

Destroy their delusions online, use their own stupidity to show them for the dumbarses they are.

ETA all antis claim they support the second amendment, it is that "but" where their true intent lies.
Do you mean, basically just ignoring their presence? If so, I think I agree that would probably be the best course of action, nearly all the time.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
Do you mean, basically just ignoring their presence? If so, I think I agree that would probably be the best course of action, nearly all the time.
Mostly, it depends on how bad it gets. If it looks like it may lead to a physical confrontation the best thing to do is walk step back, or walk away. That is a little difficult to do when in a group and you have a right to be there. So ignore the best you can, and if it looks like they might turn to violence call the police.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Mostly, it depends on how bad it gets. If it looks like it may lead to a physical confrontation the best thing to do is walk step back, or walk away. That is a little difficult to do when in a group and you have a right to be there. So ignore the best you can, and if it looks like they might turn to violence call the police.
Hey, I think we've found another thing we agree on! Thanks for the opinions guys.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,170
Location
earth's crust
Agree! Do not follow anybody, especially someone who has had, or you have had words with, let them be on their way.
I would have traveled the world many times following people who verbally insult me .... yap all you want, it generally will not bother me.

Threaten me though and I'll neutralize any threat that I think is a real threat.
 

katenka

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
12
Location
Richmond
I have never had a confrontation and hope to continue to never have one.. I don't think that I could specifically write down what I'd say. There are way too many situational what-if's. If someone wants to talk to me about firearms, fine. You want to debate about them, fine. However, I have yet to meet a debater who hasn't taken the personal insult route because they have no idea how to form a coherent response regarding said debate subject. To which case I respond by an eyeroll and proceed to walk in the opposite direction while they are still talking. As far as I'm concerned. There's nothing to say after that.
 
Last edited:

Preyn2

New member
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
13
Location
Burnet, Tx
The man went looking for a confrontation with those doo doo meanie icky open carriers, and he got one. Score one for the Antis. The whole camera-following-we're-not-name-calling episode harkens back to my kids in the back seat and "I'm not touching you...." and "I'm rubber, you're glue..." Do you think I won't pull this car over?

If the man wants to stand and honestly debate the merits of openly carrying firearms, fine. I don't think anybody here believes he was/is willing to change his beliefs, however, so that's probably a waste of breath. In fact, I'll buy y'all lunch if that guy believes in any non-governmental weapons carrying, open OR concealed.

My opinion, FWIW, is they should have left him alone. If the guy wants to wander around on a public sidewalk videotaping citizens engaging in First- and Second Amendment-protected activities, while the (I think this was in) Austin Police are not violating their Fourth Amendment rights, far out, man! He has First Amendment rights too. Carrying on with whatever they were doing while ignoring him would have completely ruined his purpose for being there while completely reinforcing our points that we (open carriers in general) aren't there to intimidate anybody. Should he have been recorded? I believe it was a good idea to record him, but following him around and getting right up in his face was not the way to do it. He should have been recorded from across the street, or at least a reasonable distance.

[What's a "reasonable distance"? If you're out in public, and you're somewhere you have a right to be, and you have no expectation of privacy, and you see somebody recording you (which they have a right to do), at what distance do they become threatening to you? Ten feet? Twenty feet? "Do unto others..." is a reasonable guide here.]

Record the guy from across the street. Down the sidewalk a ways. Just not in his face. First, the guy can reasonably claim that your in-his-face recording doesn't show the icky doo doo meanie physically intimidating antics your partner was doing while you were also blocking his camera. Second, if, God forbid, the incident had escalated to a physical confrontation, you've pretty much sealed your own fate by following the man around and getting in his face instead of allowing the threat to escape.

The only reason to get that close to someone with whom you are not acquainted is for intimidation, and that goes against what we're trying to do.

Handling non-physically-aggressive confrontational people takes experience and you have to know what you're going to say beforehand. Remember, these people don't want to debate the merits of one form of carry over another; they want to goad you into an ugly confrontation so they can show how untrustworthy you are and how easily you can be pushed to violence.

"Look, sir/Ma'am, I'm not looking for trouble and I'm not causing any trouble. I'm just trying to get a burger/do some shopping/go about my business/whatever I'm legally doing. I'm not threatening anybody, and I apologize if you feel threatened, because that was not my intent. I'm merely carrying the means to defend myself and my loved ones because, as I'm sure you've read in the papers and seen on TV, you can never know when or where violence will visit...."

I don't think the folks in the video handled the situation as well as it could have been handled, but at least there was no violence.

stay safe - phil
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,325
Location
White Oak Plantation
<snip>
Like I said, I COMPLETELY support the 2nd Amendment. The part you seem to glance over is "well regulated". We do not live in a war zone. We do not need people walking around armed like it's the apocalypse. You're welcome to your firearms in your house, in your car, at the range, even concealed, but you are not welcome to brandish them around civilians and children.
Thanks for the opinions thus far. So, don't follow the confrontational people with a camera. Anything else? <snip>
Ignore him (them).

The dude is nothing but anti-OC.

But, if you're going to talk to nitwits like that ask him if he would prefer that the group OCd holstered pistols vs. OCing rifles.
 

acmariner99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
659
Location
Renton, Wa
My solution to dealing with people like this is simple: walk away. No quirky words, comebacks, or statements. If they look like they want to push the issue, get store management involved. I wouldn't call 911 unless the person got physically aggressive.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
I agree with you guys completely. I've chosen personally for myself a policy of either completely ignoring them and going about my business as usually, or, if it's "bad enough" such as getting in my face and calling me names, then I will walk away.
 

DanNabis

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
82
Location
CO, Lakewood
If confronted, ask why they feel the way they do about guns, and then get to the root of what they are saying.

But don't be aggressive about it. Point out the holes in their point of view and then throw them a life raft. Make an excuse for them so they can save face.

Please pardon the link, but here is a link to a really well thought out article from American Rifleman on how to get anti gunners to actually rethink their view point instead of just throwing up their emotional shield and digging their heels in.

http://bearingarms.com/how-to-win-a-debate-with-an-anti-gunner/

Or just leave.
 

Eeyore

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
547
Location
on the move
Yes!

.....here is a link to a really well thought out article from American Rifleman on how to get anti gunners to actually rethink their view point instead of just throwing up their emotional shield and digging their heels in.

http://bearingarms.com/how-to-win-a-debate-with-an-anti-gunner/
Here's a more-direct link to that brilliant article: http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/a899b278#/a899b278/96

Dale Carnegie said, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Our goal is to change the person's thinking (or at least to start the person thinking instead of blindly spewing emotion and parroting internet/media "facts"), not just notch up an ego-boosting "gotcha." Slamming a person's ego, or even just coming across as a smart-aleck, is counter-productive to that goal.
 
Top