Carrying a shotgun into a library is not going to win hearts and minds

Say Uncle:

It’s going to turn people away. This bill is going to draw more attention to the incident that led this politician to propose the bill. And not your rights.

I don’t understand why it seems like so many open carry advocates think it’s a good idea to piss everyone else off.

Yes, more people need to know more about the legality of open carry.

Here is something I wrote a while back about those who want to shove open carry into everyone’s face with an all-open-carry-all-the-time strategy designed to shock people:

Sure, points will have been made. Those points will be remembered for about three minutes, unless it’s a point good for the anti-gun crowd, in which case the point will be remembered forever and ever as a basic truth about guns. Like the basic truth about how guns are twice as likely to kill a family member as an intruder in a home defense situation and the basic truth about how no one needs a semi-automatic assault weapon for anything except killing people.

The media will decide how the story is told. [emphasis added]

You do not dilute opposition and win allies by irritating and intimidating and scaring people. You’ve got to be smarter than that.

Comments

  • Gary Foster says:

    AMEN!

  • Jerry says:

    I’ll defend his right to do so but I certainly question his judgement in this case.

    • Murdoc says:

      I will agree 100%.

      I do think that it’s important that open carry be practiced where it’s legal. That doesn’t mean that this was a good idea.

      Any more than shouting in a library is a good way to display your right to free speech.

  • Alex Deley says:

    “You do not dilute opposition and win allies by irritating and intimidating and scaring people. You’ve got to be smarter than that.”

    Most people are not smarter than that, and that is your obvious problem. Every time you walk around in public with a loaded weapon, you place the public at a greater risk simply by introducing the thing to the situation. I think it is funny that you basically concede that :

    “…the point will be remembered forever and ever as a basic truth about guns. Like the basic truth about how guns are twice as likely to kill a family member as an intruder in a home defense situation and the basic truth about how no one needs a semi-automatic assault weapon for anything except killing people.”

    And yet you are still actively seeking open-carry laws. Perhaps the above contradiction stems from a problem with your diction? it sounds as though you’ve just given away the shop. At the very best, you come off as rather cynically claiming that people need to be ‘careful’ in order to provide justification for policies that you seem to concede are bad. Sheesh.

    P.S.

    Thank you to readers of this side the mad spamming of my post here:
    http://thenewinternationalism.blogspot.com/2011/01/further-thoughts-on-gun-control.html

    I am still waiting on the meta-study proving all-gun studies are false that was asserted existed and thus, in the mind of the poster, invalidated the points made here:
    http://thenewinternationalism.blogspot.com/2011/01/guns-over-arizona.html

    • Murdoc says:

      “…the point will be remembered forever and ever as a basic truth about guns. Like the basic truth about how guns are twice as likely to kill a family member as an intruder in a home defense situation and the basic truth about how no one needs a semi-automatic assault weapon for anything except killing people.”

      And yet you are still actively seeking open-carry laws.

      Yes, because those basic truths are untrue. The obvious point is people make up their own truth.

  • Although I firmly believe in the second amendment, we are NEVER going to win people over by showing that we don’t care about current laws, and we are going to do what we want anyway. This adds a bad stigma to our industry and our rights.

Comments Closed