I have it on good authority that this comment won the thread:
I am apparently a little late to this party, and much of what I have to say is probably a rehash, but here we go anywise.
…because you don’t convey context.Yes, I do indeed convey context.
I am dressed cleanly, neatly, and appropriately.
I am (typically) shaved, and while my hair is getting far longer than it ever has been before, it is generally controlled and maintained (but is sadly in that awkard length where hair ties do not hold, and combing is insufficient).
I behave politely and respectfully at the store, getting out of people’s way, saying “excuse me”, and trying to not play Bumper Carts.
I help people when asked (there are a surprising number of little old ladies in E TN).
I smile at those who make eye contact with me.
I am polite and, dare I say, talkative with the cashiers (having worked as one myself, non-sullen customers are a gorramed God-send), and bag my own goods if it helps.
And I did all of this before I ever strapped on a firearm in any context or holster. I blame my parents.
I contend that if an individual were to take all of that information, add in the information that I am carrying a firearm, and come to the conclusion of “thinking/imagining the worst”, then there was never any chance of converting them, whatsoever, no matter how carefully the subject was broached. Likewise, I equally contend that “thinking/imagining the worst” of our “target” demographic is just as bad as them doing the same to us.
No, hardly anyone I meet in any of the stores I go to know what kind of person I am, or what I might or might not do. However, just as someone over the phone cannot tell you are smiling unless you properly modulate your voice, there are ways of proving that you are a rational, sane, reasonable, responsible adult, without having to take the other person out to dinner and buy them flowers.
Now, if you want to downplay all of that, and write it off as being insufficient, then more power to you. However, if I were to invert all of those things I am doing now (and have been doing my entire life), I can guarantee you that perceptions of and reactions to me would be noticeably different.
WIll all open carriers behave the same way I do? Of course not. But given that we open and concealed carriers (and bear in mind that I still fall under both camps) are not flying off the handle and shooting everyone at a whim, not taking everyone hostage in a grand police stand-off, not threatening or endanering people… well, we are already breaking the stereotypes right there, and making people realize that the lines that have been fed to them might not be the whole truth. Anything above and beyond is just a bonus. The only difference is that with open carrying, people can actually realize that we are not the demons others have made us out to be.
Am I saying that open carrying is the superior form of carrying and that everyone who can should? Of course not. I would not propose that anyone who is uncomfortable with the idea do it, just as I would not propose the same for carrying a firearm in general. I am saying that, regardless of “steps”, there is no reason for things to not occur concurrently, and that if our goal is to normalize firearm owners, then getting people used to the idea of actually seeing firearm owners as people who actually have firearms on their person, in a safe, responsible, reasonable manner, is certainly one way of doing so. As you said over at my place, open carrying is just another tool in our arsenal, but it does not have to only be a tool against immediate, violent threats to our person.
Or we could always go back to encouraging women to hide their ankles…
(As for acceptance only benefiting those who want to open carry, I guess the open carriers of the states where open carry is unlicensed but concealed carry is licensed should stop in any efforts they have to get concealed carry unlicensed as well, right? After all, it only directly benefits those who want to carry concealed, right? Narrow-mindedness does not become you, Sebastian.)
Hey, I take whatever kudos I can get.
Linoge,
You have a great way of saying eloquently what I was stumbling around saying.
Great comment and I agree.
I’ll give you that. It was very well said.
But point is taken that on the whole society has their stereotypes and expectations of what people will behave like based upon what they look like. If you look clean, well-tended to (even with long hair and t-shirts), people on the whole do respond to you more positively than if you look like a dirty shabby mess.
I will say that it’s tough to go by looks. I mean, most serial killers all looked like such nice boys too.
You’ve swayed me some. No question.
Bob S.: I am not sure I would go so far as to say “eloquent” (I need to work on my signal-to-noise ratio), but thanks all the same
.
By the same token, we simply have to give other people the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise, otherwise our entire societal construct will pretty much go splat.
Hsoi: Well, we cannot exactly start arresting people (or otherwise abridge their rights) on the basis of how they look, now can we?
Now, when they prove otherwise, I am all for whatever means are necessary to keep the situation under control (which implies other armed individuals present), but until then… we are all just common citizens.
Clothes certainly do affect how we are perceived, which was exactly what I was trying to put across to him, but in the grand scheme of things, it simply should not matter. The same folks who refuse to trust me with a firearm have no problems trusting me with an automobile, which has more destructive capacity in its fuel tank than my firearm ever could.
Open carry as a political statement