Scared and refused to have picture taken with a Gun

[American123]

I think intentionally displaying a firearm when you are aware (or should be aware) that it makes someone uncomfortable or even afraid, could easily be considered rude, especially when it is unnecessary to do so. I believe that is why some (possibly many) people open carry - some have even stated that this is why they open carry - for the shock value (more or less). I also believe it is counter productive in a number of different ways.

But then again, how you condition people that something is "normal" is that you regularly expose them to it. I can think of several social issues over the last 30 years related to that.

 

[RX-79G]

Interesting thoughts. I don't perceive the presence of weapons to be rude, that would imply that they have any control in their demeanor. People can be rude, and lots of different ways.

To be clear, people handling/wearing weapons. It can be rude in some situations - especially among strangers where there is no way to gauge demeanor, first.

People who are "afraid" of weapons are the type of people who (in my opinion) want to live life in a bubble without seeing anything that makes them uncomfortable. It's as if in their mind that they can avoid evil by closing their eyes and ears. It reminds me of the people who also happily buy meat at the store but have no reverence for the slaughter that took place for that burger/steak to be neatly in the package at the store.

"Afraid" is political packaging. I've jumped out of an airplane - it doesn't give me license to say you're "afraid" if you haven't. You might just consider it imprudent to do so when there is no upside. Someone with little mechanical familiarity with guns may feel similarly - and given the things I've seen my fellow gun owners do at ranges - are being reasonable in their prudence. A fair number of non-criminal gun owners are idiots and unsafe.

The cultural divide is seemingly between a few groups. 1) the group that naively believe if only the government had weapons and everyone else didn't everything would be ok in a peaceful utopia 2) the group that wants only the government and politically connected to have weapons so they can exert control/dominance over the rest of the populace and enact any plans they wish without significant resistance. 3) the group that is aware of the 1st and 2nd groups and owns weapons because they understand the history of disarmed people is not appealing and while they live their day to day lives as peaceful people they are capable of violence as a means of self defense if necessary.

Again political packaging. There is a huge group in America that doesn't have strong feelings about rights and ownership, but aren't personally interested in weapons and don't want them in their face. And then there are a significant group that is in favor of personal weapons, but doesn't see some level of gun control as an imposition on that right. However, the gun lobby (us) talks about the US populace like those two groups don't exist, even though they are clearly the swing vote you'd want on your side.

 

[Zechariah]

Good chance he was a spy. I wouldn't show him anything but the door. If you don't understand freedom I want no part of you if your a US citizen or a commy numb nut.

 

[Knobgoblin]

 

[The Heretic]

But then again, how you condition people that something is "normal" is that you regularly expose them to it. I can think of several social issues over the last 30 years related to that.

With regards to firearms, in many areas, this is more or less a lost cause because the PTB/MSM have already conditioned not just the populace but also LEOs/et. al., to NOT accept the open presence of firearms to be "normal" in that context. Having a very SMALL minority of gun owners exhibiting open carry of firearms is not going to be productive - it is going to be counter productive - especially in places like Portland or Seattle (or their suburbs).

 

[American123]

To be clear, people handling/wearing weapons. It can be rude in some situations - especially among strangers where there is no way to gauge demeanor, first.

"Afraid" is political packaging. I've jumped out of an airplane - it doesn't give me license to say you're "afraid" if you haven't. You might just consider it imprudent to do so when there is no upside. Someone with little mechanical familiarity with guns may feel similarly - and given the things I've seen my fellow gun owners do at ranges - are being reasonable in their prudence. A fair number of non-criminal gun owners are idiots and unsafe.


Again political packaging. There is a huge group in America that doesn't have strong feelings about rights and ownership, but aren't personally interested in weapons and don't want them in their face. And then there are a significant group that is in favor of personal weapons, but doesn't see some level of gun control as an imposition on that right. However, the gun lobby (us) talks about the US populace like those two groups don't exist, even though they are clearly the swing vote you'd want on your side.

Rude is an action of the person, an inanimate object can't be rude, but yes, time and place can matter for where and how guns are considered appropriately displayed. Depends on the situation. If I'm at chucky cheese (not that I ever would be) and I pull out a Glock while random people are eating and kids are playing and start showing everyone how to properly grip it to maintain a effective hold of it, that would be totally inappropriate compared to if I was doing that at my house, or in my neighborhood where other people were interested to learn that and that was what I was showing them. As far as open carry goes, if people aren't offended by armed policemen and they are offended by civilians open carrying a pistol on their hip then that's just the mindset of statism exemplified perfectly. Same examples could apply to driving cars. Driving 70mph in a school zone in a residential neighborhood is completely inappropriate compared to being on I-90 going east past Snoqualmie. So context obviously matters.

Real life example:
I worked at a bank, an elderly customer was sitting at my desk and the topic of target shooting came up. Then it shifted to concealed carry, he said, "let me show you something" and pulled out his pistol. Not something you typically see while working in a bank, but he maintained trigger discipline and kept it pointed in a safe direction. I said, "that's nice but I think before people start to get the wrong idea you should put that away." It dawned on him that he just pulled a gun, in a bank, in Seattle and even though nobody noticed, he agreed with me before anyone did. that he should put it away. I wasn't personally bothered by it, but I do ascribe to the belief that rules of firearm safety should be applied at all times with the addition being "leave the gun in the holster unless there is a reason to pull it and use it." - so "show and tell" wouldn't have been a valid reason.

Regarding carrying weapons:
Are we talking about rights or privileges, because if we are talking about rights then it doesn't matter what the opinions of others are. If we are talking about privileges bestowed to us by other people than that would matter.

Regarding idiots, I haven't found a single law that stops them from being that way whether they are driving cars, drinking fluids, making babies, making financial decisions, etc. Weapons are no different.

This seems to be more about "feeling safe" while living in society that has idiots than about weapons at this point. As you said, you can see idiots at the gun range do unsafe things even though that is a "appropriate" place for people to be there with guns, shooting. I don't know what to say about that, other than "living is dangerous." People I've met who obsess about feeling safe are generally miserable people. Every day you get in the car and drive somewhere you are basically putting your life in the hands of every other driver that you cross pathes with and trusting them not to kill you (whether you recognize that or not.)

 

[The Heretic]

Are we talking about rights or privileges, because if we are talking about rights then it doesn't matter what the opinions of others are. If we are talking about privileges bestowed to us by other people than that would matter.

It matters what people think and there are, as some are fond of saying, "consequences".

More than once, I have seen/heard people say that there are consequences to what someone else says - sometimes coming right out and saying (or at the very least, implying/inferring) they would use violence for someone saying something they did not agree with.

Take for instance, Will Smith and Chris Rock.

Chris Rock had every right to say whatever he wanted to say without fear of Will Smith coming up and bubblegum slapping him.

He certainly crossed a line with Will Smith, but where one person feels a line has been crossed may be perfectly acceptable to another. We all have the right speak freely, as much or more than the right to carry arms. If there is any offense to be had, e.g., libel or slander, then that is something to be settled in court, not with violence. Otherwise, responding to offensive speech with violence is simply being a bully.

I've tried to make that point a number of times, but I guess some people just don't get it; maybe they are used to using their fists instead of their brains. In a court of law, such a response would generally be considered assault, and IMO, rightfully so. No matter how much I may find some speech offensive, it is the right of the people to feel free to say something, without expecting a violent response.

Unfortunately, we now have laws regarding "hate speech", in which many cases I believe violates our First Amendment rights, no matter how offensive it might be.

So, politically, ideologically, it does matter. The populace (and LEOs) have been conditioned mentally to emotionally treat firearms as a threat. Open carry just exacerbates the issue and is counter productive.

So yes, it does matter.

 

[RX-79G]

Rude is an action of the person, an inanimate object can't be rude, but yes, time and place can matter for where and how guns are considered appropriately displayed. Depends on the situation. If I'm at chucky cheese (not that I ever would be) and I pull out a Glock while random people are eating and kids are playing and start showing everyone how to properly grip it to maintain a effective hold of it, that would be totally inappropriate compared to if I was doing that at my house, or in my neighborhood where other people were interested to learn that and that was what I was showing them. As far as open carry goes, if people aren't offended by armed policemen and they are offended by civilians open carrying a pistol on their hip then that's just the mindset of statism exemplified perfectly. Same examples could apply to driving cars. Driving 70mph in a school zone in a residential neighborhood is completely inappropriate compared to being on I-90 going east past Snoqualmie. So context obviously matters.

Real life example:
I worked at a bank, an elderly customer was sitting at my desk and the topic of target shooting came up. Then it shifted to concealed carry, he said, "let me show you something" and pulled out his pistol. Not something you typically see while working in a bank, but he maintained trigger discipline and kept it pointed in a safe direction. I said, "that's nice but I think before people start to get the wrong idea you should put that away." It dawned on him that he just pulled a gun, in a bank, in Seattle and even though nobody noticed, he agreed with me before anyone did. that he should put it away. I wasn't personally bothered by it, but I do ascribe to the belief that rules of firearm safety should be applied at all times with the addition being "leave the gun in the holster unless there is a reason to pull it and use it." - so "show and tell" wouldn't have been a valid reason.

Regarding carrying weapons:
Are we talking about rights or privileges, because if we are talking about rights then it doesn't matter what the opinions of others are. If we are talking about privileges bestowed to us by other people than that would matter.

Regarding idiots, I haven't found a single law that stops them from being that way whether they are driving cars, drinking fluids, making babies, making financial decisions, etc. Weapons are no different.

This seems to be more about "feeling safe" while living in society that has idiots than about weapons at this point. As you said, you can see idiots at the gun range do unsafe things even though that is a "appropriate" place for people to be there with guns, shooting. I don't know what to say about that, other than "living is dangerous." People I've met who obsess about feeling safe are generally miserable people. Every day you get in the car and drive somewhere you are basically putting your life in the hands of every other driver that you cross pathes with and trusting them not to kill you (whether you recognize that or not.)

I don't think every conversation gun owners have about guns has to be about legislation. If the majority of gun owners understood prudence and safety, it would be far better for gun owners in general when it comes to staving off legislation. But one of our credos is that we simply refuse to police our own because we are so afraid of being construed as "gun controllers" that we look the other way when people do dumb or tasteless things.

I have yet to see a single gun forum that banned or even moderated unsafe or foolish gun use, or 'joking' depictions of violence. The only line ever drawn is outright illegal behavior - and it was clear the point was to prevent lawsuits against the forum owners.

I have also rarely seen anyone report an unsafe yahoo at the range. I've done it on occasion. Most gun people simply leave. No one benefits from allowing dangerous practices to go unchallenged.



Uniformed police open carrying is not statism, since we accept private uniformed guards similarly. In both cases they are wearing a head to toe uniform announcing their intentions and credentials vis that firearm. The same isn't true when you open carry AND you're an off duty cop. The off duty cop is a representative of the state, but we don't know that looking at him.

 

[The Heretic]

I have yet to see a single gun forum that banned or even moderated unsafe or foolish gun use, or 'joking' depictions of violence. The only line ever drawn is outright illegal behavior - and it was clear the point was to prevent lawsuits against the forum owners.

Reddit has a number of gun sub-reddits where a lot of stuff is banned, to the point of posters not being allowed to make a valid point about gun control in a sub-reddit supposedly about guns.

But then that is Reddit - a somewhat different world that I find I need to mentally filter much more than any other venue, and where what any given sub-reddit allows varies greatly depending on the attitude of the admins for the sub-reddit. If one wishes to see how much variance there is in gun owners regarding gun control politics, Reddit is the place to find it.

I am a member of other more conventional forums where I doubt such depictions would be allowed, at least in the more public sub-forums (they usually have one or two sub-sections where you can post almost anything short of porn).

 

[RX-79G]

Reddit has a number of gun sub-reddits where a lot of stuff is banned, to the point of posters not being allowed to make a valid point about gun control in a sub-reddit supposedly about guns.

But then that is Reddit - a somewhat different world that I find I need to mentally filter much more than any other venue, and where what any given sub-reddit allows varies greatly depending on the attitude of the admins for the sub-reddit. If one wishes to see how much variance there is in gun owners regarding gun control politics, Reddit is the place to find it.

I am a member of other more conventional forums where I doubt such depictions would be allowed, at least in the more public sub-forums (they usually have one or two sub-sections where you can post almost anything short of porn).

People get banned on gun forums all the time for speaking their mind. But only if it is perceived as liberal or pro-gun control.

Suggest carrying a 1911 on half cock and you're a patriot.

 

[The Phamster]

He had every right to be afraid, it is China! When you see how life is like in a communist country, it makes you just love America all the more!

I know for sure you cannot publicly say what I have said about our lovely President, without having a good chance of disappearing in Vietnam.

But sadly, some people think we are the most racist country out there and China level censorship is what we need...

 

[sobo]

Except voicing an opinion against the current administration won't get you hauled to the work camp.

Not yet, anyway...

 

[Certaindeaf]

A few year ago, a friend bought his relative from China to my home. I showed him my guns, AKs ARs and etc. He was so surprised to see that I have all these guns, and was excited to touch and hold. When I was about to take a picture of him with his or my phone, he refused. He told me that the government will find out because they can easily access to his stuff on his phone. He was so concerned that he stop touching the guns. Don't want to be seen holding the guns. Also, he was concerned that if, the government seen a photo of him holding a gun, they will arrest him. Ok, I respect his wish. He was afraided of me posting on social media and police searcing his phone. I said ok, you can take picture of the guns only and he refused. He also asked me, Does the police know you to have all these guns? I answered, No. He replied, Why? He also thought that I was doing something iilegal and he is involved because he was shown the guns. Then I answered, don't worry about. It's ok to have guns here in USA. That guy was so paranoid. He back in China enjoying his life in his tyrannical society.

Not really surprising.. he's a communist and communists worship the state, not freedom of the individual.

 

[The Heretic]

Not really surprising.. he's a communist and communists worship the state, not freedom of the individual.

Not sure that is the case with everybody there - but they certainly learn to fear the CCP and state surveillance.

 

[sobo]

Just stopped by to drop this off... Carry on, y'all!

The off duty cop is a representative of the state,

Some inexperienced patrolman is not "the state"

 

[American123]

I don't think every conversation gun owners have about guns has to be about legislation. If the majority of gun owners understood prudence and safety, it would be far better for gun owners in general when it comes to staving off legislation. But one of our credos is that we simply refuse to police our own because we are so afraid of being construed as "gun controllers" that we look the other way when people do dumb or tasteless things.

I have yet to see a single gun forum that banned or even moderated unsafe or foolish gun use, or 'joking' depictions of violence. The only line ever drawn is outright illegal behavior - and it was clear the point was to prevent lawsuits against the forum owners.

I have also rarely seen anyone report an unsafe yahoo at the range. I've done it on occasion. Most gun people simply leave. No one benefits from allowing dangerous practices to go unchallenged.



Uniformed police open carrying is not statism, since we accept private uniformed guards similarly. In both cases they are wearing a head to toe uniform announcing their intentions and credentials vis that firearm. The same isn't true when you open carry AND you're an off duty cop. The off duty cop is a representative of the state, but we don't know that looking at him.

I think you are misguided if you believe those that wish to ban guns care 1 iota about how prudent and safe law abiding gun owners operate.

 

[Mark W.]

Interesting I had a visit from my Step brother from Scotland and all he wanted to do was shoot everything I would let him. He was nuts about being able to handle a real firearm. As he is not a land owner or of any real means he can't own a firearm in Scotland. He was wildly excited about being able to shoot my "12 Bore" shotgun until he found out how much his scrawny bubblegum got beat up shooting it LOL. he only made it a couple rounds through the M1 Garand before that was all he could handle.

 

[NeoBlackdog]

Except voicing an opinion against the current administration won't get you hauled to the work camp.

Yet...

 

[Member 3687]

I guess being rude for open carry is not something I agree with or understand because of growing up in a state that open carry is apart of the states constitution and carrying concealed was a no-no up until 20 or so years ago.

In fact, when permits came about you had to go to each county for a permit that was only good in that county but times and permit types have change and now and we also have Constitutional carry so permits are no longer required.

A lot of folks still open carry and nobody except the occasional person from out of state or a transplant seem to care or are bothered.

I work in a gun/sporting goods store and we have had folks from New Zealand and Japan come in and have asked us to take pictures of them with certain guns. Something they can not do in their countries because they can not get or have certain firearms. We also send them to a local range that rents a couple different sub guns and many have done so.

I do understand how the person from China may have felt as their country is very strict and anything could lead to arrest or accidental death, on purpose.

We have rights that they don't but many folks seem to be willing to give them up because they feel its rude or not a tactical advantage or for some other reason that they do not feel other should have that personal choice.

 

[RX-79G]

Just stopped by to drop this off... Carry on, y'all!

One says "representative of the state", the other says "the state".

Just thought I'd point out this obvious difference. Carry on, and all.