Letter from Sen. Jim Tomes

[Roadie]

Why did Jamil get neg rep for that?

 

[Hoosierdood]

Why did Jamil get neg rep for that?

IDK, but I fixed it for him.

 

[critter592]

IDK, but I fixed it for him.

Seconded.

 

[jamil]

Thanks to all who gave + rep, and for the one who gave negative rep, thanks for the feedback.

I only posted that because I think I'm in a good position to understand the sentiment against OC very well because I was on that side. It will be very hard to convince the masses that OC is OK. Proponents are a small group when compared to everyone else. The Sun Times article demonstrates how NOT normal OC currently is, "It’s hard to imagine someone walking into a city zoo while visibly packing a gun on his hip."

OC folks have to turn that into what's easy to imagine. It's tough job because most folks think like David Jones, "To me, it’s not about the gun. I don’t think you have a right to intimidate or frighten people or create the disturbance he created. To go into a petting zoo area with a gun, where there are children, that’s just idiotic."

You have to turn "that's just idiotic" into "ho hum, that's just normal" for most people.

Think about it pragmatically. The law gives you the right to OC, regardless of how intimidated or frightened that makes other people feel. You can say, "screw em, that's their problem, it's my right". Yeah, but that done publicly strengthens the opposition. It gives people who may never have given it much thought, a reason to think about it negatively, and join the opposition, and call their legislators. The opposition loves public incidents like the one at the zoo because they get to put articles like this in front of the public. But worse, the negative publicity fuels sentiment not just against OC but against guns in general, which is truly intimidating and frightening.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Thanks to all who gave + rep, and for the one who gave negative rep, thanks for the feedback.

I only posted that because I think I'm in a good position to understand the sentiment against OC very well because I was on that side. It will be very hard to convince the masses that OC is OK. Proponents are a small group when compared to everyone else. The Sun Times article demonstrates how NOT normal OC currently is, "It’s hard to imagine someone walking into a city zoo while visibly packing a gun on his hip."

OC folks have to turn that into what's easy to imagine. It's tough job because most folks think like David Jones, "To me, it’s not about the gun. I don’t think you have a right to intimidate or frighten people or create the disturbance he created. To go into a petting zoo area with a gun, where there are children, that’s just idiotic."

You have to turn "that's just idiotic" into "ho hum, that's just normal" for most people.

Think about it pragmatically. The law gives you the right to OC, regardless of how intimidated or frightened that makes other people feel. You can say, "screw em, that's their problem, it's my right". Yeah, but that done publicly strengthens the opposition. It gives people who may never have given it much thought, a reason to think about it negatively, and join the opposition, and call their legislators. The opposition loves public incidents like the one at the zoo because they get to put articles like this in front of the public. But worse, the negative publicity fuels sentiment not just against OC but against guns in general, which is truly intimidating and frightening.

You have very well thought out posts, thank you for contributing to our community and to OC from a "normal" perspective. I tend to agree with most of what you wrote but the Zoo to me at least is doing nothing but working in our favor.

 

[youngda9]

Think about it pragmatically. The law gives you the right to OC, regardless of how intimidated or frightened that makes other people feel. You can say, "screw em, that's their problem, it's my right". Yeah, but that done publicly strengthens the opposition. It gives people who may never have given it much thought, a reason to think about it negatively, and join the opposition, and call their legislators. The opposition loves public incidents like the one at the zoo because they get to put articles like this in front of the public. But worse, the negative publicity fuels sentiment not just against OC but against guns in general, which is truly intimidating and frightening.

On the other hand..."It gives people who may never have given it much thought, a reason to think about it" positively as well.

Many people never see firearms in real life. The only time they see them is when a bad guy is brutally killing people on television and in the movies. OC works to tear down the misconception that guns are always/mostly used for evil and killing.

 

[jamil]

...the Zoo to me at least is doing nothing but working in our favor.

One big positive that I see is getting like-minded people to formulate a strategy, which has happened in this thread. Also, perhaps something positive will come from the lawsuit, perhaps not. Maybe a win in the courtroom forces the law to be recognized, but the media will certainly spin it against OC. The court of public opinion is where this really matters so it's still not a win. Society won't keep laws like this on the books they mostly oppose.

Speaking of strategy, maybe it would help to organize into an OC group with a visible, ongoing, benevolent purpose beyond just protecting your right to OC. Give this group an appropriately benevolent name. As a group, do benevolent things in your communities. Clean up trash as was mentioned earlier. Help raise money for charities, like victims of violent crimes. Demonstrate that OCers are reasonable, normal people, invested in the community, who happen to wear guns openly for protection. Work with community leadership to help the public be less fearful. Also, work with legislators. Let them know you're organized--not in a militant way--but that you care about your cause, and you vote.

Being seen in public as community minded and helpful seems like a good strategy. It gives nothing negative for opponents to use while demonstrating positive things about OCers. But you won't likely see positive publicity from the media because your cause isn't PC.

 

[jamil]

On the other hand..."It gives people who may never have given it much thought, a reason to think about it" positively as well.

Many people never see firearms in real life. The only time they see them is when a bad guy is brutally killing people on television and in the movies. OC works to tear down the misconception that guns are always/mostly used for evil and killing.

Well, but put yourself in the position of those at the zoo who don't think of OC the way you do. Most folks I run into seem afraid of guns, not so much in rural areas, but especially in larger cities. They don't really think much about that the law allows open carry--probably they're not even aware of it. But when they bring their family with young kids to a place like the zoo, and see a man walking around carrying a gun, they will not think about it positively because it's not a positive experience for them. It was these folks I spoke of who will now think negatively about something they've not given much thought to previously.

If you want people to have a positive experience when they see a man openly holstering a gun in public it has to be in such an environment where they aren't surprised by that. That kind of environment only exists now among people who currently think like you do. Until that changes, those experiences will be mostly negative.

 

[Flyguy]

I have spoken to Senator Tomes about the litigation and he is definitely not talking about the original occurrence in the Mesker Zoo. He is talking about a possiple subsequent "open carry event" at the zoo.

I agree with him 100%. This is a very bad idea and would only hurt our cause. If you know anyone planning to participate in such an event, please urge them to reconsider. If you see any discussion of such an event here or on any other forum, please let the persons involved know that Sen. Tomes and I strongly urge them to refrain from organizing or participating in any such event.

Guy

I can only agree here. One or two OC'ers wouldn't do harm but a mass OC event would in my opinion be counter productive. It would only be reported, and inturpreted, as intimidation. That isn't needed and would hurt the cause.

 

[templar223]

Whatever you do in your interactions with people, demonstrate that you're not kooky, that you're not some nutjob with a gun, that you're not carrying to intimidate people, or just because it's you're right.

BRAVO!

John

 

[Caleb]

I do open carry when I owned a gun, and still would if I got another....however I think that a open carry event would prove to be more harmful then good. I like our current gun laws(or lack of them depending how you look at it), lets not mess it up and give them reasons to take away our freedom.