Soccer parents wince at prospect of guns at games

[Philbert]

PennsyPlinker makes some good points. We are not a hierarchical organization. There is no means to enforce discipline. The best we can do is encourage each other as individuals to work smarter, and be wary of groupthink.

It doesn't just apply to OC. If anyone is going to do anything, OC related or not, for the purposes of advancing the cause of gun rights, it makes sense to consider the following things

1. What do I aim to achieve by doing this?

2. a. What could potentially go wrong?
b. What would I do if it did?

3. Are the consequences of this going wrong a risk worth taking?

4. Would the resources I am going to spend in doing this and / or cleaning up its aftermath be better spent elsewhere?


With regard to OC specifically, I can tell you some general examples of what I think are good and bad activism. These are just my personal ideas.


Good activism:

Educating LEOs - Giving LEOs a heads up on firearms law is great. The best way to do this is by sending out memos to LEOs or by meeting with them for the purposes of discussion. Doing it this way is much better than trying to explain the UFA when you are on the receiving end of a "man with a gun" call. Showing up a cop's ignorance in front of his buddies or the public, while sometimes necessary, is to be avoided if possible.

Writing elected officials - with intelligent, polite, and spell-checked letters.

OC trash pickup - as done in New Hampshire. Gets the word out and does good for the community.


Questionable activism (not bad, but handle with care):

OC as a challenge - Can be useful if alternatives have been exhausted, but has to be well thought out. I believe this was done in Utah when the airport had "no gun" signs. Anything that involves being a "test case" is risky, you'd best be pretty clear about what you hope to gain and have a plan for getting it.

OC social gatherings - potential for trouble, but has worked well in the past.

Strict adherence to the legal minimum of cooperation with law enforcement - walking around with a gun and no ID, and refusing to say anything to the police.


Bad activism (likely to backfire):

Anything that can be portrayed as intimidation. For example, following up on a negative OC incident with lots more OC.

OC events that are likely to cause disruption to others who are not involved in the event.


Time wasting (meh, whatever):

Empty threats of boycotts, especially of businesses tangentially related to an issue.

Stuffing online polls with pro-gun responses.

[headcase]

There have been some very good posts and points made here. What I feel is becoming a problem, in this thread, is the lack of specificallity(sp?) in the warnings from the people calling out SFN and these mysterious other "activists". Everyone is allowed an opinion on what they think is good or bad for the cause of firearm owners rights. I just think that being a bit more....no scratch that, a lot more direct in your criticisms, would go a long way toward making this a constructive discussion. Biting off more than we can chew, causing more harm than any sheriff could imagine, OC'ing just for the attention, blah blah blah...enough with the dancing people. If you have a specific problem, with a specific action, by a specific person, than please, include all three elements in your critique, so that maybe the offending action/person/situation can have the light of day thrown upon it/them and maybe, through thoughtful discussion, it can be determined if there is merit to your concerns and they can be constructively hashed out, or maybe you are a chicken little type running around crying that the sky is falling down on firearm ownership and can be told so. Carry in general, not just OC specific, is as individual as anything else a person may choose to do, and it is done by a wide assortment of personalities. Any-one's actions may seem weird or quirky to any other person, it doesn't make them any less entitled to live under the same protections as the rest of us, nor does it make their actions necessarily the death knell of all the hard work put in to preserve our firearm rights. It makes us individuals, who carry firearms, and, well, that is the generally accepted goal of "OC activism", to see the individual who carries, open or concealed, as just another individual. It ain't just for short haired, business suit wearing, IT guys...........




ETA~ Without making another post, I wanted to say that Philbert's post was a good one, not that I necessarily agree with it all, but it was very specific, and conveyed his thoughts well. I owe you rep when I can...

[lildobe]

Originally Posted by headcase

If you have a specific problem, with a specific action, by a specific person, than please, include all three elements in your critique, so that maybe the offending action/person/situation can have the light of day thrown upon it/them and maybe, through thoughtful discussion, it can be determined if there is merit to your concerns and they can be constructively hashed out, or maybe you are a chicken little type running around crying that the sky is falling down on firearm ownership and can be told so.

Hear Hear!

I'd rep you for this, but I've gotta spread the love...

[Brown-Bear]

Originally Posted by headcase

There have been some very good posts and points made here. What I feel is becoming a problem, in this thread, is the lack of specificallity(sp?) in the warnings from the people calling out SFN and these mysterious other "activists". Everyone is allowed an opinion on what they think is good or bad for the cause of firearm owners rights. I just think that being a bit more....no scratch that, a lot more direct in your criticisms, would go a long way toward making this a constructive discussion. Biting off more than we can chew, causing more harm than any sheriff could imagine, OC'ing just for the attention, blah blah blah...enough with the dancing people. If you have a specific problem, with a specific action, by a specific person, than please, include all three elements in your critique, so that maybe the offending action/person/situation can have the light of day thrown upon it/them and maybe, through thoughtful discussion, it can be determined if there is merit to your concerns and they can be constructively hashed out, or maybe you are a chicken little type running around crying that the sky is falling down on firearm ownership and can be told so. Carry in general, not just OC specific, is as individual as anything else a person may choose to do, and it is done by a wide assortment of personalities. Any-one's actions may seem weird or quirky to any other person, it doesn't make them any less entitled to live under the same protections as the rest of us, nor does it make their actions necessarily the death knell of all the hard work put in to preserve our firearm rights. It makes us individuals, who carry firearms, and, well, that is the generally accepted goal of "OC activism", to see the individual who carries, open or concealed, as just another individual. It ain't just for short haired, business suit wearing, IT guys...........




ETA~ Without making another post, I wanted to say that Philbert's post was a good one, not that I necessarily agree with it all, but it was very specific, and conveyed his thoughts well. I owe you rep when I can...

Agreed. I have been guilty of this in the past so heres my attempt to rectify.

SFN, while I count her a friend and over all good person and by all accounts a good mom, I will say that OC at a soccer game FOR ME is outside the realm of normal. I normally CC in places like that, or when I take my daughter to pre-school, church, etc, etc. Do I think she was wrong for doing it....No not really, but I do thin that even though the result was a positive outcome for her, I can't help but focus on the potential "bad juju" that could come from the "in your face" type mentality as of late. As a gun owner and 2a supporter I support her right to OC where ever she feels like doing so. But I would not have done so, and if I were in her shoes on that day I would have most likely covered up to spare a scene that may involve embarassment for my kids, not that her kid was. I just would have covered and let the game come to an uneventful end and then handed out some flyers, and tried the education route. Again, before I get BBQ'ed here, I thik she did no real harm, nor did she violate any laws, I just would ahev handled it differently.

Dave

[shefearsnothing]

Dave, thank you for your candor. I appreciate and respect that in more ways then I can tell you. It is certainly something to think about. Thank you again.

[ScaredOnce]

Originally Posted by Brown-Bear

Agreed. I have been guilty of this in the past so heres my attempt to rectify.

SFN, while I count her a friend and over all good person and by all accounts a good mom, I will say that OC at a soccer game FOR ME is outside the realm of normal. I normally OC in places like that, or when I take my daughter to pre-school, church, etc, etc. Do I think she was wrong for doing it....No not really, but I do thin that even though the result was a positive outcome for her, I can't help but focus on the potential "bad juju" that could come from the "in your face" type mentality as of late. As a gun owner and 2a supporter I support her right to OC where ever she feels like doing so. But I would not have done so, and if I were in her shoes on that day I would have most likely covered up to spare a scene that may involve embarassment for my kids, not that her kid was. I just would have covered and let the game come to an uneventful end and then handed out some flyers, and tried the education route. Again, before I get BBQ'ed here, I thik she did no real harm, nor did she violate any laws, I just would ahev handled it differently.

Dave

Dave, I really see what you're getting at here and agree completely. I'm truly concerned that the affinity for attention may be one of the largest negatives of this whole issue. Way too much blathering to the press took place in my opinion without any real control plan. Often, those involved in so called "crisis communication" have no realization that they are in fact participating in such. Good example - Kennedy Administration during Cuban Missile Crisis. Bad example - Lee R. Raymond at any point after Exxon's Valdez disaster. There used to be a course at Carnegie Mellon on management communication skills (75-995 if I recal, Tom Hajduk taught it in GSIA - it's Tepper now). Google up the course work. I think it might help.

Now, nothing against SFN or any other actor in the current happenings, but I can cite one issue I'm disconcerted by. A lot of the references to being PAFOA members I think were misplaced. While in fact you may be a member, the implication could exist that your position is the position of the general membership. It isn't. At least, it hasn't been stated to be as such. I think one should bear in mind that you don't have to intend for a message to be mistaken as the position of the general membership of PAFOA; but, it'd be prudent to understand that precluding such an inference by the media is also your duty. Give them enough rope, they might hang you... not themselves... maybe "us" even.

I suppose that this entire event could be studied as the consequences of a non-unified front in any communications issue.


(Edits: bc i hate typos. hence why 10-4 i dictate to an admin)

[4XLT]

my best friend and i were discussing this on the phone tonight while driving back from Levittown area, he understands our rights but is in the mind set of "why let the bad guys know you are armed" and "that is just someone's way of showing off or getting attention".

so he and i, though we have been like brothers since 5 years old will continue to agree to disagree on this matter lol

he is what i call super hunter, loves hunting and fishing more than almost anything, but he still disagrees with OC'ing

i tell him, why should i feel uncomfortable because someone else is uneasy ? why must i conform to concealment when i do not have to ???

again , we agree to disagree

[Brown-Bear]

The polar bear is right. No man has any more right to force their agenda on me than I do on him. All any free man can do is, what he feels is right for him in any given situation. But I will say that us gunowners need to get on the ball with our mutual support of our OVERALL agenda. Which is the conservation of the 2A.

Dave

[ScaredOnce]

Originally Posted by Brown-Bear

But I will say that us gunowners need to get on the ball with our mutual support of our OVERALL agenda. Which is the conservation of the 2A.

Dave

Exactly. I feel that maybe the issues regarding SFN's OC at the kids' game and the fielding of questions and comments afterwards may not have been in our "OVERALL" best interest. i.e. "

conservation of the 2A.

".

[Philbert]

Originally Posted by ScaredOnce

Now, nothing against SFN or any other actor in the current happenings, but I can cite one issue I'm disconcerted by. A lot of the references to being PAFOA members I think were misplaced. While in fact you may be a member, the implication could exist that your position is the position of the general membership. It isn't. At least, it hasn't been stated to be as such. I think one should bear in mind that you don't have to intend for a message to be mistaken as the position of the general membership of PAFOA; but, it'd be prudent to understand that precluding such an inference by the media is also your duty. Give them enough rope, they might hang you... not themselves... maybe "us" even.

In the examples I've seen, PAFOA is mentioned only by the article authors. I haven't seen a direct quote from anyone here talking about being members of PAFOA. So the problem might be reporters hitting google and making their own conclusions about who is who around here.