Overall, I thought it was a very fair report. It was nice to see one in which the reporters were relatively neutral, and not displaying hostility towards armed citizens.
Sorry I can't find a direct link to the video:
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum...cussions/181069-oc-experiment-local-news.html
No surprises: most people don't notice, those who do quickly realize there's no threat, the police chief is opposed.
The big take-away from this experiment, IMHO, is that
a gun is only one part of a subconscious threat assessment people automatically make. The presence or absence of erratic, violent, or obnoxious behavior is a much larger factor for whether or not people get worried. Thus, open carry by people who are obviously just peacefully going about their business is quickly analyzed as non-threatening by the majority of people.
My theory is that the vast majority of MWAG calls are made by people who believe "they shouldn't be allowed to do that" (value judgment/personal opinion, like the last woman in the video) rather than people who have genuinely assessed the OCer as a threat.
I think that your assertion - that people make a threat assessment based on far more than just a gun - is probably true for many people, but also not true for a significant number of people. I'd say that it depends in part upon what they've been exposed to. Someone whose only experience with guns is bad (e.g. living in a bad neighborhood where the people with guns are simply thugs that are killing themselves and innocent people)
or someone who has been brainwashed into thinking that guns are only used for bad things may automatically assume that anyone with a gun is a threat. Someone who has grown up in a place where OC is common and good guys carry all the time may have a radically different viewpoint.
If one is not ignorant of firearms, then yes, I think the presence of a weapon is only one small part of a threat assessment. But for some, the weapon alone is enough to serve as the entire threat assessment.
Unless the old media is harping how bad guns are must people don.t notice, don't care or think it is just fine.
Making a non story into a story.
I disagree that it is a non-story. Many people are unaware that open carry is perfectly lawful in various states, and this story informs them of that. It's not a breaking news event, but it is a legitimate news story.
I think it's quite the opposite. Here in Colorado I think the consensus is different in the wake of what happened in Aurora and at Arapahoe HS. We need more people who are willing to OC in public to set the standard and to let the public know that, "Hey, I'm a regular guy/gal and I'm OC'ing to protect myself and those around me from any kind of threat."
I think the woman in the restaurant who was uneasy about the OC was naive in the sense that she may have thought that everyone who carries a gun on their belt, unless their LE, is a criminal and/or a madman.
I had this same discussion with my mom a while back when I told her I bought my first gun and that I can and do openly carry it. Her first thought was that I would be arrested and that seeing someone with a gun in public automatically meant he/she was about to commit a crime. After a quick lesson on the laws of OC in my state and assuring her that there are many more good guys than bad guys, she settled down and it's become a non-issue.
Bottom line, we need more instances of this type of experiment to show the public that OC is not only legal, but overall makes the public safer.
I'm glad your mother was fine with your OCing once she knew the facts.
I agree that we need more people OCing. I'm not necessarily sure that more of these experiments would do any good. What I think would be nice is if the OC community in a given location found a reporter who is going to give at least a neutral story (or even a friendly one). Have them interview a well-spoken person who knows OC law and can present a positive image of open carriers. Bonus points if the expert is a well-respected member of the community.
That, and more OCing by good folks, should help.
I liked the report. Would have been nice to have a little history on where the RKBA comes from - like the 2A and PA law under the 10A.
Would have been nice for the Mayor of the Tnwshp of the Chief (is that a non-PC term now? Like 'Redskins') to dress the Chief down in that unless he was against the 2A, he and his 'little-chiefs' needed to respect the Constitution and rights not granted to the Govt - those rights enumerated to the 'little-indian-braves' as they OC their little bows and arrows (not to exceed 5 in the quiver).
I'm not sure that going into a history of the RKBA would have been appropriate in this report. Giving people too much information at once is going to make them forget most of it. This report was focused on open carry, and I'm fine with that.
Can anyone explain what the LEO meant when he said, WE Have a job to do?
CCJ
Uh ... not sure. I will say I was a bit irritated by the chief's other comments ...
First he says that "people get a lot of courage because they're wearing a gun on their side." I'd say that poeple have less fear of being robbed, raped or assaulted. If that means "more courage" then that works for me.
I suspect he's trying to covertly suggest that those who carry guns openly may be more reckless because they have a gun with them. I'd say the opposite is true ... most people I know who open carry want to avoid confrontations in the first place, not get into them. That's part of the reason for OC. I open carry, but the last thing I want to do when I OC is actually be forced to use my firearm.
Then, "there's too many guns out there now as it is" ... well I guess that's true if you think a guy with a gun is automatically a bad guy. If that's his assumption, then it's a shame that he's a police chief. The issue isn't too many guns - it's too many bad guys, and not enough law-abiding citizens who are prepared to stop them with guns.
As far as open carriers trying to "push those limits" ... any limits regarding firearms in public aren't (and shouldn't be) related to open carry. If someone is open carrying, and then pulls out a gun and misbehaves with it, that's inappropriate - but the issue isn't open carry. It may be unwarranted brandishing (if one is displaying the weapon but not threatened), or perhaps (?) reckless endangerment (if they're waving the gun around), or even assault (if they're actually threatening someone). But
those things also apply if they're carrying the gun concealed. They are unrelated to open carry. If the issue is that they OC, a business asks them to leave and they refuse, the issue again is not OC - it's trespassing, for failure to leave the property when asked to. The same thing would happen if they were being an (unarmed) loudmouth buffoon, they were asked to leave, and then refused - it would be trespassing.