Guns

Position Sul

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

This video has started to float around, about “Position Sul”.

While Sul has very specific and limited application, it’s worthwhile to know. If nothing else, it’s worth knowing where Sul came from, why it was developed, and under what conditions it’s applicable. Generally speaking, private citizens aren’t going to use Sul (you’ll note the application tends to be teams and contexts specific to law enforcement and military), but it’s still worth knowing and understanding.

Oh, and this all comes right from the authoritative horse’s mouth. So, sit back for 8 minutes and receive a good education.

Professionals and (lack of) training

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

“Only police (and military) should have guns, because they are trained.”

About that….

Reason Magazine had a short piece discussing the DOJ’s investigation of the Albuquerque Police Department over excessive use of force.

Police violence, and especially questionable shootings, provide a real-world example of why the state shouldn’t be granted a monopoly on the use of guns by measures curbing the individual right of self-defense. It also shows what’s dangerous about the assumption that state agents are innately more qualified in the use of firearms than civilians looking to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Indeed. People are always disgusted at police corruption, police brutality, and yet for some reason also think it’s fine to give police the monopoly on power. I’m not sure people are thinking things through.

But to their last point about state agents being more qualified than private citizens is what I want to address.

It appears the majority of the public grossly overestimates the training and skill of law enforcement officers. Now, there are certainly exceptions. Austin Police Department has a marksmanship team, and I know numerous LEOs that are quite skilled and practice regularly. But the sad reality is, these folks are the exception and not the rule.

Here’s some perspective:

An ACTIVE police department generally qualifies with their pistol 4x per year. The assault rifle gets much less attention than the pistol in a police environment; however, there are some officers that are required to qualify with it. Active duty soldiers in the army qualify with their assault rifle 2x per year. Reserve components qualify 1x per year. Although Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare would have you believe otherwise, the infantry soldier doesn’t carry a pistol in combat. That’s pretty much reserved for Special Forces. Military officers are issued pistols but usually receive little to no training with it. There are exceptions to this rule but they’re few and far between.

Now let me be clear about this: qualification does NOT mean training. Qualification is a TEST. The minimum army standard for rifle qualification is 23 hits out of 40 rounds fired (page 6-16 FM 3-22.9). For the pistol its 16 hits out of 30 rounds fired (page A-9 FM 3-23.35) Police standards vary state to state but the standard is never 100%.

Why is this important?

Heres why: For a soldier with a rifle, the standard is that missing every third shot is acceptable. For the pistol, every other shot. Now I’m not just talking about missing center mass here, I’m talking about complete misses. For police, the same principles apply though the number of acceptable misses will vary from district to district.

The public servants that everyone claims are the “trained professionals” – are qualified to carry their weapon with a test where it is OK TO MISS THE TARGET COMPLETELY as long as they don’t do it too many times.

To measure just how acceptable or unacceptable this standard is, a simple litmus test can be used. Simply imagine your spouse, child, mother, father, brother, sister or even yourself standing next to a bad guy. A cop or soldier starts shooting at said bad guy. How acceptable is it that the cop or soldier shooting at a person very VERY close to you has trouble putting every round he or she fires on a STILL PIECE OF PAPER at distances of 25 yards or less? A perfect example is just recently two cops in NYC (who were seasoned ten year veterans on the force) had a shootout with a man at the base of the Empire State building at a distance of LESS THAN 10 FEET. NINE innocent bystanders were injured by the officer’s stray bullets.

Let that sink in.

They don’t have to train, they just have to qualify. And in qualifying, the test makes it acceptable to miss the target completely.

And where do you think that miss winds up?

This is why I call it an “unacceptable hit”, because it’s not a miss – that bullet will always hit something; it’s just a question of if the hit is acceptable or unacceptable. And not hitting the target and calling it acceptable? To me, that’s unacceptable. Yet, that’s all the professionals – the folks that so many rally behind being the only people qualified enough to carry a gun – have to do. I’d like to hope that my fellow man doesn’t actually want this, just that they don’t know any better.

Well now, hopefully you do.

Contrast:

The people who carry concealed are worried about getting sued and going to jail if they miss. They’re not backed by any department or government if they screw up. They’re also not bound by any statutes of limitation or rules of engagement stating they must procedurally go through some ridiculous escalation of force before they use their gun. For them, the moment their life is threatened it is do or die. They are their own first responder. They must fire and fire well. So you know what they do? They go to the range and practice. They practice for the moment they hope never comes. They Youtube every reputable instructional video they can find. They join the NRA and subscribe to the American Rifleman with drills in it. They join the US Concealed Carry Association and get practice plans from them. Some go as far as to pay for private instruction. They practice because their life or the life of a family member may depend on their ability quickly and accurately put their gun into action. In addition to life and death, whether or not they go to jail depends on their ability to accurately assess the situation and NOT MISS AT ALL if they are forced to use their gun.

The liability for a private citizen is much higher. The stakes are much higher, therefore there’s greater incentive to get it right. Carrying a gun brings a high responsibility. No, none of us can be perfect, no one is above screwing up or failing. But we must strive high and work hard.

Ask anyone thats been there, getting shot at is not something you can practice for. We are all human; soldier, police and civilian alike, and we are all scared to death when it happens. Defending one’s life and family with deadly force is a right inherent to being alive, not to owning a badge or a uniform. The ability to handle a firearm while being shot at depends on your lowest level of training. The most qualified people to shoot back in a life and death situation are the ones who regularly PRACTICE shooting. That may be a cop. It might be a soldier. It might be a teacher. It may be a grandma. It may be a bus driver. Could be a teller at your bank. It could even be your pastor. The point is that the idea of limiting self defense with a gun to a limited quantity of people such as soldiers or policemen is ungrounded. There is virtually no gun fighting /military training out there that a civilian cannot get. There are so many tactical shooting schools out there available to the public its silly. Sure, civilians have to pay for it, but at the end of the day its training cops and soldiers just don’t normally receive.

There just is no magical voodoo that makes a cop or soldier better with a gun.

There is only practice. There is only the will to get better and the drive to do it perfect every time.

Some might consider this a reason to mandate training. I firmly believe that individuals and society as a whole are better off due to education. The more education an individual receives, the better off she and everyone is for it. We know how education empowers and enables us to rise above, there is no reasonable situation where too much knowledge and skill is a bad thing. I encourage people to seek out as much education, teaching, schooling, knowledge, training, and practice as they can. But I stop short of mandating it, because that rarely generates results (and opens a massive can of worms). You cannot mandate responsibility – else our country wouldn’t be in such the mess that it is (besides, there’s a certain irony in mandating responsibility). You cannot  mandate motivation. These things must come from within. And yes, it will mean there will be those less educated, less skilled, and perhaps a danger to themselves and the community; but such is the cost of greater freedom for all (which includes us doing what we can to help those improve their education and skills; to help uplift and improve).

Just accept that because someone’s job is to carry a gun doesn’t mean they have some innate proficiency or that their job provides them enough “on the job training” to actually use it well. And accept that because someone may not professionally carry a gun, doesn’t mean they lack skill and ability.

DR Performance Practice Deck 1.2 – 20% off!

/ hsoi

Head over to the Hsoi Enterprises LLC website to learn about our most recent release: the DR Performance Practice Deck 1.2.

To help celebrate the release of this version, the Pro Uprade is being offered at 20% off the regular price, through the end of June 2014.

 

Your life is most precious. Act like it.

/ hsoi

Carry your damn gun!

From Tom Givens, of Rangemaster:

Carry Your Darned Gun!

Rangemaster students’ success rate (at least on events I know about) is 61/0/2 for 63 incidents. That’s 61 clear victories, zero losses and 2 forfeits. The two forfeits were people who died as a result of not being armed on The Big Day. Both were killed in separate street robberies. Essentially, both were executed for the contents of their pockets. They were not able to defend themselves because they chose not to be armed that day. They made a poor choice.

Of the 61 students who won, only 3 were injured, and all recovered from those injuries. They did not know they would need a gun that day, but they chose to be armed, anyway. Based on my interviews with the winners, I believe the two MOST important factors are:

1. Having your damn gun on you when the event occurs, and
2. Being willing to use it to save your life.

Everything else– gun model, caliber, ammo choice and Yes, even amount of training, seems to be a distant third after these primary two. Three of the shooters in our group were trained to our instructor level, four or five more to what I would call competency, and the rest had only had an eight hour carry permit course.

One of the things we stress at ALL training levels is the need to actually carry the gun daily, as one simply cannot make an appointment for an emergency. An emergency, in this context, is a sudden, unforeseen crisis in which one’s life is in immediate mortal danger. The key words are “sudden, unforeseen”, so making carrying a handgun a daily routine assures that it will be there when needed. I believe that because we stress this heavily, our students tend to be armed, and thus win when attacked.

I believe a big factor is the Bad Guy’s training, education and life experience. Most BG’s go through their entire careers without ever running into an armed citizen on the street. Only about 4% of the US population has some kind of carry permit, and I’d bet less than 1% of them actually carry on a routine, daily basis. So, when a Bad Guy confronts a citizen who is actually armed and produces his weapon, the resulting mental lag time for the Bad Guy allows even an untrained or minimally trained defender a golden opportunity. The one who starts the fight has an enormous advantage. In this context, the BG started the incident, but the student starts the fight.

This is not to say that more advanced training is not desirable. Several of my students have been in rather difficult extreme cases and still won. Fortunately, they had training beyond a permit course.

Here’s what I take from this.

First, it seems Tom’s student count keeps rising. That’s a bad thing, but from it we can glean good things. It’s bad because good people are being violently assaulted. It’s bad because there’s so much violent crime, and it shows no signs of abating. But it’s good because we can gather hard, real data, and from that learn how to improve, how to be better, how to succeed. We can learn about reality.

Second, “have your damn gun”. I think that’s become Tom’s patented phrase, and with good reason. When you have a 97% success rate, you look for patterns that contribute to that high success rate. This is what we can call, “a clue”.

You see, these violent encounters tend to be “sudden and unforeseen”. I previously wrote about violence unfolds very quickly, and if the only response you have is “I don’t know”, that will not bode well for you. You have to be prepared, and you have to be able to respond swiftly, without hesitation. Which means, 1. carry your damn gun, 2. being willing to use it to save your life.

Third, mindset matters. To make the choice to carry it on a daily and regular basis. Else you could wind up like Tom’s two forfeits, or like Tommy. To make the choice that your life is worth preserving. To understand, acknowledge, and accept there are horrible people in this world that will kill you for your pocket change, which is totally unthinkable and irrational to you, but consider people you encounter in your daily life, the news stories you read, the Facebook posts you see… and how you shake your head wondering how someone could do such a thing… and then realize there are people in this world that will do things 100-times worse. No, we don’t want this, we agree the world would be better off if we didn’t have such things and such people, but we do. And you can either be in denial, or accept it and be willing and able to cope with it when they decide to infringe upon your life and ability to go home tonight and see your family.

Fourth, please stop listening to all the crap on Internet gun forums, Facebook comment threads, or whatever, about what people think is important. Because your gun, your caliber, and all that stuff really doesn’t matter. As the old saying goes: “In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance or tactics. They will only remember who lived.” What’s going to help you live? 1. having your gun, 2. being willing to use it to preserve your life.

Fifth, yes… as professional trainers, we like people coming to classes. It’s how we make money. The more classes, the better, right? But you can see, that it only matters to a limited extent. I believe Claude Werner has a lot of data that demonstrates that most often what matters is again, 1. having a gun, 2. being willing to use it (which may not necessitate pressing the trigger, perhaps merely showing it with the obvious resolve in your eyes to use it). I do think that more education is never a hindrance in life (tell me any facet of life where you are better off being ignorant or un-/under-educated). However, we’re back to the key points that show even some level of training is better than nothing — in part because that good training should reinforce 1. having your gun, 2. helping you gain the resolve to use it.

Ultimately what comes from this is accepting that the world isn’t fully of shiny happy people holding hands. There are degenerates that are willing to kill you for no reason — even if you do what they tell you. They will take your money, your phone, your keys, your sexuality, your dignity, your life. To them, your life means nothing. To you, your life is everything. To your family, your friends, your life is most precious. Act like it.

 

Why capacity?

/ hsoi

Capacity is important.

Would you want your car’s gas tank to only hold 1 gallon of gas? No, you prefer it to hold 12-20 gallons; enough to get you around 300 miles, not 30 — most people couldn’t do what they need to do in a day if the car only held enough gas to do 30 miles at a time. It’s also one barrier with more widespread adoption of electric cars, because you just can’t go very far. This is why hybrid cars exist, to help overcome the capacity issue.

Even if you don’t like the notion of humongous drink cups (e.g. 44 oz, 64 oz, etc.), you still prefer some sort of capacity when you want a drink, especially if you need to take that drink with you. I mean, if you could only get your coffee in thimble-sized shots, there’d have to be a Starbucks every 50 feet, amiright? You prefer your Grandes, your Ventis, and perhaps your Trentas, don’t you? Makes life better.

Have you ever noticed that police don’t carry single-shot guns? Why is that?

Whether a gun is used as a deterrent (simply by being present) or is used in the most common fashion a confrontation (drawn but not fired), or is used by pulling the trigger, the objective is always to stop the threat. In situations where the gun must be fired, not all shots hit an attacker. Of those that do, few are immediately incapacitating, unless they strike the heart or the central nervous system. Yet when the defender has sufficient reserve capacity, even multiple attackers may decide to desist from an attack. That is why American law enforcement officers ubiquitously carry handguns with more than ten rounds of ammunition, and often more than 15. It is also why their rifles typically have 20 or 30 round magazines, not 10.

If the firing of several shots has wounded one attacker, and has resulted in the other attacker putting up his hands, the defender needs to control the situation until the police arrive. That is why reserve capacity is so important for law enforcement and for citizens. Reloading is very difficult when the second hand is holding a cell phone. Even a two-handed reload will likely make the gun temporarily inoperable and cause the gun to move off target for at least a few seconds, giving the criminal(s) a new window of opportunity. Citizens do not carry police radios, and police response to a cell phone call about citizen in trouble is often slower than the response to a radio call about an officer in trouble. The reasons why magazines for greater than 10 rounds are the overwhelming choice for law enforcement officers for lawful defense of self and others apply a fortiori to citizens, who rightly  look to law enforcement officers as good models for gun safety practices.

– David Kopel, “The history of magazines hold 11 or more rounds: Amicus brief in 9th Circuit”

Mr. Kopel wrote this brief (and this article) because there’s a court case where a ban on magazines due to their capacity was being upheld in part because the Court’s analysis stated that magazines did not exist at the time the Second Amendment was ratified. Mr. Kopel gave a history lesson, showing how such technology existed as early as the 16th century – a couple hundred years before the USA Founding Documents were authored. It’s an interesting read on history.

Problems, and Solutions

/ hsoi

This person looked at me for a moment and with a bit of exasperation and said, “Violence is never the answer! It never will be and we must stop violence throughout our society!” I looked at this person for a moment and said, “You know, you are right…violence is never the answer to society’s problems. But, unfortunately, all to often, it is the only solution.”

– Dave Spaulding (emphasis added)

A good way to phrase it.

The above was the ending of an anecdote from Dave Spaulding. He was telling of a conversation he had with a person, that upon finding out what he did for a living began to chastise him saying how what he does promote violence, and because people receive this sort of training they are more apt to resort to violence as a solution instead of non-violent solutions.

It’s probably safe to assume this person has no experience in such training. Never took a class, sat in on a class, or has any idea what goes on in such classes. So I’m not sure how this person can speak with such authority about what goes on with that training. Speaking as a professional trainer, I can tell you that certainly there is emphasis on firearm handling skills, but there’s also a great deal of emphasis on seeking alternatives. It is preferred to not resort to violence, because violence is costly. There’s a great deal of teaching about non-violent resolution, including walking away or even avoiding the situation in the first place. Look at trainers like SouthNarc and his Managing Unknown Contacts work. Look at Massad Ayoob and his MAG-20. Texas CHL curriculum is required to teach non-violent resolution techniques. But the difference is we accept that sometimes violence is the only solution.

Prior to the above, Dave wrote:

Knowing this person had never faced a violent situation in their lives and would have no concept of what fear does to a person I responded, “What would such a non-violent solution look like?” I was told, “I don’t know, but it would not result in a death.” “Whose death are we talking about here?” I said, ” You see, the person attacking you has already made up their mind to hurt or kill you…you can’t reason with them as they do not think like you do. The biggest mistake anyone can make is to apply how we think about a particular situation and apply it to a predator. The death you are referring to could be yours.”

This is what people often overlook or don’t even consider: it could mean their death. That yes, you are a reasonable person, but this other person — by virtue of attacking you — has already demonstrated they are unreasonable. Read this recent story for a perfect example of how random acts of violence occur, how they are performed by unreasonable persons, and how if not for a lot of luck and a will to fight and win, this person wouldn’t be alive to recount his grave error.

So what would you do?

If your answer is “I don’t know”, that’s not good for you. Think about every other aspect of life, every other thing you do from your family to your job to even your hobbies. You prepare. The better prepared you are in advance, the better you can handle the situation when it unfolds. Are you going to get up and give a speech, cold, to a room full of people? Or would you prefer to know your topic ahead of time, gather some notes, and practice a few times? Well, now you have a response should someone ask you to stand up and say a few words. But if you were asked cold and could only muster an “I don’t know”, how well do you think you’ll fare on the spot? Can you see how “I don’t know” isn’t going to serve you well?

Violence unfolds very suddenly and quickly. When recounting a violent encounter, so many victims start out with “I never saw them” or “They came out of nowhere”. It takes you by surprise. It’s sudden, swift, and you can only react. Why do so many people freeze when bad things happen? Because they have no response and their brains are frantically searching for a response; meantime, time — and the attack — continue forward, the situation ever-changing, and your brain having to reset its OODA loop constantly as it searches for a new response to the new situation. You will be perpetually behind the curve, and will suffer for it. If you prepare beforehand, you’ll be better off. This holds true for everything in life.

And yes, if your preparation is for a non-violent type of response, that’s fine — at least you prepared. But now take a step back and honestly assess the effectiveness of your non-violent solution. Place yourself in the above story and honestly assess if your solution would have been effective. And yes, you have to honestly examine this and not look to self-justify or make excuses, because this is your life at stake. If your solution works, great! Share it with us to help everyone learn solid solutions. Let the solution be vetted in the labs and field to see if it actually works out. Don’t be afraid to contribute, because we all want the same thing: to live peaceful lives. The more we can do to achieve it by less costly means, the better.

In the meantime, remember what Dave said: “You are right…violence is never the answer to society’s problems. But, unfortunately, all to often, it is the only solution.”

One Inch Tall

/ hsoi

If you were only one inch tall, you’d walk beneath the door,
And it would take about a month to get down to the store.
A bit of fluff would be your bed,
You’d swing upon a spider’s thread,
And wear a thimble on your head
If you were one inch tall.

– excerpt from Shel Silverstein’s “One Inch Tall“

I’d add to that: you can be a legal sign, if your lettering is at least one inch tall.

I’m referring to Texas Penal Code – Section 30.06. Trespass By Holder Of License To Carry Concealed Handgun. Specifically paragraph 3.c, about “written communication”. Where on B.ii it says

appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height

So yes. According to statue, any sort of written communication given under this notice must have contrasting colored block lettering at least one inch in height. If it doesn’t have that, it’s not a legal sign.

And so, there are people that carry on with rulers or other means of easy estimation (e.g. comparing to the size of a coin or a dollar bill that they have measured and is of known height), go up to the sign, measure the lettering, and if it’s not at least 1.01″ tall, self-declare it an illegal sign and walk on by.

Fair enough, I guess.

Here’s the thing.

You can still be arrested. If not for this, maybe trespassing. There’s always the good-old catch-all “disorderly conduct” (and remember how DC affects your ability to have a CHL). Who knows, and does it matter? Because now you’re arrested, which means lost time out of work, family, and life in general. It could mean lost wages or a lost job. Then you have to deal with going to court, paying for a lawyer. And even if you are able to use “not a legal sign” effectively as a defense, how much did it cost you to achieve that? Is it really worth it?

Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. That’s your own decision to make.

As far as I know, “valid signage” has yet to be tested in the Texas court system. Me personally? I don’t care to set the precedent.

You saw the sign, you understood the sign (that’s clear from your reaction of pulling out a ruler). Doesn’t matter if it’s the issue of letter height, font, colors, language, or whatever other nitpicky detail out of §30.06 you wish to take umbrage with.  Consider the intent of the sign, even if it’s a simple “no guns” sign or other statement of “we don’t like guns” policy. Vote with your wallet and take your money elsewhere.

(Of course this also shows the lengths law-abiding citizens are willing to go through to ensure they can both obey the law and still “feel safe”, because isn’t “feeling safe” what everyone is on about?. When was the last time a gang member, murder, deranged school shooter, or other such degenerate took such care about the details of the law?)

There’s a new range in town…

/ hsoi

Live in the Austin, Texas area?

There’s a new indoor gun range that recently opened up in Cedar Park called the Shady Oaks Gun Range.

I haven’t been there yet, but will soon. Check out their Education & Training page.

The facility has potential, so we’ll see how it pans out in time.

Homicide Trends

/ hsoi

The following information comes from Tom Givens. It’s a copy/paste (with minor edits only for formatting/posting). Take it for what it’s worth.

Homicide Trends

The US Department of Justice gathers and reports information on a number of crime classifications from all over the United States. They recently released a huge amount of data on homicides occurring during the time period 1976-2005. This is a 29 year period, so there was a lot of data to examine. Here are a few tidbits from that information.

Males are almost four times as likely to be murdered as females. Males are also far more likely to be the offender.

Among male victims, they were killed by:

  • Spouse, ex-spouse, or girlfriend 5%
  • Other family member 6.8%
  • Acquaintance/known person 35.3%
  • Stanger or unknown killer 52.9%

Among female victims, they were killed by:

  • Spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend 30%
  • Other family member 11.8%
  • Acquaintance/ known person 21.8%
  • Stranger/unknown 36.3%

Cases involving:

  • male offender/ male victim 65.3%
  • male offender/female victim 22.7%
  • female offender/male victim 9.6%
  • female offender/female victim 2.4%

Age of victims:

  • Under 18 9.8%
  • 18-34 52.7%
  • 35-49 22.8%
  • 50+ 14.7%

Circumstances of murder, 2005 only:

  • Felony murder* 2,432 15%
  • Argument 4,787
  • Gang related 955 5.7%
  • Other ** 2,223
  • Unknown ** 6,295

Felony murder is a murder committed during the commission of some other felony, such as armed robbery, car-jacking, rape, etc. “Other” and “Unknown” accounted for 51% of all homicides. “Other”, “Unknown” and “Felony Murder” together comprised 66% (2 out of 3) of these homicides. These are the ones we go armed to prevent.

Please note that gang related murders were the smallest percentage. The common notion that most murders are gang members killing each other is nonsense.

A couple of other quick facts:
Each year about 4,400 unidentified human bodies are recovered in the US. About 1,000 remain unidentified after one year. At any given time, there are approximately 100,000 active missing person cases in the US. Many of these are soon found, as they are voluntary disappearances due to marital discord, domestic violence, credit issues, etc. However, several thousand each year disappear without a trace and are never seen again. Obviously, these are undetected homicides that add to the data detailed above.

Other Violent Crime
These figures are also from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a branch of the US Department of Justice. These deal specifically with 2006.

Total Violent Crime Incidents for 2006 = 5,685,620 (1 for every 54 people)

A common fallacy is that this violent crime takes place in the wee hours, after midnight. Wrong!

  • 6 am-6 pm 52.4%
  • 6 pm-midnight 32.8%
  • midnight-6 am 10.9%

Robbery = 645,950 with injury to the victim= 232,380

Rape = 255,630 Victim’s advocacy groups believe about 1 rape out of every 6 is reported to the police. Do the math.

Aggravated Assault = 1,209,730 (an assault involving a deadly weapon and/or serious bodily injury to the victim) Many Aggravated Assault victims are permanently disabled, have to have multiple surgeries, or are permanently disfigured, they just didn’t die and become homicides.

Failing at advocacy – You’re not helping

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Yes, it’s perfectly legal in many states. So is staring at a woman’s cleavage and making comments about it. Yet it’s bad form to do both.

– Paul Martin

So the latest “gun rights” ruckus is a group in Texas did an “open carry” meeting at a Chipotle restaurant. And everyone’s got their panties in a wad about it, on all sides of the issue.

Chipotle is asking people to not do this (full statement in this article). While parts of the statement do sound like they “personally” are anti-gun (given their choice of words and phrasing), in the end it seems they ultimately want to stay out of this political issue and want to just focus on selling burritos. I can’t say I blame them, and frankly that’s probably the best stance they can take on this issue.

So please, open carry folks, stop it.

Look I get it. You want to normalize open carry. If we keep it under wraps, how will it ever be normal? Frequently it’s compared to bigotry against blacks or Jews or homosexuals — if you keep it hidden, if you never allow it to just integrate and be part of everyone’s daily life, how will it ever become normal? I get it.

Here’s the problem.

Pro-gun people will see you, nod and smile and move on; but these aren’t the people you’re trying to convince. There will be strong anti-gun people that you will never win over (just like there will always be racists and homophobes that will never be convinced otherwise); so don’t worry about them too much. So who is there to convince? The people in the middle.

Alas, the primary message the people in the middle receive is that “guns are bad”. You know it, I know it. Part of why you’re doing what you’re doing is precisely to counter the notion of “guns are bad”; you’re trying to show people that “guns are normal”. So you KNOW “bad” is the primary message being broadcast and received. It’s because that’s how guns are portrayed in the mainstream media, and thus it’s the dominant message received by the eyes and ears of the masses.

How does you sitting in a restaurant with a rifle on your back convince people that such behavior is normal? Remember, a person defines normal as “what I do/say/believe”, and since they don’t sit around with guns on their backs hanging out with other people who have guns on their backs, therefore what you are doing isn’t “normal” (in their eyes). They don’t know you, if you really are a good person or not, if you’re normal, if you’re trustworthy. And throw in their (irrational) fear of guns, and you’ve made a horrible first impression. And yes, it’s irrational, but the present zeitgeist has made everyone afraid of and skeptical of everything, from the food we eat to the air we breathe to the people we interact with. If people are going to be operating from such an initial state, how do you think they are going to perceive you? Why are you acting surprised that  people (the “sheep”, the “grasseaters”), are scared of you?

How does this win anyone over to the cause?

How is this good advocacy?

You have to stop thinking about the message you think you’re sending, and start thinking about the message being received. If you want to show people that gun owners are normal, then act normal — or perhaps more importantly, act in a way that others perceive is normal.

What do normal people do when they want to convince someone of a position? They engage them and talk with them in a comfortable manner. If Jane Soccermom sees a big scary guy with a big scary rifle, do you really think she’s going to allow you to walk up to her and engage her in a dialogue? I know, it’s not fair, it’s not right to judge people by the way they look, but it’s how our monkey-brains work, so get over it and learn to use it to your advantage instead of having it perpetually work against you. Again, the message you are sending is failing because the message received is NOT the message you intended to send.

If a co-worker expresses something about guns, don’t get in an impassioned battle with them to shut them down and prove them wrong. Instead, just talk with them — or more importantly, listen to them. Address and validate their concerns. It’s not a time to push agenda, but to listen and understand their point of view. If you can, invite them to the gun range some time to shoot a gun (and make it reasonable, like an outdoor range shooting a .22 at a bullseye paper target; and make it fun).

Look, if Ted Nugent can help Anthony Bourdain gain understanding, then you can too. But until people can see things like Bourdain sees them, they’re going to see them as they see it — and you with an AR strapped to your back looks not-normal, and will only serve to make them think that Bloomberg and Erika Soto Lamb and their ilk are actually right and rational.

The next big “gun rights” issue here in Texas is precisely open carry. If we want to win on this, we need to proceed in a manner most likely to garner positive public support. Because despite what Chipotle thinks, it’s the role of the people — not elected officials — to set policy in this area. So let’s work to win the minds of the people by helping them understand. Help them see what is normal by acting normal. And most of all: stop focusing on the message you are trying to send and instead focus on the message being received. When the message being received is the message you’re trying to send, then you’ve succeeded — until then, you’re not helping.

Updated: Even Linoge, one of the biggest open carry supporters I know, agrees. You’re not helping.