Dreamer
Regular Member
Someone wake up on the wrong side of the bed? This thread isn't about concealed carry laws...he wasn't citing laws, etc, he was talking about the tactical side of things.
Every time I see someone using the term "CCW" (which is a CRIME) to describe lawful concealed carry, it makes my skin crawl, because I realize there are probably MILLIONS of people out there carrying who are so ignorant of the law, and have so mindlessly bought into the jargon, posing, and flat-out BS of the "gun press" that they don't know the difference between a crime and a lawful act.
We need to STOP using this term. I know that "everyone uses it". I know that it is used in the "gun press". I know that people in the gun community know what it means.
But the fact remains that it is the WRONG term for what you are trying to describe, and we need to STOP using it.
If someone doesn't even know (or can't remember) the proper title of the permit in their pocket, do you REALLY want them carrying a loaded firearm in public?
If I tell my buddy who is drunk not to get in the car because he might get a DWD - and he gets out of the car do I come across as uneducated and uninformed because I didn't cite the correct law? I just don't want him to drive, who cares if it is the correct wording? If his post was about the specific law I would agree with you, but it is about the tactical side of things, not laws.
First of all, if you are wasting your time arguing with drunk friends about driving (rather than just taking their keys, and giving them a ride yourself, or calling a cab for them) then you obviously have no idea how to communicate with people who have "diminished capacity".
And when it comes to "anti-gunners", we're talking about people with some SERIOUSLY diminished capacity...
When we--as pro-2A activists--use incorrect terms, or inaccurate language, the anti's WILL use it against us.
When we use terms that the anti's have already co-opted and poisoned with negative connotations, they WILL use it against us.
"CCW" is one of those terms. Anyone in the pro-2A community--hunters, collectors, CCers, OCers, whatever--needs to STOP using this term. I don't know when it started (sometime in the 1980's when CC laws started to change in the US), and I don't know who the knucklehead was to first use "CCW" to describe lawful concealed carry, but it's something we need to STOP.
Using "CCW" to talk about lawful CC is like using the term "brandishing" to talk about lawful OC. It is incorrect. It is inaccurate. It is using the terminology for a CRIMINAL ACT to try and talk about a lawful activity. It needs to STOP. The widespread use of "CCW" to describe lawful CC makes us all look like fools, hoodlums, and legal-eagle wannabees...
If we want to get any traction with the "general public", we need to approach EVERYTHING we say as if it were a Press Release. Our language must be precise, persuasive, and calculated to evoke a pro-2A response in the listener.
Using terms that will trigger subconscious, pre-programmed NEGATIVE responses only serves to act against us.
Just because you folks don't care about this issue (even though you SHOULD) doesn't make it any less valid. Public opinion is shaped, molded, and directed by Public Relations. The careful, intentional, and subtle crafting of words and images is the most powerful tool we have in this "war for the minds" of the public. If you keep stabbing yourself in the foot every time you open your mouths (or set to your keyboards), we will get NOWHERE, and the general public will continue to see pro-2A people like us as "cowboys", vigilantes, radicals, and wingnuts...
There are arguments to be made for both sides on the OC CC debate. In some cases, OC'ers may actually prevent a crime from happening just because someone sees they have a gun, while in other cases, they may be targeted in a crime because they have a gun. There is no hard and fast rule for which is better tactically
If this is true, then why don't cops and soldiers CC?
The ONLY "tactical advantage" of CC is that it allows you to smugly carry a firearm without taking the personal initiative to actively engage the public in 2A education. The only "tactical advantage" to CC is that it lets you carry without having to be bothered with actually SUPPORTING 2A rights in person, out in public, face-to-face with real people. The only "tactical advantage" to CC is that it allows you to secretly hide your rights under your coat like it's something to be ashamed of, and it keeps rabid, frothing, anti-liberty anti-gunners and anti-2A police from getting up in your face.
Making this up...but: Lets say a 17 year old on hard times walks into a 7-11 with a knife in his pocket and is going to rob the place. You are over getting a slurpee - and he sees you have a gun on your side. This situation could go one of two ways - either the kid walks out of the store because you had gun, or he now targets you because you have a gun. If he walks out, then you just prevented an incident without having to draw, fire, etc. If he makes a move on you, hopefully you are aware enough of your surroundings and are able to deal with the situation. If you were CCing - then he would rob the place with a knife, and now you have to draw to deal with the situation.
CITE PLEASE.
Please show us a single incident in the last half-century in the US where an OCer was attacked by a criminal BECAUSE he was carrying.
We'll wait...
Last edited: