PDA

View Full Version : How about a new strategy?


Doug L
02-13-2010, 7:47 AM
Rather than scheduling more UOC events (e.g., Buckhorn Grill), it sounds like it might be more useful to initiate a media education campaign. Let's face it, non-gun owners simply do not understand guns, or have irrational reactions to them.

Here's perhaps an analogous situation/strategy, which we could adopt. This has been used when a local airport is attacked by the usual coterie of whiners (and greedy developers).
>>> The local pilot's or aircraft owner's organization will invite city council members, county supervisor's, the local media, as well as the whiners out to the airport for an introduction to aviation, and a flight around the area. This helps to show them what really goes on at airports and gives them a better appreciation for aviation and its value---and, hence, the importance of protecting the local airport.

So...here's what we could do.
Following every negative portrayal of firearms in the media, a CalGuns designated and approved spokesman will invite the reporter, staff writer, editor, producer, etc. out to the range for an introduction to firearms, and pleasant camaraderie. The idea being, to demonstrate, that firearms in the hands of 'the good guys' is actually a good thing.
Why is this necessary??? Well, because these people have become conditioned to connect firearms with only bad things. The only time the subject of firearms comes to these people's attention is when something bad happens; i.e., another crime is committed. We need to re-condition them, so that they don't always jump to the wrong conclusion, but begin to consider the totality of the situation.

I would be happy to serve as a designated spokesman.

Lone_Gunman
02-13-2010, 8:30 AM
I have a question. Why is it so damned important to gut the public to focus on our guns before California is forced to legally recognize our right to carry? Why can't the gun community manage to STFU for 5 more months rather than jumping up and down and yelling "I have a gun" over and over. If you are playing a game of strength and strategy is it smart to alert your opponent to your strageties before you have the strength to support them?The more our guns are in the focus of the media before incorporation the harder things are going to be after. Until we have the power of incorporation behind our offense we need to play defense on carry issues. IMHO

/RANT

7x57
02-13-2010, 8:44 AM
>>> The local pilot's or aircraft owner's organization will invite city council members, county supervisor's, the local media, as well as the whiners out to the airport for an introduction to aviation, and a flight around the area. This helps to show them what really goes on at airports and gives them a better appreciation for aviation and its value---and, hence, the importance of protecting the local airport.


The difference is that the public does not perceive pilots as an evil, genetically inferior sub-race of drooling Klansmen, nor is their perception of pilots ideologically mandated and impervious to reason.

If what you suggest would work, we'd have already won.

7x57

Roadrunner
02-13-2010, 8:49 AM
The difference is that the public does not perceive pilots as an evil, genetically inferior sub-race of drooling Klansmen, nor is their perception of pilots ideologically mandated and impervious to reason.

If what you suggest would work, we'd have already won.

7x57

Except when they buy a house that's been built next to an airport that existed long before their house. Airports face being labeled evil everytime a plane flies over someones house. Kind of like shooting ranges.

GrizzlyGuy
02-13-2010, 9:25 AM
The difference is that the public does not perceive pilots as an evil, genetically inferior sub-race of drooling Klansmen, nor is their perception of pilots ideologically mandated and impervious to reason.

If what you suggest would work, we'd have already won.


Agreed, and the key is the perception of the general public, not the media. The media is only a conduit.

Hopefully even the most pro-UOC activists are starting to realize that their current style of activism (meeting in restaurants and coffee shops) isn't working and only harming their cause. It reminds me of when the gay rights activists dressed flamboyantly and attended church services. A large portion of the general public, including those sympathetic to their cause, perceived those actions as being pushy, disrespectful and inappropriate. Those actions backfired and hurt their cause much more than it helped.

IMHO, the UOC activists need to make a tactical shift and engage in activities that will engender a more positive perception by the general public, such as:


Open Carry Litter Pickup - The activists in NH have been doing this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue7uvsUeQC0) for at least a couple of years.

Open Carry Walkathon - Proceeds benefit a charity that is widely perceived positively (e.g., the Red Cross, not the NRA or CGF).

Open Carry Toy Collection - For 'Toys for Tots' or similar programs, and NO you don't limit the toys collected to toy guns.

Open Carry Car Wash - Proceeds to charity as above.

Open Carry Food Bank Assistance - Peelin' Potatoes while Packin'


etc....

The idea is for the general public to perceive you as being helpful members of the community engaged in doing something selfless for the public good... who are only incidentally armed while doing it.

Folks, it's not about your rights, at least not right now. It's all about PR and perception.

7x57
02-13-2010, 9:42 AM
Open Carry Walkathon - Proceeds benefit a charity that is widely perceived positively (e.g., the Red Cross, not the NRA or CGF).


My suggestion would be to give the proceeds to a women's shelter, because it also disrupts our opponent's world-view.

7x57

GrizzlyGuy
02-13-2010, 9:43 AM
My suggestion would be to give the proceeds to a women's shelter, because it also disrupts our opponent's world-view.

7x57

7x57 FTW!

nrakid88
02-13-2010, 9:54 AM
GrizzlyGuy, You have devised one of the only ways, if not the only way, I would do charity work. Hahahaha.

(Even then the John Locke in me is clawing to say no)

CitaDeL
02-13-2010, 9:58 AM
Agreed, and the key is the perception of the general public, not the media. The media is only a conduit.

Hopefully even the most pro-UOC activists are starting to realize that their current style of activism (meeting in restaurants and coffee shops) isn't working and only harming their cause. It reminds me of when the gay rights activists dressed flamboyantly and attended church services. A large portion of the general public, including those sympathetic to their cause, perceived those actions as being pushy, disrespectful and inappropriate. Those actions backfired and hurt their cause much more than it helped.

IMHO, the UOC activists need to make a tactical shift and engage in activities that will engender a more positive perception by the general public, such as:

Open Carry Litter Pickup - The activists in NH have been doing this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue7uvsUeQC0) for at least a couple of years.

Open Carry Walkathon - Proceeds benefit a charity that is widely perceived positively (e.g., the Red Cross, not the NRA or CGF).

Open Carry Toy Collection - For 'Toys for Tots' or similar programs, and NO you don't limit the toys collected to toy guns.

Open Carry Car Wash - Proceeds to charity as above.

Open Carry Food Bank Assistance - Peelin' Potatoes while Packin'


etc....

The idea is for the general public to perceive you as being helpful members of the community engaged in doing something selfless for the public good... who are only incidentally armed while doing it.

Folks, it's not about your rights, at least not right now. It's all about PR and perception.


Damn, this seems familiar... Now where did I see that?;)

Doug L
02-13-2010, 10:03 AM
...the UOC activists need to make a tactical shift and engage in activities that will engender a more positive perception by the general public, such as:


Open Carry Litter Pickup - The activists in NH have been doing this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue7uvsUeQC0) for at least a couple of years.

Open Carry Walkathon - Proceeds benefit a charity that is widely perceived positively (e.g., the Red Cross, not the NRA or CGF).

Open Carry Toy Collection - For 'Toys for Tots' or similar programs, and NO you don't limit the toys collected to toy guns.

Open Carry Car Wash - Proceeds to charity as above.

Open Carry Food Bank Assistance - Peelin' Potatoes while Packin'
Hmmmm. Now, there are some good ideas.

...the key is the perception of the general public, not the media. The media is only a conduit...

Agreed.
But, we do also need more positive media coverage.
Unfortunately, lots of folks don't think much about the issues and simply adopt whatever 'slant' is presented my the media.
Hence, it's worth attempting to get more positive coverage, if we can.

However, your suggestions for charitable work may be just the thing we need in order to get that more positive coverage.

dantodd
02-13-2010, 10:06 AM
My suggestion would be to give the proceeds to a women's shelter, because it also disrupts our opponent's world-view.

7x57

how about the proceeds and donated guns and training go to the women's shelter so they don't have to be victims any longer.

wildhawker
02-13-2010, 10:44 AM
We've never talked about any of this in detail before, have we?

GrizzlyGuy
02-13-2010, 10:46 AM
Damn, this seems familiar... Now where did I see that?;)

Maybe here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3599133&postcount=50)or here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3800963&postcount=19), although this can't possibly be a novel concept. I think Nate and Wildhawker also mentioned somewhere that they had some game-changing plans on the drawing board. :)

PEBKAC
02-13-2010, 10:55 AM
IMHO, the UOC activists need to make a tactical shift and engage in activities that will engender a more positive perception by the general public, such as:


Open Carry Litter Pickup - The activists in NH have been doing this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue7uvsUeQC0) for at least a couple of years.

Open Carry Walkathon - Proceeds benefit a charity that is widely perceived positively (e.g., the Red Cross, not the NRA or CGF).

Open Carry Toy Collection - For 'Toys for Tots' or similar programs, and NO you don't limit the toys collected to toy guns.

Open Carry Car Wash - Proceeds to charity as above.

Open Carry Food Bank Assistance - Peelin' Potatoes while Packin'


etc....

The idea is for the general public to perceive you as being helpful members of the community engaged in doing something selfless for the public good... who are only incidentally armed while doing it.

Folks, it's not about your rights, at least not right now. It's all about PR and perception.
I like this suggestion, as it seems like the best way to go about exercising rights without risking inflaming the public sufficiently for backlash.

I'm seeing very few ways it could backfire with the exceptions being the "collection" and "carwash" type events. Start with toy collection or a car wash and I can almost hear the Brady Bunch screaming about people being threatened into giving...a long shot perhaps, and maybe I am paranoid given more recent developments, but I'm trying to think absolute worst case scenario. Granted they might sound a bit silly saying it, but it also might fly in the more sheltered urban areas of CA which is of course, the danger.

Given this, scheduling walkathons and trash collection events initially sounds like a great idea. Then move up to helping out in kitchens, then maybe move on to car washes and toy collection, the hope being that the first 3 types of events will gain the trust of the public enough so that we mitigate any possible risks associated with the latter 2 types of events.

wildhawker
02-13-2010, 10:56 AM
I think it's pretty safe to say that the UOC movement is beyond capacity for self-steering. Unfortunately, it does appear the newer practitioners are uninterested in assistance or guidance from "veterans" and others. This is like watching pieces of the tail and vertical stabilizers fly off of a jetliner that is steadily increasing velocity. The best-case at this point is trying to talk them through making whatever corrections possible to keep them in the air until everyone can get parachutes on (they did bring them, right?) and hope it doesn't go down in the middle of an urban neighborhood.

wildhawker
02-13-2010, 10:59 AM
It's important to look at everything we do from a ROI analysis (which includes risk vs. reward). What does thousands of manhours and dollars through these activities bring you? Answer: not much.

If the UOC community wants to be productive they'd cease focusing on their personal desires and begin looking for ways to make margin on their efforts. Sometimes the best idea in business is the one you scrap to stop the bleeding.

I like this suggestion, as it seems like the best way to go about exercising rights without risking inflaming the public sufficiently for backlash.

I'm seeing very few ways it could backfire with the exceptions being the "collection" and "carwash" type events. Start with toy collection or a car wash and I can almost hear the Brady Bunch screaming about people being threatened into giving...a long shot perhaps, and maybe I am paranoid given more recent developments, but I'm trying to think absolute worst case scenario. Granted they might sound a bit silly saying it, but it also might fly in the more sheltered urban areas of CA which is of course, the danger.

Given this, scheduling walkathons and trash collection events initially sounds like a great idea. Then move up to helping out in kitchens, then maybe move on to car washes and toy collection, the hope being that the first 3 types of events will gain the trust of the public enough so that we mitigate any possible risks associated with the latter 2 types of events.

Theseus
02-13-2010, 11:16 AM
I don't think any of these ideas are new. I don't think that any of these ideas would work with the splinter open carry groups.

At this point if we can't get the other groups to see reason we will have to create a clear distinction between the different groups.

wildhawker
02-13-2010, 11:21 AM
I don't think any of these ideas are new. I don't think that any of these ideas would work with the splinter open carry groups.

At this point if we can't get the other groups to see reason we will have to create a clear distinction between the different groups.

Strategically, you're correct. However, that approach was discussed and tabled since the participation volume and news coverage will always lean toward the active and most interesting story. In reality, the opportunity for steering UOC has sailed; in the continuum, "reasonable UOC" begins to approach "stand down until McDonald" - that is not what current participants desire to do, and so they won't.

7x57
02-13-2010, 11:34 AM
how about the proceeds and donated guns and training go to the women's shelter so they don't have to be victims any longer.

In principle, I like it and have suggested something like it in the past (something sane enough not to involve OC in any way)--my version was to provide free defensive pistol training to anyone in a women's shelter. There are problems that are probably insoluble:

1. The people who run women's shelters are statistically going to be the most ideologically opposed to us, surpassed only by (probably) child-welfare social workers.

2. They're going to worry about insane liability should something go wrong. So should we.

3. In fact the worry has a point--people with chaos in one area of their lives tend to have it in others. There are *many* people in those shelters who may need protection, but are not functional enough in the right ways to safely and responsibly take care of themselves. If there was a time they could, that time was before or at the time of whatever happened that got them into the shelter.

4. The only way to even try to mitigate that would be to have the shelter personnel carefully screen candidates--basically, they'd have to understand the armed citizen concept themselves in order to evaluate who is a good candidate. While this would be nice, it would also be nice if a magic unicorn waved his horn and made the anti-gunners disappear. Both are roughly equally likely.

7x57

7x57
02-13-2010, 11:36 AM
To be clear, at this point I regard OC in urban California to be an act of self-sabotage that threatens the RKBA as much as the anti-gunners. I did not mean my suggestion for people sane enough to stop the self-cutting OC behavior. I meant it for those for whom sane counsel has failed, to channel their neurosis into the least damaging behavior.

I don't recommend obsessive hand-washing either, but it would be an improvement over self-cutting. :chris:

7x57

Theseus
02-13-2010, 11:57 AM
Strategically, you're correct. However, that approach was discussed and tabled since the participation volume and news coverage will always lean toward the active and most interesting story. In reality, the opportunity for steering UOC has sailed; in the continuum, "reasonable UOC" begins to approach "stand down until McDonald" - that is not what current participants desire to do, and so they won't.

And I think I can pinpoint exactly when that point was.

You and I have talked about this enough that I am pretty sure you understand where I stand.

wildhawker
02-13-2010, 12:15 PM
And I think I can pinpoint exactly when that point was.

You and I have talked about this enough that I am pretty sure you understand where I stand.

Likewise; I'd love to be wrong about this and hope that there is some option we're just not seeing. Ultimately, it would seem that we'd have to provide the new UOC community with an alternative that fulfills their needs while refocusing the energy on productive opportunities; given the timeframe, I'm not sure how that happens outside of a tremendous expenditure of energy and internal outreach with very poor odds of success.

PEBKAC
02-13-2010, 12:24 PM
It's important to look at everything we do from a ROI analysis (which includes risk vs. reward). What does thousands of manhours and dollars through these activities bring you? Answer: not much.

If the UOC community wants to be productive they'd cease focusing on their personal desires and begin looking for ways to make margin on their efforts. Sometimes the best idea in business is the one you scrap to stop the bleeding.
To be clear, I agree that stopping the bleeding is the best course of action. I was working from the perspective that nobody intended to stop anything as seems to be the case, unfortunate though this may be, and thus redirection of efforts is needed.

Now obviously as you have pointed out before, the interest in redirection is perhaps limited at best so we are back to square 1. :pinch:

Buckeye Dan
02-13-2010, 12:35 PM
These are all excellent ideas. I think you guys are on the right track. I especially liked the one where proceeds are donated to battered women shelters. That is a new one to me but the other things are tried and true for the most part.

HAHA! I should have known California would come up with the perfect Bizarro Brady Bunch. Don't let the Brady's poison their minds with their no more guns fantasy. Take them into your fold and teach them how to not ever be a victim again.

Thankfully Dr. Suzanna Hupp did this after the Luby's massacre. She could have bellied up to some gun grabbing organization but she didn't. She fought back with common sense. You can't wave a magic wand and make 300 million guns disappear from 80+ million gun owners. That is just America. As long as one single gun remains on the earth a criminal has the potential to misuse it. Even if you could wave that global magic wand another weapon would take it's place instantly. It's much easier to equalize the situation by possessing a firearm than it is to make them all go away and repeat the process with the next weapon being misused.

Now that Harvard graduate professors are killing people in gun free zones maybe folks will understand that you criminalize the person and not their tools.

biofire
02-13-2010, 1:01 PM
The owner of Frontsight addressed this very issue in his DVD brochure and I think he made a good point.

He made an analogy to Harley-Davidson, which had a terrible public image many years ago, as everyone associated those bikes with criminals, but now regards them as "cool" for everyone, and their sales skyrocketed.

HD mounted an extensive PR effort that included having celebrities--especially women--riding their bikes, commercials making suburban dads "bad" by having a Harley, and on and on. Hokey, but it worked because HD did their homework and figured out what would work. You would think that the big gunmakers would do the same.

The vast majority of criminological research is on our side, so let's take advantage of it. Instead of screaming about our rights, and sounding like every other special interest group, we should use the research to alter public opinion. For instance, waiting periods discriminate against women, many of whom are now dead because they couldn't buy a gun in time to defend themselves.

Put a single mother's face on gun rights, and who would argue with them? It's not exploitation if they take it upon themselves to speak up for their right to protect themselves.

Doug L
02-13-2010, 6:02 PM
...provide the new UOC community with an alternative that fulfills their needs while refocusing their energy on productive opportunities...

There you go. That's it exactly.

Stop the cutting, start the healing.

...a tremendous expenditure of energy and internal outreach with very poor odds of success.

No one can really know that in advance. It would all depend upon who does what, where, and how.

Who thought the Berlin Wall would ever come down, but that didn't stop Pres. Reagan from demanding it.

SKSer
02-13-2010, 9:18 PM
Though your idea is good, the people that are against UOC are so brainwashed into thinking that "guns = bad, death, murder", they will not even listen to logic and fact and are purely emotion driven. I have made it a personal mission of mine to argue about UOC and CCW with these people and even when I throw unbelievable facts at them, they come back with more emotion. Here is an example of what im talking about, I was arguing with a guy about all his supposed "innocent people will get shot, think of the children" and "are you gonna buy special insurance for the stray bullet that hits the innocent victim" argument. Here was my response, he never posted again after this:

"I did your research for you, according to the violence policy center, an anti-gun organization, there is a section called "concealed carry killers", and according to this site, from 2007-2010 there has been 117 "innocent" people killed by people with Concealed Carry Permits. Now if you actually look at each case ( it gives a description of each one) the site is really biased, it calls everyone "Innocent" including Burglers, attackers, and even the shooter themself! HA HA, typical Liberal website, I can hear the lisp now "they are all innocent because they are all our Children" . Many of the cases are people defending themselves and the cases are still pending, many are murder suicides, arguments, bad break ups, all by people holding CCW's. Now to the point, out of all the stories, there are actually, ( yes I did read them one by one) 3 real accidental deaths. Here they are:

A Guys pistol fell out of his pocket, hit the ground, accidentally discharged and hit a woman in the back.

A Guy was showing his girlfriend his gun and he didnt realize it was loaded, it accidentally discharged and shot her in the chest.

A guy was eating pizza with his buddies in his apartment for some reason he had his pistol out and when he tried to put it in his holster, it accidentally discharged shooting his friend.

according to this your chances of getting killed accidentally by a concealed carry permit holder is 1 in 186,000,000 per year.

YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE AT WINNING THE CALIFORNIA SUPER LOTTO 4 TIMES IN ONE YEAR THEN GETTING SHOT BY ACCIDENT BY A CCW PERMIT HOLDER.

To add to the "Scenario" that you always talk about, there was not a single incident of an innocent bystander being shot during a confrontation.

there was 69 different people that had the concealed carry permits, Many of these incidents were people defending themselves, but there are disputes in the stories so there is a trial pending with no results yet, but of course they are still "innocent" victims. Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and lets say they are all guilty of misuse and murder. It is estimated that 1% of the population has a CCW, thats 2.8 million CCW's out there, if you included all these negative events, then CCW permits have had a 0.00002% failure rate, or 99.99998 % of CCW holders have not done anything negative."

If you want to read the comment section, there are some pretty good arguments in there, here is the article: http://forums.contracostatimes.com/topic/open-gun-carry-events-growing-in-bay-area?source=article#comment-242104
My handle on this site is "Hondamoco" I started posting on 1/22/2010 and was arguing with these people everyday untill 2/4/2010.

pitchbaby
02-13-2010, 10:16 PM
The owner of Frontsight addressed this very issue in his DVD brochure and I think he made a good point.

He made an analogy to Harley-Davidson, which had a terrible public image many years ago, as everyone associated those bikes with criminals, but now regards them as "cool" for everyone, and their sales skyrocketed.

HD mounted an extensive PR effort that included having celebrities--especially women--riding their bikes, commercials making suburban dads "bad" by having a Harley, and on and on. Hokey, but it worked because HD did their homework and figured out what would work. You would think that the big gunmakers would do the same.

The vast majority of criminological research is on our side, so let's take advantage of it. Instead of screaming about our rights, and sounding like every other special interest group, we should use the research to alter public opinion. For instance, waiting periods discriminate against women, many of whom are now dead because they couldn't buy a gun in time to defend themselves.

Put a single mother's face on gun rights, and who would argue with them? It's not exploitation if they take it upon themselves to speak up for their right to protect themselves.

OK, this actually makes sense.... but try to get Glock to start paying for commercials during the "Soaps". Heck, it might not even be legal to have a gun commercial, who knows.... outlawed like cigarettes?!?!?

7x57
02-13-2010, 10:24 PM
OK, this actually makes sense.... but try to get Glock to start paying for commercials during the "Soaps". Heck, it might not even be legal to have a gun commercial, who knows.... outlawed like cigarettes?!?!?

Huh. You know, I have no idea. Beyond the fact that in general mass-marketing ads for firearms don't make a lot of economic sense, it's quite possible that there is no law against it but no media outlet will accept them.

The fun with the Tebow superbowl ad makes me wish that we could run something then just to watch the fur fly. But that's just my bad self wanting to make trouble instead of working for the 2A particularly.

7x57

CABilly
02-13-2010, 10:42 PM
I have a question. Why is it so damned important to gut the public to focus on our guns before California is forced to legally recognize our right to carry? Why can't the gun community manage to STFU for 5 more months rather than jumping up and down and yelling "I have a gun" over and over. If you are playing a game of strength and strategy is it smart to alert your opponent to your strageties before you have the strength to support them?The more our guns are in the focus of the media before incorporation the harder things are going to be after. Until we have the power of incorporation behind our offense we need to play defense on carry issues. IMHO

/RANT

Yup

Alaric
02-13-2010, 10:53 PM
I think it's pretty safe to say that the UOC movement is beyond capacity for self-steering. Unfortunately, it does appear the newer practitioners are uninterested in assistance or guidance from "veterans" and others. This is like watching pieces of the tail and vertical stabilizers fly off of a jetliner that is steadily increasing velocity. The best-case at this point is trying to talk them through making whatever corrections possible to keep them in the air until everyone can get parachutes on (they did bring them, right?) and hope it doesn't go down in the middle of an urban neighborhood.

Agreed, but what your analogy fails to take into account is that the jet liner shedding parts continues to have unwitting passengers boarding at a phenomenal rate. Even as a lethal and explosive fuel/air mixture spreads through the cabin, awaiting but a single spark to ignite, these new passengers seat themselves and go about their travels, oblivious to the peril at hand.

In principle, I like it and have suggested something like it in the past (something sane enough not to involve OC in any way)--my version was to provide free defensive pistol training to anyone in a women's shelter. There are problems that are probably insoluble:

1. The people who run women's shelters are statistically going to be the most ideologically opposed to us, surpassed only by (probably) child-welfare social workers.

2. They're going to worry about insane liability should something go wrong. So should we.

3. In fact the worry has a point--people with chaos in one area of their lives tend to have it in others. There are *many* people in those shelters who may need protection, but are not functional enough in the right ways to safely and responsibly take care of themselves. If there was a time they could, that time was before or at the time of whatever happened that got them into the shelter.

4. The only way to even try to mitigate that would be to have the shelter personnel carefully screen candidates--basically, they'd have to understand the armed citizen concept themselves in order to evaluate who is a good candidate. While this would be nice, it would also be nice if a magic unicorn waved his horn and made the anti-gunners disappear. Both are roughly equally likely.

This sounds dangerously close to gun owner elitism to me.

What is the ultimate point of guns if not to serve as an equalizer to permit the underdog to defend herself from an aggressor? Not only that, but your post implies that these women are seemingly deserving of their victimization due to their inability to care for themselves. There is a vicious and unfair circle to your logic. Not a good place to go if you ask me.

Your points about liability are valid, but I think you should reconsider your notions on the legitimacy of the most threatened protecting themselves from their aggressors.