Why is calling it CCW bad?

[hammAR]

Permit too Carry's me precious..................


I just had to leave Ptousi, er P2C alone.............

[EastSideRich]

Thanks for the input guys.
P2C; I like it.
I think I understand what a lot of you are saying, but I still don't get how the words concealed or weapon make it a negative or scary thing.
I absolutely understand how words and what you call something can influence how something is viewed. For example, the undocumented immigrant designation which hammAR mentioned, or using the term "assault" rifle. I completely understand and agree that terms like these can change how society views and treats these things.
I also understand how labeling something incorrectly can sometimes be irritating or offensive. For example: Calling an asian person oriental, or saying a marine is "in the army".
I guess I just don't get why that one (CCW) bothers anybody, unless it's just the fact that that is not technically what it's called, which is a perfectly legitimate reason.

Let me pose the question like this, and then I promise I'll stop bugging you guys about this.
If it was actually called Permit to Carry a Concealed Weapon (assuming there was no problem with accidentally exposing your gun, but you can't open carry) in the statute, would you have an issue with this wording/title? If so, why?

Here is what I'm trying to figure out: Is there something about this wording that you believe would cause it to be viewed in a negative light? Is it the word concealed or the word weapon, and what is it about that specific word?

[phorvick]

Thanks for the input guys.

Let me pose the question like this, and then I promise I'll stop bugging you guys about this.
If it was actually called Permit to Carry a Concealed Weapon (assuming there was no problem with accidentally exposing your gun, but you can't open carry) in the statute, would you have an issue with this wording/title? If so, why?

Here is what I'm trying to figure out: Is there something about this wording that you believe would cause it to be viewed in a negative light? Is it the word concealed or the word weapon, and what is it about that specific word?

DBD....I believe the question has been answered thoroughly. People in this community know that it is not a permit to carry a concealed permit. Ergo, don't call it that. If the name of the law changed as you suggested, that changes the situation.

[cobb]

Everybody, it appears to be a waste to try to explain any further. It has been explain from about every angle by forum members, and kudo's to all on that. But there are those that will continue to look down the barrel of a loaded gun because the safety is on. You can explain over and over about the safety rules and that the safety is a mechanical device that can fail, but they will still come back with, "But it is on safe, so it is safe, I don't understand what the problem is?"

You cannot explain to those that do not want to listen.

[BRIT_in_the_weeds]

daryl
It's an education process, not only for permit holders, but those who are thinking about a permit.

We enjoy what we have, and want to share that enjoyment, part of that sharing, involves educating. I'm sure I'm not the only one on here, that yells at the news, when a reporter uses the wrong terminology.

Enjoy the learning experience, and the education. There are no stupid questions

[Don L]

I specifically cover this in all my classes, along with anyone who asks me about permits. The common call I get is from folks who say they want to get their "Carry and Conceal" or "Conceal and Carry". So once we get the wording correct (Carry Permit, or Permit to Carry), then we talk about what's allowed by the law, (i.e. open carry) and even so, what's the prudent thing to do? And then, what about other states that require concealment?

Just my .02

Where did the monkey come from? He looks familiar!

[EastSideRich]

Everybody, it appears to be a waste to try to explain any further. It has been explain from about every angle by forum members, and kudo's to all on that. But there are those that will continue to look down the barrel of a loaded gun because the safety is on. You can explain over and over about the safety rules and that the safety is a mechanical device that can fail, but they will still come back with, "But it is on safe, so it is safe, I don't understand what the problem is?"

You cannot explain to those that do not want to listen.

.........

Sorry to waste your time and cyberspace cobb. Don't agree with the comparison to the person looking down the barrel of a loaded gun (you mean I'm an idiot, right), but thanks.
The reason this question was originally asked was because of a response by hammAR in a different thread.

originally posted by hammAR:

Word police..... Yes, it seems simple, but words seem to affect and have effect on the mentality of the general populace, let alone the legislators. Something simple like "undocumented" rather than "illegal" suddenly makes it palatable, less offensive, and suddenly it becomes a non-issue. As well as, something simple like adding "assault" or "automatic" to rifle, suddenly makes it ominous and far easier to make rules to control it, as a simple rifle is turned into a thing of instant fear and dread.

What I took from this was that this wording (CCW) actually gave the permit to carry a pistol a different meaning, thus affecting its image in "the mentality of the general populace". The analogy of undocumented worker and assault rifle was made. Anyone here could answer why these words are not just incorrect, but actually detrimental.
What I was hoping to find out was what about the actual words makes it more offensive, ominous, or something to fear. Why some people "freak" at the use of these words.
This issue was only directly addressed by ttousi in his response about the word "weapon". He explained why he took issue with that word. Point taken and appreciated.
Aside from the few who mentioned the issue with concealed and accidentally exposing, from what I gather from the bulk of the responses is that it's just because that's not exactly what it says on top of the card. Seems kind of like nitpicking to me, which is fine, some people are just nitpickers.
Anyway, don't worry about it. Question answered, I won't use the term anymore

[Aceq2jot]

Everybody, it appears to be a waste to try to explain any further. It has been explain from about every angle by forum members, and kudo's to all on that. But there are those that will continue to look down the barrel of a loaded gun because the safety is on. You can explain over and over about the safety rules and that the safety is a mechanical device that can fail, but they will still come back with, "But it is on safe, so it is safe, I don't understand what the problem is?"

You cannot explain to those that do not want to listen.

.........

Sorry to waste your time and cyberspace cobb. Don't agree with the comparison to the person looking down the barrel of a loaded gun (you mean I'm an idiot, right), but thanks.
The reason this question was originally asked was because of a response by hammAR in a different thread.

originally posted by hammAR:

Word police..... Yes, it seems simple, but words seem to affect and have effect on the mentality of the general populace, let alone the legislators. Something simple like "undocumented" rather than "illegal" suddenly makes it palatable, less offensive, and suddenly it becomes a non-issue. As well as, something simple like adding "assault" or "automatic" to rifle, suddenly makes it ominous and far easier to make rules to control it, as a simple rifle is turned into a thing of instant fear and dread.

What I took from this was that this wording (CCW) actually gave the permit to carry a pistol a different meaning, thus affecting its image in "the mentality of the general populace". The analogy of undocumented worker and assault rifle was made. Anyone here could answer why these words are not just incorrect, but actually detrimental.
What I was hoping to find out was what about the actual words makes it more offensive, ominous, or something to fear. Why some people "freak" at the use of these words.
This issue was only directly addressed by ttousi in his response about the word "weapon". He explained why he took issue with that word. Point taken and appreciated.
Aside from the few who mentioned the issue with concealed and accidentally exposing, from what I gather from the bulk of the responses is that it's just because that's not exactly what it says on top of the card. Seems kind of like nitpicking to me, which is fine, some people are just nitpickers.
Anyway, don't worry about it. Question answered, I won't use the term anymore

Oooooohhhhhh please use the term of concealed carry often There is nothing wrong with using the term i hear it used often by people

Dont let the Batards get you down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GregM]

I remember this question being hotly debated on the TCC forum. It wasn't just a matter of defining the law --- everyone seemed to understand that Minnesota doesn't require us to conceal our weapons. The central issue appeared to be the negative reaction --- actual, perceived, or anticipated --- of other people to the sight of a civilian carrying a handgun openly in public. Especially if those people were police officers. Certain forum members had already experienced unpleasant encounters with the police in this regard, and were understandably incensed that certain officers of the law did not appear to comprehend or respect this particular law.

So I got the impression that armed civilians who carry openly are very protective of their right to do so, and they bristle with indignation at the slightest hint of a trespass upon that right. Even if someone innocently refers to a carry permit as a "concealed carry permit."

[cobb]

Everybody, it appears to be a waste to try to explain any further. It has been explain from about every angle by forum members, and kudo's to all on that. But there are those that will continue to look down the barrel of a loaded gun because the safety is on. You can explain over and over about the safety rules and that the safety is a mechanical device that can fail, but they will still come back with, "But it is on safe, so it is safe, I don't understand what the problem is?"

You cannot explain to those that do not want to listen.

.........

Sorry to waste your time and cyberspace cobb. Don't agree with the comparison to the person looking down the barrel of a loaded gun (you mean I'm an idiot, right), but thanks.
The reason this question was originally asked was because of a response by hammAR in a different thread.

originally posted by hammAR:

Word police..... Yes, it seems simple, but words seem to affect and have effect on the mentality of the general populace, let alone the legislators. Something simple like "undocumented" rather than "illegal" suddenly makes it palatable, less offensive, and suddenly it becomes a non-issue. As well as, something simple like adding "assault" or "automatic" to rifle, suddenly makes it ominous and far easier to make rules to control it, as a simple rifle is turned into a thing of instant fear and dread.

What I took from this was that this wording (CCW) actually gave the permit to carry a pistol a different meaning, thus affecting its image in "the mentality of the general populace". The analogy of undocumented worker and assault rifle was made. Anyone here could answer why these words are not just incorrect, but actually detrimental.
What I was hoping to find out was what about the actual words makes it more offensive, ominous, or something to fear. Why some people "freak" at the use of these words.
This issue was only directly addressed by ttousi in his response about the word "weapon". He explained why he took issue with that word. Point taken and appreciated.
Aside from the few who mentioned the issue with concealed and accidentally exposing, from what I gather from the bulk of the responses is that it's just because that's not exactly what it says on top of the card. Seems kind of like nitpicking to me, which is fine, some people are just nitpickers.
Anyway, don't worry about it. Question answered, I won't use the term anymore

OK, OK, I will give you the answer that you want to hear.

IT IS OK TO CALL IT A CCW.

[EastSideRich]

OK, OK, I will give you the answer that you want to hear.

IT IS OK TO CALL IT A CCW.

I think you're missing my point, or rather not understanding the question. I like the sound of permit to carry better. I have no qualms with using this term, I would say I prefer it. My aim was to find out why it is offensive to use the other term; what it is about the actual word(s) that makes it analogous to "assault" weapon or "undocumented" immigrant; these terms are more than just incorrect. Read my post again, not just the subject line. I don't think it's that ridiculous of a question, I guess I just wasn't expecting to hear thats it's just because it's not technically called that. As far as I know it's illegal to drive while intoxicated, not to drink and then drive. People still say drinking and driving - I never see people get worked up about that, even though it is not worded that way in the law. I'd try to think of more examples like this, but I've got stuff to do.

[cobb]

OK, OK, I will give you the answer that you want to hear.

IT IS OK TO CALL IT A CCW.

I think you're missing my point, or rather not understanding the question. I like the sound of permit to carry better. I have no qualms with using this term, I would say I prefer it. My aim was to find out why it is offensive to use the other term; what it is about the actual word(s) that makes it analogous to "assault" weapon or "undocumented" immigrant; these terms are more than just incorrect. Read my post again, not just the subject line. I don't think it's that ridiculous of a question, I guess I just wasn't expecting to hear thats it's just because it's not technically called that. As far as I know it's illegal to drive while intoxicated, not to drink and then drive. People still say drinking and driving - I never see people get worked up about that, even though it is not worded that way in the law. I'd try to think of more examples like this, but I've got stuff to do.

And you too are missing mine and everone elses point. It is not a CCW, so it is wrong to call it such, so why call it something it is not?

Nothing to do with offensive, has to with correct terminology.

[EastSideRich]

That’s fine, that’s all you have to say. You could say "it has nothing to do with the actual words other than their being technically incorrect. But would you not agree that some people take issue with the actual words, other than the just fact that it’s not called that – thus the analogies and the discussion about how words can affect meaning and perception therefore making something more offensive or ominous? That is what I was trying to find out. What about concealed or weapon makes the term scary or would change how it is viewed by the public.
If it’s just "don’t call it that because that’s not what it’s called", fine. No one wants to use the wrong terminology, and I’m not asking for permission to do so.
I’m not prompting you for another answer either. I’m just trying to reiterate the question so you understand what it was I was asking.

Let's let this one go. You feel like you're beating a dead horse, I feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall (do you have a smiley for that).

[cobb]

This was like going back to elementary school. DID TOO--DID NOT.

That's the way it operates around here, name calling and all.

[Ironbear]

That’s fine, that’s all you have to say. You could say "it has nothing to do with the actual words other than their being technically incorrect. But would you not agree that some people take issue with the actual words, other than the just fact that it’s not called that – thus the analogies and the discussion about how words can affect meaning and perception therefore making something more offensive or ominous? That is what I was trying to find out. What about concealed or weapon makes the term scary or would change how it is viewed by the public.
If it’s just "don’t call it that because that’s not what it’s called", fine. No one wants to use the wrong terminology, and I’m not asking for permission to do so.
I’m not prompting you for another answer either. I’m just trying to reiterate the question so you understand what it was I was asking.

I do think that some people take issue with the word "conceal", but I don't think it is necessarily because they find that the wording makes it more "scary" or "ominous". I suspect it is more about the implications of the wording. Think about how bad wording; in a law, contract, will, etc. could create a legal nightmare (anybody remember lawyers and politicians bickering about what the meaning of "is" is?). Many states have "Concealed Carry", and permit holders have been prosecuted for violating the "concealed" part. Activists in MN worked long and hard to prevent this situation from occurring... and succeeded! This is a significant legal protection that many U.S. citizens don't have, and I think that many who were involved in making it happen, are very protective of it! I suspect that many of the people, of this type, are lawyers or political activists, to whom the actual wording has grave importance.

Also, some people have a pedagogic streak, and recognize that incorrect knowledge left uncorrected will never die. I think the idea is, that by correcting incorrect terms, there is the hope that incorrect terminology will fall into disuse and the correct one will become standard. This is particularly true in the early stages when a term comes into broad usage or awareness (Get it right early, and you don't have to keep fixing it later ).

As for the term "weapon" being "scary", I would contend that is because it is. A "weapon" is an instrument of force and violence. Of all the firearms I own, not one of them has ever been used as a weapon! In fact the vast majority of firearms, in the U.S., will never be used as a weapon. They will be used for hunting, for target shooting, for plinking, but not as a weapon. Even the DNR, in their FAS (Firearms Safety) Instructor Training courses, insist that we not call them "weapons" and call them "firearms" instead. "Firearm" is a technically accurate, descriptive term that isn't emotionally "loaded." "Weapon" is a term of intent, and not object. A gun is most expressly not a weapon. It is an object that could be used as a weapon... along with virtually anything in my toolbox and many many things in my house. I think this conflation of firearm = weapon, comes to us courtesy of the military, who issues firearms virtually exclusively for use as a weapon. While this is probably appropriate in the military, lest soldiers forget it's purpose; it is unfortunate in general usage, as it tends to reinforce, in the public's eye, the myth that firearms have no use but to kill people.

ps: I suspect there are also some people who are anal retentive, and others who simply like to rub their superior knowledge in people's faces. But I am sure none of us know anyone like that personally.....