Posted on Feb 11, 2015
Gun enthusiasts and owners: What are your thoughts on Constitutional carry, concealed carry and open carry? Which do you prefer and why?
62.9K
492
315
32
32
0
(This is meant to be a fun debate)
There have been some studies that suggest majority of crime is opportunity based (aka crime of opportunity theory). Where criminals target those that are perceived as weaker or less likely to fight back. Giving people the means to not only protect themselves but show that they are not afraid to protect themselves may help to reduce crime rates.
There have been countless stories that have backed the prevention of crime when there is an armed citizen present (either in the home or a concealed carry). I can see where some may be concerned about this because just because you can "buy" a gun doesn't mean you know how to "use" a gun. However, some communities that are proud gun zones have less crime and actively educate their children in gun safety as well as proper handling/use.
If you are pro open carry do you think there should be a limitation on the type of firearm that can be carried based on location (e.g. public areas - handguns; hunting/lawful Target Shooting/etc. - all forms; private property - all forms; etc.)?
Edited to include statistics for carrying loaded vs. unloaded:
According to the FBI, "the average gunfight lasts 4 seconds and 95% of gunfights happen within 7 yards." So unless you can load, point and shoot a gun under 4 seconds and within 7 yards (or less if they are rushing at you with a weapon of their own) then you are essentially screwed. You might as well just run around with a baseball bat slung over your shoulder as it would be more effective.
There have been some studies that suggest majority of crime is opportunity based (aka crime of opportunity theory). Where criminals target those that are perceived as weaker or less likely to fight back. Giving people the means to not only protect themselves but show that they are not afraid to protect themselves may help to reduce crime rates.
There have been countless stories that have backed the prevention of crime when there is an armed citizen present (either in the home or a concealed carry). I can see where some may be concerned about this because just because you can "buy" a gun doesn't mean you know how to "use" a gun. However, some communities that are proud gun zones have less crime and actively educate their children in gun safety as well as proper handling/use.
If you are pro open carry do you think there should be a limitation on the type of firearm that can be carried based on location (e.g. public areas - handguns; hunting/lawful Target Shooting/etc. - all forms; private property - all forms; etc.)?
Edited to include statistics for carrying loaded vs. unloaded:
According to the FBI, "the average gunfight lasts 4 seconds and 95% of gunfights happen within 7 yards." So unless you can load, point and shoot a gun under 4 seconds and within 7 yards (or less if they are rushing at you with a weapon of their own) then you are essentially screwed. You might as well just run around with a baseball bat slung over your shoulder as it would be more effective.
Gun Control
Concealed Carry
2nd Amendment
Open Carry
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 102
2
2
0
I like this point of view. I believe that with proper training, a firm understanding of the nature of a weapon coupled with the responsibility laid upon us, it'll benefit us. Although I don't like the whole permit process, I can't argue with it much. Here in NY I had to wait a while and the process in essence is made to discourage applicants. However, certain steps within the process were legitimate. I think with these listed steps we can "all" feel safer. Compromise.
Applicants for gun permits shall be subject to the following
Background check- for our safety and yours. To ensure you're not mentally unstable, a crazed criminal of sorts etc etc
NRA basic gun safety course- to ensure the applicant is aware of the ins and outs of the weapon he would be armed with. It's common sense to me. I wouldn't want someone whom doesn't know what they're doing handling something so dangerous as a weapon.
These two requirements are good in my book. There may be others but that lies upon geographical location with respect to population, crime, poverty and other serious issues. I understand that other states work differently but a conscious effort to try to be fair on both ends should be made. I believe that states should also maintain or try to gain reciprocity with other states regarding the honoring of gun permits. If I'm able to get one in NYC or NY, you'd think I'd be good almost anywhere as NY holds the most ridiculous and anal process(at least I think so). I don't agree with the whole "applicant shall present justifiable means or need to want a permit" I don't need to prove a damn thing to you!! All you need to know is I'm fit for it, now stop questioning my constitutional rights! You shall not infringe upon them!!
Sorry I kind of digressed there. I am a little conflcited with the whole open carry and concealed carry. I want to say hell yea to open carry cause it's cool and all but I also want to reason with security and safety too. I personally feel that concealing my weapon will give me an edge and keep me safe too. At times criminals may see you have a sexy piece and want it and there goes that. You draw attention to yourself too, which I personally don't like. I don't think citizens of our country are fully prepared to be subject to seeing open carry everywhere. Maybe in small doses? Guns scare people and for the right reasons, it's because of what they can do and I understand that. What's your take on what I said PO1 Jennifer Purcell
Applicants for gun permits shall be subject to the following
Background check- for our safety and yours. To ensure you're not mentally unstable, a crazed criminal of sorts etc etc
NRA basic gun safety course- to ensure the applicant is aware of the ins and outs of the weapon he would be armed with. It's common sense to me. I wouldn't want someone whom doesn't know what they're doing handling something so dangerous as a weapon.
These two requirements are good in my book. There may be others but that lies upon geographical location with respect to population, crime, poverty and other serious issues. I understand that other states work differently but a conscious effort to try to be fair on both ends should be made. I believe that states should also maintain or try to gain reciprocity with other states regarding the honoring of gun permits. If I'm able to get one in NYC or NY, you'd think I'd be good almost anywhere as NY holds the most ridiculous and anal process(at least I think so). I don't agree with the whole "applicant shall present justifiable means or need to want a permit" I don't need to prove a damn thing to you!! All you need to know is I'm fit for it, now stop questioning my constitutional rights! You shall not infringe upon them!!
Sorry I kind of digressed there. I am a little conflcited with the whole open carry and concealed carry. I want to say hell yea to open carry cause it's cool and all but I also want to reason with security and safety too. I personally feel that concealing my weapon will give me an edge and keep me safe too. At times criminals may see you have a sexy piece and want it and there goes that. You draw attention to yourself too, which I personally don't like. I don't think citizens of our country are fully prepared to be subject to seeing open carry everywhere. Maybe in small doses? Guns scare people and for the right reasons, it's because of what they can do and I understand that. What's your take on what I said PO1 Jennifer Purcell
(2)
(0)
SrA (Join to see)
I hear ya. I love that I can use my Utah gun permit through a lot of states but it's nerve wrecking to memorize and know which states are a go and a no go. Then the regulations on where the weapon needs to be while driving, too many restrictions and differentiation within states. Also in a way discouraging cause I sure as hell don't want to spend ten years in jail. However, I read up on the weapon laws of each and every state I drive or visit ahead of time online to save the trouble. I have a manual on hand to refer to as well in the event an officer gives me trouble too. I deal with it cause I have to but I don't necessarily agree with it.
(2)
(0)
SrA (Join to see)
Bill would allow concealed weapons across state lines
Sen. John Cornyn's bill could have a better chance of passing the GOP-led Senate.
(1)
(0)
SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA
SrA, I agree that you should get firearms safety training before carrying a firearm, but I disagree that it should be a government-imposed requirement. Not all good ideas should be mandatory, and this good idea could cost the life of a woman who has to wait and take a course before getting/carrying a (Constitutionally protected) firearm that she needs *now* to protect herself from a stalker.
As for background checks, they don't really do anything. Someone who's a criminal or who is mentally unstable can buy a gun illegally on the street, and the background check really just makes it a little bit more difficult for a sane, law-abiding citizen to purchase a firearm, especially when NICS goes down.
As for background checks, they don't really do anything. Someone who's a criminal or who is mentally unstable can buy a gun illegally on the street, and the background check really just makes it a little bit more difficult for a sane, law-abiding citizen to purchase a firearm, especially when NICS goes down.
(1)
(0)
SrA (Join to see)
I see your point and it made me think. Although I see the logic behind your statement I think your choice examples are a bit farfetched. If in case someone is being stalked then I'd understand and ultimately it'll be circumstantial but not so common. Crime rates differ amongst communities and that should be considered as well. To lessen the long analytical process of probability of crimes and all that noise, how about as soon as a citizen purchases a weapon he/she can bring the weapon with them but has a mandatory 30 day window to get the firearms training? This way they remain "constitutionally protected" and ensure us citizens that they are properly trained with the weapon. Last thing I'd want to see is someone playing hero at a local store and shooting innocent bystanders. There's been plenty of mishaps with weapons due to lack of knowledge and preparedness. I strongly believe the weapon training law needs to be instated, if not people won't do it. A firearm is no joke and laws should be in place to ensure citizens are aware of that. With society today, everyone wants to be John Wayne but can't even shoot a weapon properly.
In regards to the background check rule and your ideal I beg to differ. It's like ruling medicine ineffective(example for background checks) because a patient refused to take it. If in fact the patient took the medication he/she would see results, that was his choice to refuse medication. The same goes with background checks, just because you have criminals breaking the law doesn't mean the background checks are ineffective. They are a deterrent and a meticulous step in the permit process. You'd be surprised as to how many citizens drop their weapons process once they know they'll be subject to a background check(mainly because they know they have a bad record). If you live in a heavily populated city, you'd see the effectiveness of it. Not properly screening applicants is an irresponsible thing to do as we can find so many offenses with a simple background check. It's there to ensure the person is of good moral character and isn't a crazed felon. If you're not doing anything wrong then what's the worry? We live in a different age nowadays and I for sure wouldn't want a convicted person arming himself easily. We have psychological examinations for certain professions to weed out the unwanted candidates. Although it may not remain effective for the duration of that candidate's employ, it serves as an initial deterrent. With your reasoning, similar processes are unnecessary and shouldn't be utilized. Criminals don't reason with logic and law so if they're going to commit a crime they'll do it with or without permits but at least citizens will be screened properly to deter their efforts to ascertain a weapon.
Buying a weapon illegally if caught can lead to imprisonment of up to 10 years in certain states. I definitely believe that's a risk to take and most law abiding citizens wouldn't be so desperate to illegally arm himself just to claim the 2nd amendment. I reason with your standing on background checks but in my most honest opinion, I dealt with it so what? I had nothing to hide and prefer people to be screened for something so dangerous and serious as weapon ownership. I took the basic nra pistol course just because and I'm a Marine and have years of firearm training as well. Hell, you learn something new everyday so it didn't hurt me to take the course. I prefer a little discomfort in regards to the background check process than risking safety.
In regards to the background check rule and your ideal I beg to differ. It's like ruling medicine ineffective(example for background checks) because a patient refused to take it. If in fact the patient took the medication he/she would see results, that was his choice to refuse medication. The same goes with background checks, just because you have criminals breaking the law doesn't mean the background checks are ineffective. They are a deterrent and a meticulous step in the permit process. You'd be surprised as to how many citizens drop their weapons process once they know they'll be subject to a background check(mainly because they know they have a bad record). If you live in a heavily populated city, you'd see the effectiveness of it. Not properly screening applicants is an irresponsible thing to do as we can find so many offenses with a simple background check. It's there to ensure the person is of good moral character and isn't a crazed felon. If you're not doing anything wrong then what's the worry? We live in a different age nowadays and I for sure wouldn't want a convicted person arming himself easily. We have psychological examinations for certain professions to weed out the unwanted candidates. Although it may not remain effective for the duration of that candidate's employ, it serves as an initial deterrent. With your reasoning, similar processes are unnecessary and shouldn't be utilized. Criminals don't reason with logic and law so if they're going to commit a crime they'll do it with or without permits but at least citizens will be screened properly to deter their efforts to ascertain a weapon.
Buying a weapon illegally if caught can lead to imprisonment of up to 10 years in certain states. I definitely believe that's a risk to take and most law abiding citizens wouldn't be so desperate to illegally arm himself just to claim the 2nd amendment. I reason with your standing on background checks but in my most honest opinion, I dealt with it so what? I had nothing to hide and prefer people to be screened for something so dangerous and serious as weapon ownership. I took the basic nra pistol course just because and I'm a Marine and have years of firearm training as well. Hell, you learn something new everyday so it didn't hurt me to take the course. I prefer a little discomfort in regards to the background check process than risking safety.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I have a CPL in the state of Michigan and open carry is legal in the State Constitution. I tend to swing in both directions depending on where I am. When I am in the Northern Woods I open carry all the time. When I am at my home front I open carry my .38 but conceal carry my.45. As far as carrying a long arm such as an AR-15 in public in a densely populated area, I don't see the reasoning, in the northern portion of Michigan maybe. Not like I really want to be strapped with my 12 guage or my AR-15 anyway in the city.
(2)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Exactly, that was my main reasoning behind location being key. If I live in the Montana mountains I may want to open carry my rifle (mounted in my vehicle) but if I live in a crowded city anything more than a handgun is excessive. Sgt Martin V. made a good point above about open carry versus Constitutional/concealed carry.
(4)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
This is my main reasoning for situational open carry versus conceal carry.Living in the city, you have to always have your head on right and beware of your surroundings. If you are standing in line at your local 7/eleven with a wide assortment of characters behind you in line, do you want to always be checking yourself for open carry or just have a concealed weapon. So, I am always aware of my location and have my head on a swivel.
(3)
(0)
MSG Mitch Dowler
If the Schumer were to hit the fan the opposite is true. If you walk around the woods and no one is there a handgun will suffice. If you are in a city that has just gone Ferguson and a large part of the population is in a state of reverse evolution I want a high capacity rifle and a handgun. That is the purpose of our Citizen duties under Title 10.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Insert funny comment...Oh I'll do it. I could f**k up a wet dream. I was fine with carrying an M9 and M4 while in Afghanistan, but not in my home. When the the Grim Reaper comes, he does. But I will go down fighting.
(2)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
I agree! Most in home defense is going to be close quarters engagement, using a firearm bigger than a handgun may cause more problems then they solve. However, the type of home you own can also play into this (e.g. owning a ranch or farm - homeowners may prefer the tried and true shotgun for deterrence, etc.).
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
I carry concealed (legally) as does my wife. My kids shoot as well. I don't have a problem with open carry but I don't do it. I think it makes people paranoid, draws attention to oneself and makes you a target. I'd just assume to be anonymous.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I carry concealed just about everywhere. I happen to be in a state that open carry is allowed , but most people get extremely nervous due to the political / cultural atmosphere here. (Vermont)
(1)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
I spend a lot of my vacation time in Vermont, really love the place. I carry concealed there, even though I have very little sense of danger in a state with such a low rate of violent crime. I only wish I could carry in Newark and NYC where it would be justifiable and prudent.
I have never seen anyone open carry in my time there, but I suspect that many others in Vermont were also carrying concealed. Maybe that helps keep the crime rate low.
I have never seen anyone open carry in my time there, but I suspect that many others in Vermont were also carrying concealed. Maybe that helps keep the crime rate low.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I believe that properly trained and screened persons should be able to carry CONCEALED. Unfortunately, the training in some states is lax. Ohio requires only an 8 hour course to get a permit with no requalification. Law enforcement officers are required to requalify every year. As an army reservist, we had to shoot every year. I imagine that the combat arms (infantry, armor, engineers) have to shoot more than that.
There was an article written by a former SEAL who stated that gunfights are confusing and traumatic events. Even once per year requalification is inadequate in my view. If you want to carry, you should have to qualify at least twice per year. You should practice regularly and also try to get some martial arts training too. Not every situation demands a firearm. In some situations (the Oregon community college shooting), a CCW holder (veteran I think) just took up a defensive position in order to protect the students in the room he was in as opposed to actively seeking out the shooter (smart in this case as he could've ended up in a "friendly fire" situation with responding law enforcement).
Open carry is a bad idea. Not only does it unecessicarily alarm others, it invites a possible response from law enforcement AND it gives away the element of surprise. As a CCW holder, I don't want the bad guy to know I'm armed. I want to be the one to choose the time and place of the confrontation. Think Suz Tzu.
There was an article written by a former SEAL who stated that gunfights are confusing and traumatic events. Even once per year requalification is inadequate in my view. If you want to carry, you should have to qualify at least twice per year. You should practice regularly and also try to get some martial arts training too. Not every situation demands a firearm. In some situations (the Oregon community college shooting), a CCW holder (veteran I think) just took up a defensive position in order to protect the students in the room he was in as opposed to actively seeking out the shooter (smart in this case as he could've ended up in a "friendly fire" situation with responding law enforcement).
Open carry is a bad idea. Not only does it unecessicarily alarm others, it invites a possible response from law enforcement AND it gives away the element of surprise. As a CCW holder, I don't want the bad guy to know I'm armed. I want to be the one to choose the time and place of the confrontation. Think Suz Tzu.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
i believe in the second amendment as written i should not have to have a permit to do either. i prefer concealed over open since it would alert a bad guy to it's presence and could get me shot before he even gets close enough for me to notice him sneaking up. or in a place of concealment. now i do not have much of a problem with a background check as i do not have anything to hide granted they are a bother and do have a chance of being abused in some form but i see no other simple way to keep people who should not have one from just walking into a gun store and buying one. like felons and folks who have legitimate mental issues or folks with proven anger management issues or sexual predators or under a restraining order. i see no need to carry a rifle in a store i would have to wonder if you have a feeling of inadequacy trying to be something your not or trying to make a statement of being stupid or planning to use it for something illegal. as to being able to open carry a rifle or pistol on your own property especially if it is a large place go for it. it's your property you should be able to period. but in a public place it is not needed so a pistol should be quite sufficient for protection. just like since we are supposed to be afforded the same protection as our government and to be able to defend against it if the need should ever arise we should be able to own machine guns. now that would be something i would not say should be carried in public don't get me wrong but if the citizenry was ever to have to take on a tyrannical government we should be afforded the right to equal arms. a good training class should be required if you have never had the benefit of police or military training. so really the only thing that should be needed is a valid driver's license a valid training id. i think no other restrictions should apply. there are enough gun laws on the books to cover what should happen if you are not responsible to handle your firearms properly. the biggest thing needed is to enforce those laws. not put more on the books. i will now finish my say and wait to get bashed some for some of what i said :)
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
There are many different theories and discussions that take place on this subject. I am a believer in Constitutional Carry, but unlike others I believe that the 2nd Amendment protects the right, but it can be regulated at the state level. Many states, especially those who were not apart of the 13 original states, have 2nd amendment like articles in their Constitutions. So the personal right to won and bear arms is protected at two levels.
Open carry versus conceal carry is tactics is a matter of preference. Whether it is allowed or not again is what the state desires. In many states open carry is allowed w/out a Carry Conceal License. Here in TX as of tomorrow you can open carry pistols, but must posse either a CHL (Conceal Handgun License) or another type permit. You can carry long guns with no problems. I prefer conceal carry as it has less hassles from the public and law enforcement.
Now for crime and criminals it is my belief that they are cowards, like terrorist. Statics show that in states with Carry Conceal or open carry crime rates are lower then in states with restrictive gun laws. Again the states are correct that in most cases the fight is fast and violate and at close range. If you are carrying to protect yourself and family then you need to be able to get the gun out in less then 4 seconds and complete the fight. How do you hedge the bet? I believe that having and laser on my gun gives me a point and shoot capability and thus don't have to get the gun all the way to use front and rear sights.
These are my opinions alone and I have carried concealed since 1996.
Open carry versus conceal carry is tactics is a matter of preference. Whether it is allowed or not again is what the state desires. In many states open carry is allowed w/out a Carry Conceal License. Here in TX as of tomorrow you can open carry pistols, but must posse either a CHL (Conceal Handgun License) or another type permit. You can carry long guns with no problems. I prefer conceal carry as it has less hassles from the public and law enforcement.
Now for crime and criminals it is my belief that they are cowards, like terrorist. Statics show that in states with Carry Conceal or open carry crime rates are lower then in states with restrictive gun laws. Again the states are correct that in most cases the fight is fast and violate and at close range. If you are carrying to protect yourself and family then you need to be able to get the gun out in less then 4 seconds and complete the fight. How do you hedge the bet? I believe that having and laser on my gun gives me a point and shoot capability and thus don't have to get the gun all the way to use front and rear sights.
These are my opinions alone and I have carried concealed since 1996.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I have absolutely no problem with open carry but my wife and I both carry concealed mainly so as not to draw unwanted attention to ourselves. Many in the general public have irrational fears about guns in general and the mere sight of one makes others nervous. I think this is silly, but at the same time I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind who is that zealously anti-gun, so I prefer concealed carry (loaded and chambered thank you very much...trigger discipline is a must).
On a side note, I think those who carry should be trained in gun safety and should have to undergo a background check. I went through it to get my CCP and I don't have a problem with it. All of my children are trained in gun safety and firearm fundamentals starting at about age 6. It is just a normal part of their upbringing.
On a side note, I think those who carry should be trained in gun safety and should have to undergo a background check. I went through it to get my CCP and I don't have a problem with it. All of my children are trained in gun safety and firearm fundamentals starting at about age 6. It is just a normal part of their upbringing.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google