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?
63.1K
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 >1 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 102
1
1
0
I think the idea that a grown man can be told he cant do something to protect himself and pthers is absolutely preposterous. With that being said conceal carry means just that.. If you cant conceal it than it does the opposite of letting you blend in, it makes you stand out consequently painting you as the first target.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
I believe in Constitutional Carry both concealed and outwardly displayed. I don't understand, why (in NC with concealed carry permit) that I can go to Wal-mart and not a county/city owned property. If I were to be unsafe (after being certified by a state approved class) with a firearm, it doesn't matter where it would happen.
I haven't seen too many studies or stories about negligent discharges from law abiding citizens carrying weapons. It does happen, but, it appears to be rare.
Carry if you want (but follow the laws), it's a Constitutional Right that has been infringed upon for years.
I haven't seen too many studies or stories about negligent discharges from law abiding citizens carrying weapons. It does happen, but, it appears to be rare.
Carry if you want (but follow the laws), it's a Constitutional Right that has been infringed upon for years.
(1)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
I agree! I am not sure exactly who made the comment but they also made a great point. They said something along the lines of, "If allowed to open carry, how does someone suddenly become a criminal if they want to carry their gun in their purse?" I guess I am wondering how it matters if you can purchase a gun and legally open carry why you would need a permit to now conceal that same firearm?
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I was told by a Police Officer that keeping civilians from carrying concealed was to protect officers, so there would be no surprises when dealing with the public. I'm paraphrasing, but, that's what I understood. I would prefer not to carry open as I believe that brings unnecessary attention. I don't have a problem with people that do, that just isn't my style...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I prefer concealed carry... just because it gives me more options if a situation turns ugly and you have to deal with a threat to life and limb. I usually only carry when hiking up in the mountains, if I stumble on smugglers (I live in southern Arizona) I'd prefer for them not realize right off the bat that I'm armed.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The law should allow concealed or open carry without a permit, but should recognize the night and day difference between a gun in the holster vs in the hand. The law should also recognize that any kind of aggressive behavior toward someone while openly carrying is an implicit threat of deadly force and should deal with that accordingly.
If we have an argument, it heats up, and you say you're going to hurt me, I would say that's probably not a crime. I can be pretty annoying. My wife and stepkid say that all the time. If that same argument occurs in public, and you have a .45 in a visible holster and say the same thing, that is a serious crime against me and anyone exposed to the scene.
If we have an argument, it heats up, and you say you're going to hurt me, I would say that's probably not a crime. I can be pretty annoying. My wife and stepkid say that all the time. If that same argument occurs in public, and you have a .45 in a visible holster and say the same thing, that is a serious crime against me and anyone exposed to the scene.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I think that open-carry should become a federally authorized action. Because as the studies have shown, crime is greatly deterred in the presence of a weapon, particularly an openly displayed one. While I believe this should be the case, I also believe that gun control, safety and usage courses shold be mandated to purchase an handgun, prior to finalization of sale. Even if they did not make it federal law that open carry be authorized, then I think it should at least be the case for active Duty military, simply because we are trained and sworn to defend from all enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC. And I dont know about anyone else, but I consider an armed robber a domestic enemy, and as such I will readily defend against them.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
PO1,
Until recently, I was a local law enforcement officer and an Air National Guardsman andI was alone not the only active law enforcement officer that was drilling guardsman in my unit. That's why I'm absolutely dumbfounded by the base’s policy to completely ban any type of carry or even simple possession of any firearm on base. Here you have a group of people who are trained to resolve many lethal force scenarios, to include active shooters, yet they are disarmed, rendering them as helpless as the rest. It was crazy, because I had a navy base in my district and anytime we had to enter the base on official duty (in a marked police car and in uniform), we were asked to leave the weapons at the front gate! Which is completely ridiculous from a law enforcement point of view. But, I digress…
Military experience as an NCO that has deployed many times with active duty units has taught me that E1-E3 and sometimes E4 often make the worst judgment calls. I believe that the leading reason that constitutional carry is not allowed on base is because of the liability that lies in allowing younger, less mature members to carry their own personal weapons. Not only are they giving up “control” of the firearms and ammo on base, but chances are that these members will make stupid mistakes (such as accidental discharges / reckless handling of a firearm) or make poor judgments (such as drunkenly brandishing the weapon, or using lethal force in a non-lethal force scenario). The brass probably figures, on the ORM scale, you are much more likely to have a firearm incident involving improper use of a firearm by a service member carrying their personal weapon than an actual active shooter on base. And the military being what it is, they much rather risk a slow response to one mass shooting, than risk many more individual firearm related incidents on base.
My proposal: Enable NCOs with more than 10+ years of time in service the ability to carry on base. And just like the motorcycle safety course, there would be additional specific training on how to recognize lethal and non-lethal force scenarios as well as considerations (such as backdrop, cover, concealment, etc.) when using a firearm during a lethal force incident. Why 10+ years you ask? Well, the member has to have the maturity of experience, and must also be deeply invested in his/her military as well. This would act as an insurance policy because the member is more likely to exercise more caution/ prudence when it comes to actually deploying and using a handgun. Additionally, conceal carry would only be authorized in non-sensitive area on base (such as public areas) vs. secured areas such as a flight line.
I do believe that US military bases should be “hardened targets,” but I also believe that some military member are not ready to wield such an awesome responsibility. Keep in mind, the legal implications using lethal force against a foreign enemy combatant in a war zone is way different using the same force against an American citizen (or another member) on US soil, hence why I said “such an awesome responsibility”
P.S. I do fall under the pro-gun side of things, but I also understand the civil and criminal liabilities (as an organization) that the military is trying to mitigate. I believe the above stated solution is a good compromise of the two. Otherwise I would be all for the unrestricted carry of firearms on base.
Until recently, I was a local law enforcement officer and an Air National Guardsman andI was alone not the only active law enforcement officer that was drilling guardsman in my unit. That's why I'm absolutely dumbfounded by the base’s policy to completely ban any type of carry or even simple possession of any firearm on base. Here you have a group of people who are trained to resolve many lethal force scenarios, to include active shooters, yet they are disarmed, rendering them as helpless as the rest. It was crazy, because I had a navy base in my district and anytime we had to enter the base on official duty (in a marked police car and in uniform), we were asked to leave the weapons at the front gate! Which is completely ridiculous from a law enforcement point of view. But, I digress…
Military experience as an NCO that has deployed many times with active duty units has taught me that E1-E3 and sometimes E4 often make the worst judgment calls. I believe that the leading reason that constitutional carry is not allowed on base is because of the liability that lies in allowing younger, less mature members to carry their own personal weapons. Not only are they giving up “control” of the firearms and ammo on base, but chances are that these members will make stupid mistakes (such as accidental discharges / reckless handling of a firearm) or make poor judgments (such as drunkenly brandishing the weapon, or using lethal force in a non-lethal force scenario). The brass probably figures, on the ORM scale, you are much more likely to have a firearm incident involving improper use of a firearm by a service member carrying their personal weapon than an actual active shooter on base. And the military being what it is, they much rather risk a slow response to one mass shooting, than risk many more individual firearm related incidents on base.
My proposal: Enable NCOs with more than 10+ years of time in service the ability to carry on base. And just like the motorcycle safety course, there would be additional specific training on how to recognize lethal and non-lethal force scenarios as well as considerations (such as backdrop, cover, concealment, etc.) when using a firearm during a lethal force incident. Why 10+ years you ask? Well, the member has to have the maturity of experience, and must also be deeply invested in his/her military as well. This would act as an insurance policy because the member is more likely to exercise more caution/ prudence when it comes to actually deploying and using a handgun. Additionally, conceal carry would only be authorized in non-sensitive area on base (such as public areas) vs. secured areas such as a flight line.
I do believe that US military bases should be “hardened targets,” but I also believe that some military member are not ready to wield such an awesome responsibility. Keep in mind, the legal implications using lethal force against a foreign enemy combatant in a war zone is way different using the same force against an American citizen (or another member) on US soil, hence why I said “such an awesome responsibility”
P.S. I do fall under the pro-gun side of things, but I also understand the civil and criminal liabilities (as an organization) that the military is trying to mitigate. I believe the above stated solution is a good compromise of the two. Otherwise I would be all for the unrestricted carry of firearms on base.
(1)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
SSgt Jonathan Hernandez, I agree with how it is a delicate balance on both weighing the personal gain to the possible increase in firearm related incidents in regards to allowing carrying on base. I think the best view on that topic would be that just like you stated, members that want to ride motorcycles on base must go through the approved motorcycle training, a version of that for carrying on base would make perfect sense. However, does your viewpoint transition over into the requirements for carrying on a personal level? I have always been of the mind that just because you can buy something does not necessarily mean that you know how to use it. Great examples are motorcycles, firearms and outdoor recreations vehicles. All of these things can be very dangerous if not used or handled properly.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I agree with your idea training on personal carry is needed. I think that it should be up to local commanders on who and if that is allowed different bases in different places will need different things like carry at ft hood would be different then if you were at ft drum or in Germany. and like you said some places on base you should not have pow's. However as a general rule I think it should be allowed.
(2)
(0)
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr
ok so you think it is not okay for a trained soldier who is allowed to be in charge of million dollar equipment is not responsible enough to be trusted with a gun in the states? hmm does the army not teach it's soldiers how to handle firearms? ok i will agree that they should not carry personal arms on base. but they should be allowed to carry issued small arms on base. the notion that just because someone is young does not make them immature. if you have been properly trained and proficient with a sidearm you should be allowed to carry on base. i carried on my small boat units when we went out on whatever mission we went on be it sar or safety checks or drug interdiction. the only time we did not carry was on aton runs since it would be kind of detrimental to the weapons and a bit hazardous climbing an aid to navigation with one on chances of the holster or belt getting hung up on something. granted the only time on a cutter that arms were carried was during a boarding. but i was properly trained in the handling of the weapons we had with us including shotguns m16's and 45's first before we switched to 9mm. so why should i not be able to carry on base?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I'm torn on this subject, when I got my CHL the time, I was astonished and very scared at how most the non-military people handled their pistols. I was flagged three times, two people didn't know how to load their weapons, and one guy in a wheel chair failed the shooting range,(which honestly a person could pass blind folded). I've even seen an excessive amount of SM's doing unsafe acts at ranges. In my opinion, I think that open carry would work if a person could demonstrate profiency with a weapon, pass a background and be licensed every couple of years.
(1)
(0)
SGT Beau Thomas
I agree 100% sir, but with great freedoms comes great responsibility, anyone can drive a car, but you need a license to drive on public roads, same as a person needs a hunters education card to hunt in most states. A simple proficiency test is all I'd like to see. These people at the range had zero weapon discipline, super dangerous, and I'm sure they were trying to be safe, but they had no training and just didn't know what they were doing. I'm a major supporter of the 2nd amendment, I just think it should be applied with common sense.
(1)
(0)
SGT Beau Thomas
But the government already places requirements on our "rights" sir, do they not? A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed......unless you have a felony or domestic abuse..........the right to free speech.....unless it's hate speech....etc...it seems to me the government (local, state and federal)imposes its authority over everyone of our God given rights daily.
(0)
(0)
SGT Beau Thomas
When I think about it, the right to bear arms is s provisional law, not really a God given right as it can be taken away and many aren't allowed to have weapons(felons, mentally ill, etc.) and a big argument from anti 2nd amendment advocates is that the 2nd amendment infringes on the Constitutional right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, so in their opinion, it is a major constitutional argument. Just my opinion on the matter sir. I support the provisional right to bear arms.
(0)
(0)
SGT Beau Thomas
God may give rights, but the government takes them away. I would keep my guns regardless of the law. I could see the government restricting black guns and .223 ammo as our POTUS is currently attempting to do, so someday, we could be outlaws. BTW, were on the same side sir. 2nd amendment was only defined as a personal right in 2008 by the Supreme Court, they can define it either way in the future. Hence, my reasoning for calling it provisionary law. Provisionary law means one that can be altered, so all our laws are provisionary imo. Hope I'm not making you mad sir, it's not my intention.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
don't bother me either way brotha.... However I have to admit, I don't really like to advertise. ;)
(1)
(0)
I prefer licensed carry, currently concealed as that is all Texas allows at this point but would like to see open carry as well, simply to have the option available. Accidental exposure is no longer a punishable offence here....so it's not a huge deal for me.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google