Concealed carry on Post/Base

[Dissident]

Whole heartily agree with you. Our bases are woefully undefended and one of these days we may end up paying for it. And if I remember correctly, one of the targets of the "Toronto 18" was a military base in southern Ontario, so its not as far fetched as some people think.

I would not go so far as to say "woefully undefended". The threat of an active shooter on a CFB (terrorist or disgruntled soldier) has been recognized and IARD training is now part of the MP QL3, as well as ongoing qualification for the MP trade at large.

Still, I would feel much better if select individuals were encouraged to carry loaded while on duty.

But hey, as a reservist I don't spend much time on bases, my exposure is limited at best.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I have seen those leg holsters in Kandahar; and after seeing and hearing about some of the most outstanding weapons handling that goes on there,  it is my personal opinion that everyone will be safer if anyone who is carrying the metal paperweight called the Browning, should just leave them locked in their respective CQ's.

That being said, just because we are soldiers, does not automatically mean we are safe with firearms.

Relentless loading and unloading is bound to cause issues, not the least is bullet setback.  Load it while pointing into a container/ballestic mat, place in holster, leave there till duty is finished and clear in the direction of container/mat. A properly maintained gun in a proper holster is perfectly safe, apparently the police do it all the time, mostly without incident.  :nod:

 

[dapaterson]

A properly maintained gun in a proper holster is perfectly safe, apparently the police do it all the time, mostly without incident.  :nod:

Just don't try any funny stuff with a stapler...

 

[Dissident]

Just don't try any funny stuff with a stapler...

No gun involved in that incident! All you risk by waiving a stapler around is a tasering and positional asphyxia.  >

 

[Thompson_JM]

Relentless loading and unloading is bound to cause issues, not the least is bullet setback.  Load it while pointing into a container/ballestic mat, place in holster, leave there till duty is finished and clear in the direction of container/mat. A properly maintained gun in a proper holster is perfectly safe, apparently the police do it all the time, mostly without incident.  :nod:

The other big difference is that the Police use a DOUBLE ACTION Modern Pistol.....


The BHP may be a good pistol for what it was built for, but It's time to upgrade our Sidearm to something a little bit more modern.... Why the Army has not followed the Navy and MP's and just gotten Sig Sauers is beyond me.... (Or Glock, or S&W M&P's or whatever else....)

 

[Snaketnk]

Well, funny you should mention the action in reference to it being somewhat safer. There were no BHP NDs during my tour (where I was) But there were 2 Sig NDs. Just saying that there's more important things than action when determining how safe it is to carry a pistol.

Any decent pistol is perfectly safe to carry. Leave it loaded unreadied in the holster and it's less dangerous than a baton. I can think of few situations where you'd need your pistol readied (kinetic ops aside).

I Love my BHP. As long as the mags aren't eff'd. Nice and simple.

 

[RCR Grunt]

The other big difference is that the Police use a DOUBLE ACTION Modern Pistol.....


The BHP may be a good pistol for what it was built for, but It's time to upgrade our Sidearm to something a little bit more modern.... Why the Army has not followed the Navy and MP's and just gotten Sig Sauers is beyond me.... (Or Glock, or S&W M&P's or whatever else....)

*CAUTION:  Derail Imminent!*

With proper mags and decent barrels there is nothing wrong with the BHP.  The Sig et al are not designed for nor do they perform as well under Big Army field conditions.  For Naval boarding parties, MP's and SOFCOM pers the Sig is ideal.  But for mud rolling Army dudes, the BHP is more reliable (when fed by proper magazines) than the fancier pistols.  Perhaps a modernized BHP with a rail and the addition of a DA/SA trigger is what is required.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The BHP suffers one major design defect and that is the crossbar (can't think of the correct name) that is in the frame, once that goes it's difficult to replace. The current BHP's the army has could use a better safety.

If  I was to replace the current sidearm with a Sig, I would take the Sig 2022 over the 226, a tad lighter, less wear issues on the frame, easily replaceable hammer box. The French police think highly of them.

I have my own 226 and BHP, love them both, but can see the limits in both designs.

 

[cupper]

Not to stir the pot, but :stirpot:

One glaring argument against the policy of carrying personal weapons on base is Major Nidal Hassan, of Fort Hood infamy.

 

[PuckChaser]

I Love my BHP. As long as the mags aren't eff'd. Nice and simple.

Yep, the mags are the biggest issue I've run into. Old mags = stoppages. I used to run a whole mag worth of rounds (cocking not firing) pointed into a clearing bay to check my mags every couple months overseas, to make sure there were no misfeeds as 95% of the time, it was a mag problem that caused a double feed.

 

[aesop081]

Not to stir the pot, but :stirpot:

One glaring argument against the policy of carrying personal weapons on base is Major Nidal Hassan, of Fort Hood infamy.

The same example can be used to argue the opposite.

 

[cupper]

The same example can be used to argue the opposite.

True. Unfortunately true.

However, it does assume that a rational person would think twice about doing such things when facing the prospect that your targets are packing. And it can be argued quite easily that Hassan was not a rational person.

And that same logic also creates problems for law enforcement responding, when you can't distinguish a "well meaning" bystander from the actual perpetrator.

Shortly after the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords, I read an interview with a person who had attended the event who was carrying. HE pulled the weapon, started looking to see who was doing the shooting, and then realized that he had just made himself a suspect and potentially on the receiving end of incoming rounds from some other well meaning but misguided individual.

 

[ballz]

True. Unfortunately true.

However, it does assume that a rational person would think twice about doing such things when facing the prospect that your targets are packing. And it can be argued quite easily that Hassan was not a rational person.

And that same logic also creates problems for law enforcement responding, when you can't distinguish a "well meaning" bystander from the actual perpetrator.

If a few people were carrying the perpetrator would be one of the dead people on the floor by the time law enforcement got there... Lucky for them, there would be a lot less dead people to sort out.

Shortly after the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords, I read an interview with a person who had attended the event who was carrying. HE pulled the weapon, started looking to see who was doing the shooting, and then realized that he had just made himself a suspect and potentially on the receiving end of incoming rounds from some other well meaning but misguided individual.

I would like to see this interview, not to say you are bullshitting, but to read his exact quotes and lines of thinking and whatnot. I personally don't agree wtih that line of thinking at all. By the time law enforcement got there, the guilty b*****d would again be on the floor, and since no other threats were around I am sure the hero of the day would have had lots of time to holster is weapon before any SWAT teams stormed the room and shot the man with the smoking gun.


I know it sounds like I am pro-CCW or whatever, maybe I am, but I'm not sure enough about it to proclaim so, but I just thought I'd point out what crossed my mind about your points.

 

[S.Stewart]

I don't think we need conceal weapons permits, honestly it prevents some idiot from getting road rage and just happening to have his weapon on him. Canadians have gone this long without such permits in recent years, the ******* world has not exploded in such some sort of post apocalyptic horror that we need it now, this is my opinion as someone who has a firearms licence, and owns firearms. Plus the idea of of protecting one's self and others on the street as it was put it, base or other wise just sits wrong, I just get the impression of too many idiots who are legal gun orders trying to interfere with matters that should be handled by the police. There is a reason we don't have it, it is simply not needed, may things like conceal and carry permits are a factor is the difference in gun murder rates between here and the states...food for thought.

Considering our police officers don't carry weapons off duty, I have no idea why the hell I would need to carry around a handgun, I don't know about anyone else, but I don't live in enough fear to deem it needed, and I live in the city and I am you know a female who likes the night life, and one who does go out by herself.

 

[RCR Grunt]

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

Wouldn't you rather have the option of carrying?

A properly administered and implemented CCW program would not turn this country into the wild wild west.

The real reason, I would imagine, for the dramatic difference in gun related murders between us and our neighbours to the south are the difference in the availability/accessibilty of firearms.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Indictment rates for CCW permit holders for firearm related offense in the US are around 1% of total. The number of incidents caused by people using their concealed firearms and causing issues is statistical insignificant. Meanwhile the FBI estimates that firearm owners thwart approx 2 million crimes a year.

The whole ‘road rage, streets running with blood” is poppycock scare mongering. Being a permit holder does not protect you from the laws of the land and you will be subject to an investigation anytime you draw your firearm whether you fire or not. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but a high number of incidents are resolved by the permit holder drawing the gun, at which point the bad guy hoofs it out of there.

As for their homicide rate, the US adds about 2-3 million new guns to the market every year (for around 300 million+ guns) and the North American civilian and police market consumed 12 billion rounds of ammo in 2008-2009. Canada has somewhere between 7-30 million legally made/imported guns, not counting smuggled. Between Canada and the US there are slightly less than 10,000 homicides a year involving guns. So you do the math as to how many bullets per homicide and what percentage of firearms are involved in a homicide. 

 

[Greymatters]

Out of curiosity, is the level of crime increasing on bases and posts?  Im wondering what the justification would be for increased carrying of firearms, other than personal preference...

 

[cupper]

I would like to see this interview, not to say you are bullshitting, but to read his exact quotes and lines of thinking and whatnot.

No prob, I'll see if I can track it down.

I know it sounds like I am pro-CCW or whatever, maybe I am, but I'm not sure enough about it to proclaim so, but I just thought I'd point out what crossed my mind about your points.

I can go either way on the issue, just that living down here, you hear all sides of the argument. And some on the pro side tend to make their arguments in rather counter productive ways.

 

[Nemo888]

When I am in civvy clothes I think it is ridiculous. But when I am in uniform I feel a bit naked without a gun. Never had cause to use one out of the Army. Seems like a waste of time and money. I don't carry bear spray either. But hey if you have a permit I don't really care what you put in your pants.

 

[Dissident]

When I am in civvy clothes I think it is ridiculous.

I always find that argument (and it's derivative) interesting.

Does the uniform have special powers? Are you a different person in and out of uniform?