2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: jonjon on April 24, 2014, 08:00:00 PM
-
If Hawaii was to become a Shall Issue State tomorrow would you apply for a CCW permit?
Would be interesting to find out what percentage of a 2a forum actually supports CCW
-
Yes
-
A foregone conclusion, the membership, as far as I've seen, is overwhelmingly in support of CCW.
-
.
-
A foregone conclusion, the membership, as far as I've seen, is overwhelmingly in support of CCW.
There has been some heated debate about CCW in a couple of threads and it's nice to know where the majority of forum members stand.
There are a few vocal/active members who post for and against CCW - this poll gives the rest of the members a way to silently voice their opinion about CCW :shaka:
-
I did once before and I'd do it again in a heartbeat if we became a "shall issue" state!! :thumbsup:
-
I might wait a day or two... I imagine those lines to get pretty insane.. >:(
-
Would apply in a heartbeat!
-
I would buy a new smaller carry pistol first!
-
Yep. In a heartbeat.
-
My Smith & Wesson M & P Shield is ready and waiting.
-
Regardless, Some don't have the maturity, nor possess the common sense, to carry.
-
Regardless, Some don't have the maturity, nor possess the common sense, to carry.
While likely a true statement, how would you suggest to ferret out those who don't possess the maturity or common sense to carry and still maintain an issuance scheme that was based on objective criteria and not subjective opinions of government bureaucrats?
-
Regardless, Some don't have the maturity, nor possess the common sense, to carry.
Many people don't have the maturity or common sense to operate a 3,000 lb vehicle going 50-70 MPH, but they are on the road with us all every single day.
Many people don't have the maturity or common sense to safely and properly raise a child, much less several children, but they are having babies every single day.
So, rather than single out concealed carry license holders for their lack of qualifications, how about recommending a scientific, objective way to weed out those you would not want to do ANYTHING that might result in the death of an innocent.
It's very easy to make general statements like this. Unless you have a real solution in mind, your comment only plays into the hands of the anti-CCW & anti-gun supporters.
-
Regardless, Some don't have the maturity, nor possess the common sense, to carry.
And yet all across the country we have gun-toting police officers, sheriffs deputies, BATFE agents, FBI agents, Secret Service agents. BLM agents...
With over 8 MILLION concealed carry holders and a history of 20 YEARS of concealed carry in various states the data shows that concealed carry holders have lower rates of gun crime, and all crime, than the above mentioned Law Enforcement Officers... therefore, by your standard perhaps we ought to disarm those more prone to commit crimes?
-
While likely a true statement, how would you suggest to ferret out those who don't possess the maturity or common sense to carry and still maintain an issuance scheme that was based on objective criteria and not subjective opinions of government bureaucrats?
Unfortunately there is no easy way to figure out the bad eggs from the good eggs when it comes to CCW. Extensive training in liability and legal procedure may provide a foundation for most and may reform those Rambo wanna be types.
People need to be educated that they are accountable for every single round that is fired. While they may be attempting to stop a crime it does not justify a single loss of life on their part. While it may seem like common sense to most of us, when you add a sympathetic nervous system response to the mix most people forget to ensure they have a clear back drop before they fire. That is something that has to be trained and practiced.
In the heat of the moment your vision narrows, heart rate increases, and you experience auditory exclusion. You lose complex motor skills. If you don't have training in how to react when the shit hits the fan you may end up killing someone innocent. It may be the little girl standing behind the suspect, in the background.
Maturity, that's a huge one. Knowing when to intervene and when not to. Weighing the risk vs. benefit. Knowing when it's better to walk away vs. escalating. Knowing how to lower your head, put your ego aside, and make a mature decision based on logic not emotion.
I'm a firm believer that if you can't defend yourself without a gun, you have no business carrying a gun for defense. Learn how to fight before you even think about CCW. You may have to fight to maintain possession of your gun.
Just my 2 cents.
-
While likely a true statement, how would you suggest to ferret out those who don't possess the maturity or common sense to carry and still maintain an issuance scheme that was based on objective criteria and not subjective opinions of government bureaucrats?
like I said, some dont have the presence of mind to CCW.
you call it "the movies" understanding of firearms.
I asked you before, if CCW is opened to whoever wants to apply. Wouldnt you think at least of few people with "the movies" understanding would be carrying?
as I suggested, maybe a passing a "compentency test"? Similar to one of the funtimes teaches?
-
like I said, some dont have the presence of mind to CCW.
you call it "the movies" understanding of firearms.
I asked you before, if CCW is opened to whoever wants to apply. Wouldnt you think at least of few people with "the movies" understanding would be carrying?
as I suggested, maybe a passing a "compentency test"? Similar to one of the funtimes teaches?
So, you are saying only those deemed "competent" by some government-run agency are allowed the right to defend themselves with firearms against criminals, while all others are just out of luck victims?
What could possibly go wrong there, seeing how the government never, ever demonstrates their own incompetence.
Just brilliant ... :wacko:
-
Unfortunately there is no easy way to figure out the bad eggs from the good eggs when it comes to CCW. Extensive training in liability and legal procedure may provide a foundation for most and may reform those Rambo wanna be types.
People need to be educated that they are accountable for every single round that is fired. While they may be attempting to stop a crime it does not justify a single loss of life on their part. While it may seem like common sense to most of us, when you add a sympathetic nervous system response to the mix most people forget to ensure they have a clear back drop before they fire. That is something that has to be trained and practiced.
In the heat of the moment your vision narrows, heart rate increases, and you experience auditory exclusion. You lose complex motor skills. If you don't have training in how to react when the shit hits the fan you may end up killing someone innocent. It may be the little girl standing behind the suspect, in the background.
Maturity, that's a huge one. Knowing when to intervene and when not to. Weighing the risk vs. benefit. Knowing when it's better to walk away vs. escalating. Knowing how to lower your head, put your ego aside, and make a mature decision based on logic not emotion.
I'm a firm believer that if you can't defend yourself without a gun, you have no business carrying a gun for defense. Learn how to fight before you even think about CCW. You may have to fight to maintain possession of your gun.
Just my 2 cents.
totally agree
-
So, you are saying only those deemed "competent" by some government-run agency are allowed the right to defend themselves with firearms against criminals, while all others are just out of luck victims?
What could possibly go wrong there, seeing how the government never, ever demonstrates their own incompetence.
Just brilliant ... :wacko:
look. Do you have a problem reading? Where the hell did I say anything about a government agency. If you could read, you would have seen where i pointed out "similar to what funtimes teaches". is funtimes class a government run agency?
Now who's brilliant? SMH
-
Regardless, Some don't have the maturity, nor possess the common sense, to carry.
So are you claiming that this is your "expert" opinion and that you have examined how many people and what percentage of them didn't meet your standard? And what is your standard and how did you arrive at it and what is the name of the standardized test that you use? Or are you just making stuff up?
-
look. Do you have a problem reading? Where the hell did I say anything about a government agency. If you could read, you would have seen where i pointed out "similar to what funtimes teaches". is funtimes class a government run agency?
Now who's brilliant? SMH
Yeah I have a problem reading ... your mind! Say what you mean and use a broader vocabulary. It's not my reading -- it's your writing.
What you said was "passing a "compentency test"? Similar to..."
You need to be more explicit. Are you referring to mental competency, or did you mean "firearm proficiency and shooting skills?"
After reading your constant postings against CCW for anyone other than law enforcement because of your personal fears and beliefs, I'm curious whether you actually support any level of competency tests (mental or firearms proficiency) to the point it will persuade you to trust civilians with conceal firearms in public, lest you get hit by a random stray bullet!
-
.
-
I'm a firm believer that if you can't defend yourself without a gun, you have no business carrying a gun for defense. Learn how to fight before you even think about CCW. You may have to fight to maintain possession of your gun.
Just my 2 cents.
Ruling out elderly, disabled, and many others.
-
Ruling out elderly, disabled, and many others.
+1000
Firearms are the great equalizers. No longer should people live by the law of the jungle. Criminals target people they think are weaker and defenseless. So, at the outset, the confrontation is purposely mismatched.
-
Often the people who say that many people aren't responsible enough for CCW sound a lot like "Guns for me, but not for thee" crowd...
-
Regardless, Some don't have the maturity, nor possess the common sense, to carry.
I could agree with that, but some of these guys may already be carrying right now.
-
Ruling out elderly, disabled, and many others.
Yep. It is what it is. Not all people should be allowed to carry.
-
Yep. It is what it is. Not all people should be allowed to carry.
There are many that should be allowed concealed carry.
-
Disparity of force is one reason
-
Didn't a couple of women go missing recently?
What about the unsolved ones from years before?
Remember Diane Suzuki?
-
The right for citizens to bear arms is not a new concept.
-
Does an emoticon of a head banging against a wall exist? If so, I vote we add that to our list of options... As well as the beating a dead horse one.
-
Our rights were created for EVERYONE. Some may use them wisely, some not. It is NOT for us to decide."The test" was being born american and human. Everybody has a God given right to self defense. Especially with a Gun. Human life is precious. Even those who disagree with us. Dont start splitting our cause. We can train everyone to their best ability. We are facing the same obstacles as other states that began CCW. The same B.S. thinking etc. Guess what??? The worst NEVER happened. We as gun owners were very law abiding and careful. Stay together guys. We are soooo close. Do not separate ourselves. Include ALL those who want a CCW. The rest CAN be taught.Be inclusive. Take the higher ground. Thanks for hearing me out.
Pastor Dennis
-
If you pass the whole process to obtain a permit for a handgun that should be sufficient for you to apply for a CCW. I could see maybe a CCW class as a requirement and personally wouldn't mind. As firearms owners we should already understand local, federal laws and the consequences for breaking them. The responsibility is soley on the CCW permit holder. Rambo, sheepdog, movie types whatever you want to call it doesn't matter the 2nd Amendment applies to everyone who can lawfully own/operate firearms.
There are people who should never be allowed to drive, but if they pass the tests they get their license and cars kill more people then firearms do.
-
I could agree with that, but some of these guys may already be carrying right now.
You mean like the cops, excuse me, "Law Enforcement Officers" that routinely shoot dogs and elderly people in their homes during mistaken "drug" raids?
-
Quote from: 2aHawaii on Today at 06:14:53 PM
Ruling out elderly, disabled, and many others.
Yep. It is what it is. Not all people should be allowed to carry.
Am I understanding correctly that your response to means "Yes, that is correct, those who aren't able to fight without a firearm ought not be allowed to carry any arm, especially a firearm, if they are elderly, disabled, or for many other reasons."?
Or are you asserting that "not ALL people should be allowed to carry"? Because no one has asserted that ALL people should be allowed to carry. Those people disqualified from ownership due to violent felony conviction, adjudicated mentally ill, documented substance abuse problems, etc. are already disqualified from ownership, much less CCW. Since that would be nothing but a strawman argument, you must have meant the first. Why should those people be disqualified due to being elderly or having a disability?
-
Does an emoticon of a head banging against a wall exist? If so, I vote we add that to our list of options... As well as the beating a dead horse one.
(http://i.imgur.com/powg4iW.gif) (http://imgur.com/powg4iW)
-
Am I understanding correctly that your response to means "Yes, that is correct, those who aren't able to fight without a firearm ought not be allowed to carry any arm, especially a firearm, if they are elderly, disabled, or for many other reasons."?
Or are you asserting that "not ALL people should be allowed to carry"? Because no one has asserted that ALL people should be allowed to carry. Those people disqualified from ownership due to violent felony conviction, adjudicated mentally ill, documented substance abuse problems, etc. are already disqualified from ownership, much less CCW. Since that would be nothing but a strawman argument, you must have meant the first. Why should those people be disqualified due to being elderly or having a disability?
2aHawaii was disagreeing with Dblnaknak's opinion/belief "that if you can't defend yourself without a gun, you have no business carrying a gun for defense." 2aHawaii gave examples of people who are unable to defend themselves and therefore DEPEND ON firearms for protection.
Saying nobody should carry a gun unless they can protect themselves without a gun is like saying you can't go to the grocery store unless you grow your own food first. It makes no sense whatsoever!
-
.
-
2aHawaii was disagreeing with Dblnaknak's opinion/belief "that if you can't defend yourself without a gun, you have no business carrying a gun for defense." 2aHawaii gave examples of people who are unable to defend themselves and therefore DEPEND ON firearms for protection.
Saying nobody should carry a gun unless they can protect themselves without a gun is like saying you can't go to the grocery store unless you grow your own food first. It makes no sense whatsoever!
If you look at my post it was quoting Dblnaknak and asking Dblnaknak which of the two possible absurdities his/her words could have meant was true. E.g. "If you're too weak to defend yourself without a firearm then you ought not be allowed to have a firearm to defend yourself." Does anyone really believe that a 5' 2" 95 pound woman, even with martial arts training, has a chance to defend herself successfully without weapons against two young guys each weighing 250 pounds? Get real.
By the way, when are Hawaii citizens going to be allowed to CCW expandable batons, pepper spray in greater than 1/4 oz. containers, "stun guns", etc. that are now all prohibited? We aren't allowed to even have the ability to protect ourselves in public with close-quarters non-lethal defensive arms. "Bear arms" means nothing to the fascist statist government bureaucrats of Hawaii.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/powg4iW.gif) (http://imgur.com/powg4iW)
+1 :thumbsup:
-
(http://i.imgur.com/powg4iW.gif) (http://imgur.com/powg4iW)
:o how'd you do that? I don't see it anywhere in my options.
-
:o how'd you do that? I don't see it anywhere in my options.
Animated .gif he posted as a pic.
-
Forum ninja!
-
:o how'd you do that? I don't see it anywhere in my options.
If everybody could do it, it wouldn't be as cool! :wave:
-
If you look at my post it was quoting Dblnaknak and asking Dblnaknak which of the two possible absurdities his/her words could have meant was true. E.g. "If you're too weak to defend yourself without a firearm then you ought not be allowed to have a firearm to defend yourself." Does anyone really believe that a 5' 2" 95 pound woman, even with martial arts training, has a chance to defend herself successfully without weapons against two young guys each weighing 250 pounds? Get real.
By the way, when are Hawaii citizens going to be allowed to CCW expandable batons, pepper spray in greater than 1/4 oz. containers, "stun guns", etc. that are now all prohibited? We aren't allowed to even have the ability to protect ourselves in public with close-quarters non-lethal defensive arms. "Bear arms" means nothing to the fascist statist government bureaucrats of Hawaii.
I have a feeling the legislature in their infinite wisdom made non-lethal forms of weapons illegal in an effort to prevent muggers and other ofenders from using them against their victims. You know a stun gun would make the job of mugging or rapping raping so much easier.
It's a good ting criminals follow the law and would never carry these weapons!
-
You know a stun gun would make the job of mugging or rapping so much easier.
sure does homie...
http://youtu.be/Ltfd5xOBO5g (http://youtu.be/Ltfd5xOBO5g)
-
Yeah I have a problem reading ... your mind! Say what you mean and use a broader vocabulary. It's not my reading -- it's your writing.
What you said was "passing a "compentency test"? Similar to..."
You need to be more explicit. Are you referring to mental competency, or did you mean "firearm proficiency and shooting skills?"
After reading your constant postings against CCW for anyone other than law enforcement because of your personal fears and beliefs, I'm curious whether you actually support any level of competency tests (mental or firearms proficiency) to the point it will persuade you to trust civilians with conceal firearms in public, lest you get hit by a random stray bullet!
you freal? I don’t have to define a type of competency, see definition 1 below. i would suggest you read a dictionary but we already established you dont know how to read properly.
Competency is defined as:
1. a combination of practical and theoretical knowledge, cognitive skills, behavior and values used to improve performance; or as the state or quality of being adequately or well qualified, having the ability to perform a specific role
2. the quality of being competent; adequacy; possession of required skill, knowledge, qualification, or capacity
3. the ability to do something successfully or efficiently
I shouldnt have to be more explicit, in the context of the discussion the meaning of my post is already clearly established.
The topic of discussion in this thread is CCW in Hawaii, - CCW refers to carrying a concealed weapon (both lethal and non-lethal...not ONLY firearms) in public in a concealed manner. again- reading would help.
The context of the discussion develops with each subsequent post. (at the time of my post) the context was “how to subjectively ferret out individuals for CCW (lethal and non-lethal) based on competency”
Context is defined as:
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect
You really have a problem reading and understanding. You don’t understand the meaning of competency, and you don’t understand context. I will try to help you understand:
Regardless, Some don't have the maturity, nor possess the common sense, to carry.
dblnaknak’s statements that some don’t have the maturity or common sense to possess.
While likely a true statement, how would you suggest to ferret out those who don't possess the maturity or common sense to carry and still maintain an issuance scheme that was based on objective criteria and not subjective opinions of government bureaucrats?
HiCarry responds to dblnaknak with a question: how would you suggest to ferret out the ones who don’t possess the maturity or common sense based on objective criteria INSTEAD of subjective opinions of govt bureaucrats.
like I said, some dont have the presence of mind to CCW.
you call it "the movies" understanding of firearms.
I asked you before, if CCW is opened to whoever wants to apply. Wouldnt you think at least of few people with "the movies" understanding would be carrying?
as I suggested, maybe a passing a "compentency test"? Similar to one of the funtimes teaches?
this is my response to HiCarry – I suggest 2 things; 1 passing a competency test, 2 similar to what funtimes teaches.
So, you are saying only those deemed "competent" by some government-run agency are allowed the right to defend themselves with firearms against criminals, while all others are just out of luck victims?
What could possibly go wrong there, seeing how the government never, ever demonstrates their own incompetence.
Just brilliant ... :wacko:
this is your reply to me- where YOU somehow assume that I said the competency test was a government run agency.
look. Do you have a problem reading? Where the hell did I say anything about a government agency. If you could read, you would have seen where i pointed out "similar to what funtimes teaches". is funtimes class a government run agency?
Now who's brilliant? SMH
this is my reply to you, pointing out where you misunderstood, and point out that my quote included the statement about funtimes- if you weren’t sure about what that meant you shoulda have asked “what does funtimes teach?”
fyi – HDF teaches a few courses, I have been talking with a few guys and they had great things to say about them.
http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/services/nra-steps-handgun-training/ (http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/services/nra-steps-handgun-training/)
Yeah I have a problem reading ... your mind! Say what you mean and use a broader vocabulary. It's not my reading -- it's your writing.
What you said was "passing a "compentency test"? Similar to..."
You need to be more explicit. Are you referring to mental competency, or did you mean "firearm proficiency and shooting skills?"
After reading your constant postings against CCW for anyone other than law enforcement because of your personal fears and beliefs, I'm curious whether you actually support any level of competency tests (mental or firearms proficiency) to the point it will persuade you to trust civilians with conceal firearms in public, lest you get hit by a random stray bullet!
I mention a competency test WRT to CCW, by doing this I am demonstrating that I am open to “other than law enforcement”.
If you want to recommend being explicit, try taking your own advice. How have my 156 posts been “CONSTANT” against CCW? Do make sh!t up. Your credibility drops when you do.
-
Our rights were created for EVERYONE. Some may use them wisely, some not. It is NOT for us to decide."The test" was being born american and human. Everybody has a God given right to self defense. Especially with a Gun. Human life is precious. Even those who disagree with us. Dont start splitting our cause. We can train everyone to their best ability. We are facing the same obstacles as other states that began CCW. The same B.S. thinking etc. Guess what??? The worst NEVER happened. We as gun owners were very law abiding and careful. Stay together guys. We are soooo close. Do not separate ourselves. Include ALL those who want a CCW. The rest CAN be taught.Be inclusive. Take the higher ground. Thanks for hearing me out.
Pastor Dennis
Just curious,
are you really a pastor as in a minister or priest in charge of a church?
if so, would you mind disclosing (in private if you like) what denomination of faith and which church?
-
like I said, some dont have the presence of mind to CCW.
you call it "the movies" understanding of firearms.
[and then later...]:
"The topic of discussion in this thread is CCW in Hawaii, - CCW refers to carrying a concealed weapon (both lethal and non-lethal...not ONLY firearms) in public in a concealed manner. again- reading would help."
Yeah, reading would sure help. You should read your own posts. Never once did you mention anything other than firearms, and you explicitly mention firearms only. You recommend a "competency test" "similar to what funtimes teaches". Uh huh. So let's follow your link (http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/services/nra-steps-handgun-training/ (http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/services/nra-steps-handgun-training/))(notice the word "handgun" in the link itself) and see what is included:
Course Overview and Course Goals:
Introduction to Pistol Safety, Parts, and Operation
Introduction to Ammunition and the Fundamentals of Pistol Shooting
Introduction to Pistol Shooting
Introduction to Pistol Cleaning, Storage
Training Opportunities
Please tell me where your recommendation for CCW training includes any reference whatsoever, much less training in, much less a determination of competency in even one single form of non-lethal CCW. Where is it "Mr. You'd better learn to read. You freal."?
You are totally disingenuous. You're (literally) unbelievable. You attack other people and make excuses for your own inept and confused arguments, self-contradictory statements and lack of capacity for critical thinking. You either avoid addressing these problems with your claims and assertions or at best you try to weasel-word your way out of them. You provide us with another example of a bible-thumper who has little to no capacity for actual honesty while promoting yourself as one who truly wants to "understand" while following a "spiritual path" in service to some mythological fantasy. I rarely do this, and use this kind of language, but I call bullshit.
-
.
-
Damn, this has turned into one of the weirder threads I have read on 2AHawaii since the fluffy rabbit stuff.
-
Yeah, reading would sure help. You should read your own posts. Never once did you mention anything other than firearms, and you explicitly mention firearms only. You recommend a "competency test" "similar to what funtimes teaches". Uh huh. So let's follow your link (http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/services/nra-steps-handgun-training/ (http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/services/nra-steps-handgun-training/))(notice the word "handgun" in the link itself) and see what is included:
Course Overview and Course Goals:
Introduction to Pistol Safety, Parts, and Operation
Introduction to Ammunition and the Fundamentals of Pistol Shooting
Introduction to Pistol Shooting
Introduction to Pistol Cleaning, Storage
Training Opportunities
Please tell me where your recommendation for CCW training includes any reference whatsoever, much less training in, much less a determination of competency in even one single form of non-lethal CCW. Where is it "Mr. You'd better learn to read. You freal."?
You are totally disingenuous. You're (literally) unbelievable. You attack other people and make excuses for your own inept and confused arguments, self-contradictory statements and lack of capacity for critical thinking. You either avoid addressing these problems with your claims and assertions or at best you try to weasel-word your way out of them. You provide us with another example of a bible-thumper who has little to no capacity for actual honesty while promoting yourself as one who truly wants to "understand" while following a "spiritual path" in service to some mythological fantasy. I rarely do this, and use this kind of language, but I call bullshit.
as you quoted me. " similar to one of funtimes classes". do you have a clue what "similar" means? I have been avoiding responding to you specifically cuz I think you're incapable of intelligent communication. You continue to disrespect the bible and other people's religions. your opinion is worthless to me. Lets agree to disagree. Don't waste your time, I won't waste mine.
-
you freal? I don’t have to define a type of competency, see definition 1 below. i would suggest you read a dictionary but we already established you dont know how to read properly.
Competency is defined as:
1. a combination of practical and theoretical knowledge, cognitive skills, behavior and values used to improve performance; or as the state or quality of being adequately or well qualified, having the ability to perform a specific role
2. the quality of being competent; adequacy; possession of required skill, knowledge, qualification, or capacity
3. the ability to do something successfully or efficiently
I shouldnt have to be more explicit, in the context of the discussion the meaning of my post is already clearly established.
The topic of discussion in this thread is CCW in Hawaii, - CCW refers to carrying a concealed weapon (both lethal and non-lethal...not ONLY firearms) in public in a concealed manner. again- reading would help.
The context of the discussion develops with each subsequent post. (at the time of my post) the context was “how to subjectively ferret out individuals for CCW (lethal and non-lethal) based on competency”
Context is defined as:
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect
You really have a problem reading and understanding. You don’t understand the meaning of competency, and you don’t understand context. I will try to help you understand:
dblnaknak’s statements that some don’t have the maturity or common sense to possess.
HiCarry responds to dblnaknak with a question: how would you suggest to ferret out the ones who don’t possess the maturity or common sense based on objective criteria INSTEAD of subjective opinions of govt bureaucrats.
this is my response to HiCarry – I suggest 2 things; 1 passing a competency test, 2 similar to what funtimes teaches.
this is your reply to me- where YOU somehow assume that I said the competency test was a government run agency.
this is my reply to you, pointing out where you misunderstood, and point out that my quote included the statement about funtimes- if you weren’t sure about what that meant you shoulda have asked “what does funtimes teach?”
fyi – HDF teaches a few courses, I have been talking with a few guys and they had great things to say about them.
http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/services/nra-steps-handgun-training/ (http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/services/nra-steps-handgun-training/)
I mention a competency test WRT to CCW, by doing this I am demonstrating that I am open to “other than law enforcement”.
If you want to recommend being explicit, try taking your own advice. How have my 156 posts been “CONSTANT” against CCW? Do make sh!t up. Your credibility drops when you do.
You already caused another CCW discussion thread to be locked by the mods, and now you're hijacking this one, too.
You've driven this thread off the rails as well. This was a POLL asking a simple question: "If Hawaii was to become a Shall Issue State tomorrow would you apply for a CCW permit?" Just cast your vote and leave out all the arguments and insults.
If you feel the need to defend your personal and unpopular beliefs on CCW on every thread that mentions it, I predict it will not be long before you are banned by the mods.
I recommend you take a few days to step away from this forum and collect yourself. You obviously LACK THE MATURITY AND PRESENCE OF MIND to engage in a discussion without getting all emotional and defensive.
:crazy: :'( :crazy: :'( :wave: :stopjack:
-
Wow... I normally like to give people the benefit of the doubt but someone is about to be the first person that will go into my ignore list.
-
bubba808, I am an Associate Pastor of New Hope Waimea. Been a Pastor for about 13 years or so. I am NOT the kind of Pastor most people are used to. Kind'a scrappy, straight and to the point. Not because I am any better but I'm not that articulate and not the sharpest knife in the draw. But I love this country. I love my community and I love people. ALL kinds of people. I dont put up with much and I really dont think there is a lot of time before the return of Our Savior, Jesus Christ. I make a lot of mistakes. A lot. So I dont waste my time convincing someone of something I believe to be true. Like the 2nd amendment. I've been in Waimea about 3 years. Been a pain in my supervisors butt all 15 years I've been saved. And then some. Not too smart- but loyal. Not too dumb, but I know the difference. Even if I can not explain it and articulate it. Just so you know. Oh- and I welcome criticism. I eat it for breakfast with no milk. Hope this helps.
-
bubba808, I am an Associate Pastor of New Hope Waimea. Been a Pastor for about 13 years or so. I am NOT the kind of Pastor most people are used to. Kind'a scrappy, straight and to the point. Not because I am any better but I'm not that articulate and not the sharpest knife in the draw. But I love this country. I love my community and I love people. ALL kinds of people. I dont put up with much and I really dont think there is a lot of time before the return of Our Savior, Jesus Christ. I make a lot of mistakes. A lot. So I dont waste my time convincing someone of something I believe to be true. Like the 2nd amendment. I've been in Waimea about 3 years. Been a pain in my supervisors butt all 15 years I've been saved. And then some. Not too smart- but loyal. Not too dumb, but I know the difference. Even if I can not explain it and articulate it. Just so you know. Oh- and I welcome criticism. I eat it for breakfast with no milk. Hope this helps.
ah, no criticism, just wondering where youre coming from. Seems I have alot in common with you. As you can see, I have been eating alot of criticism too. LoL. Shoots, maybe I'll see you around
-
.
-
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/04/28/e5u3u3yv.jpg) doh I replied....
-
as you quoted me. " similar to one of funtimes classes". do you have a clue what "similar" means?
Oh, I see. You mean "similar" except that it would have nothing at all in common with the actual content of that class. You mean you meant "similar" in that it would be a "class"? If so, no need to mention funtimes, just say "class". Talk about someone not having a clue about word meanings. Though you have some ability with the weasel words, probably because you have no actual logical or rational answers to support your false claims and false logic. You still haven't pointed to one single instance where you referred to any other CCW besides firearms, except when you criticized someone for not including non-firearm weapons.
I have been avoiding responding to you specifically cuz I think you're incapable of intelligent communication.
Coming from you? :rofl: Here, I'll take one of your favorites from your playbook, and use the condescending "use the dictionary you ignoramus" card: "intelligent": guided by reason; rational
You continue to disrespect the bible and other people's religions.
I would never have ever mentioned the "bible" were it not for you in your arrogance attempting to assert yourself and your justifications for your views by quoting it, extensively. Your "bible" is just a collection of myths and fairy tales (aka "miracles" which violate all the known laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) and I owe respect only to those things and people who earn it by displaying some kind of integrity and willingness to openly examine the evidence for a claim using critical thinking skills and evaluating the quality of all the evidence. And you claim you respect "other people's religions", correct? You think they're all wrong and delusions, and possibly the creations of Satan, and that the people who believe in those other "holy books" and "saviors" and "god(s)" and "miracles" are seriously in error and going to spend eternity in hell while you bask in heavenly glory... but you "respect" them. Sure you do. :rofl:
your opinion is worthless to me.
That's not surprising in the least. I find your attempted arguments, justifications, refusal to engage by direct and total avoidance of answering questions, strawman arguments, red herrings, deliberate distortions, misleading statements, etc. to be quite interesting. It's all educational for me. How does this kind of person who claims to be motivated by such a belief system respond when questioned about all of the preceding? Very educational indeed. But not surprising.
Lets agree to disagree. Don't waste your time, I won't waste mine.
Thanks, I'll decide what wasting my time is and if I do or don't want to do whatever. I really couldn't care less what you believe, but when you attempt to justify some position on a public forum using false and misleading information with muddled incoherent arguments which include appeals to your personal superstitious beliefs, I'd like to see how you respond to requests for clarification. But I know you believe that'd be a waste of time, because, well, you know, you and "god" and the "bible" and all that.
:popcorn:
-
Damn, this has turned into one of the weirder threads I have read on 2AHawaii since the fluffy rabbit stuff.
Speaking of fluffy white rabbits, I haven't seen Cougar around in a while...
-
Bubba808, let me make this easy for you
1. There will probably be some sort of training requirement in order to be able to get a carry permit. That should make you happy.
2. Christians don't all agree with a total pacifism philosophy as you would and the links that you posted showed that. Even if they all did, you can't apply your beliefs in order to trump the constitution.
-
If I were teaching classes on CCW it wouldn't change too much from the basic courses. Instead of shooting from the bench, I would just make people put on holsters and draw shoot from that after teaching them more about drawing. It would likely add just another hour or so to the class. I'd also have a scoring requirement for passing instead of just a general competency.
-
If I were teaching classes on CCW it wouldn't change too much from the basic courses. Instead of shooting from the bench, I would just make people put on holsters and draw shoot from that after teaching them more about drawing. It would likely add just another hour or so to the class. I'd also have a scoring requirement for passing instead of just a general competency.
Chris, I'm wondering if you know anything about CCW classes, obviously in jurisdictions other than Hawaii where citizens have no right to self-defense using any weapons outside the home, that include or specialize in weapons other than firearms (e.g. expandable batons, "stun guns", pepper spray, etc.). Thanks. Hopefully some day residents of Hawaii will be "allowed" by our tyrant masters to exercise our right of self-defense with the weapons of our choice, rather than their choices for us. Each of those other weapons would seem to have different tactical strategies that specific training could address.
-
I would try to reduce the requirements to be able to get a CCW as much as possible, due to none of the other bill of rights not requiring taking a class. Ie you don't have to get certified or tested for the first amendment rights. However we have to ensure CCWs have some standards to meet for the minimal level of safety. What I propose is:
1. Grant reciprocity with other states with a minimum standard (requiring testing or course)
2. Have a simple exam for those that already received firearms training (NRA, military, etc) that covers laws and basic safe gun handling. Have a live fire test from the holster, 10 rounds on a target with a minimum passing score, maybe 7 out of 10 on a silhouette at 10 yards safely. Fees paid from CCW registration fees.
3. People can take a CCW course which includes #2. Course instructor can give the test.
Also I wouldn't exclude people, such as the elderly, as long as they can meet the requirements. Keep it simple, same people that can possess a firearm can CCW. If people are against CCW, that's fine with me, they don't have to apply for it themselves. However don't prevent other people from exercising their rights to CCW and self defense.
-
Bubba808, let me make this easy for you
1. There will probably be some sort of training requirement in order to be able to get a carry permit. That should make you happy.
2. Christians don't all agree with a total pacifism philosophy as you would and the links that you posted showed that. Even if they all did, you can't apply your beliefs in order to trump the constitution.
"...you can't apply your beliefs in order to trump the constitution."
But that is exactly what the ilk of Bubba808 are arguing, that their insight and values are from beyond and above the realm of mere mortal human thinking and reasoning about ethics and values, and therefore their views "inspired by god(s)" are superior to any documents or ideas or values created by "fallen sinners" (aka "humans") and therefore "ought" to trump lowly craven values as reflected in the Constitution (written, by the way, by mostly either non-believers or at best [edit: not Theists, but Deists] who believed that if there was a supernatural "creator", once the universe was created that "creator" was no longer involved in any active manner). Many people who hold such beliefs as Bubba808 believe it is their "sacred" duty and obligation to impose their beliefs, values, and morals, in one way or another, on the heathen nonbelievers and "christians" who have gone astray and interpreted the "bible" in an erroneous manner (In Bubba808s case, a christian concluding that they have a right to use lethal force for self-defense has strayed from "the word", "properly" interpreted and understood by Bubba808). Just ask him/them. They want to incorporate their particular interpretation of a book of fairy tales into actual government law and policies. If they just kept to themselves in their cults I wouldn't have a word to say about it (well except for the child abuse and such involving crimes against innocents), but once they start telling me I may not exercise a right because of what they believe, and lobby government to incorporate that denial of my rights into law, well... I object.
Here's a lengthy "New Age" religious/spiritual argument for self-defense and the right to use firearms in the exercise of the right to self-defense:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/tao.asp (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/tao.asp)
Tao of Gun: Spiritual Sovereignty and the Hypocrisy of Gun Control
I'm sure tolerant advocates of religious "respect" like Bubba808 will read the entire thing in the interest of understanding others beliefs (as I'm sure he has read the main "spiritual" documents of all the other religions) and then in a respectful manner place it on a par with his preferred religious "scriptures" even though it comes to a diametrically opposed conclusion regarding a religious/spiritual-values-based argument re self-defense compared to his interpretation of his favorite document.
-
Can you guys take it to the PM's, getting sidetracked here.
-
Hi punaperson, before you judge all Christians with the likes of bubba808's inconsistent arguments, please consider the fact that the original "theists" devised the constitution with the belief that our individual rights written in the bill of rights are derived from the fact that we were all fearfully and wonderfully made by a divine Creator. Without the belief in a divine God, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are nothing more than a piece of paper written by people who lived long ago.
The reason why the life of a human being is of value is because humans are God's creation and are precious to Him. Even without a constitution and a bill of rights, our right to life and the right to defend that life should not be diminished.
Without the system of belief in God, humans are placed in equal status as animals as is the conclusion of most atheistic belief systems. Might makes right. Survival of the fittest.
Note that recent history shows that the largest scale of human democides are done by governments that take the divine God out of the picture. Current humanist/environmentalist trains of thoughts sometimes even label humans as "parasites" against the earth that should be eradicated by 90%. Sounds like another democide in the making.
The rights from the constitution that you hold in value cannot be detached from the belief system that you seem to hold in contempt. Try read the writings of A.W. Tozer, Ravi Zaccharias, Allistair Begg or other notable preachers instead of bubba808 before judging the Christian belief system.
-
Can you guys take it to the PM's, getting sidetracked here.
Agreed. No sense offending folks and taking a good discussion off topic.
:stopjack:
-
Started this thread to find out the percentage of 2a Hawaii members who would apply for a CCW permit if Hawaii became a "Shall" issue state but it has evolved into a debate about religion ???
Please stay on topic or start your own thread if you want to argue about religion and I will happily ignore it :shaka:
-
Hi punaperson, before you judge all Christians with the likes of bubba808's inconsistent arguments, please consider the fact that the original "theists" devised the constitution with the belief that our individual rights written in the bill of rights are derived from the fact that we were all fearfully and wonderfully made by a divine Creator. Without the belief in a divine God, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are nothing more than a piece of paper written by people who lived long ago.
The reason why the life of a human being is of value is because humans are God's creation and are precious to Him. Even without a constitution and a bill of rights, our right to life and the right to defend that life should not be diminished.
Without the system of belief in God, humans are placed in equal status as animals as is the conclusion of most atheistic belief systems. Might makes right. Survival of the fittest.
Note that recent history shows that the largest scale of human democides are done by governments that take the divine God out of the picture. Current humanist/environmentalist trains of thoughts sometimes even label humans as "parasites" against the earth that should be eradicated by 90%. Sounds like another democide in the making.
The rights from the constitution that you hold in value cannot be detached from the belief system that you seem to hold in contempt. Try read the writings of A.W. Tozer, Ravi Zaccharias, Allistair Begg or other notable preachers instead of bubba808 before judging the Christian belief system.
You are wrong in virtually all your assumptions, premises, and conclusions, which are but a gross cartoonish oversimplification of the issues, BUT in deference to forum readers who have no interest in the imposition-of-religious-values arguments, even as applied to such attempts to deny the natural rights of citizens in the context of CCW, I won't bother to provide evidence and arguments to counter your assertions.
-
Started this thread to find out the percentage of 2a Hawaii members who would apply for a CCW permit if Hawaii became a "Shall" issue state but it has evolved into a debate about religion ???
Please stay on topic or start your own thread if you want to argue about religion and I will happily ignore it :shaka:
In my view it's actually about the arguments people use to attempt to infringe upon our abiltiy to exercise our right to self-defense, which would include CCW. It doesn't matter to me if it's a secular argument or a religion-based argument, I'm going to defend the right of law-abiding citizens to exercise the right of self-defense without infringement, be it by secular authorities or religious zealots trying to impose their supposed "revealed" authority upon the secular enforcers of such limitations upon our rights.
Perhaps you ought to have made it a poll only, with the ability to comment disabled? Or if you want to enable comments but censor or delete topics or subject matter that you don't want included, announce that at the beginning and/or immediately remove the ones that violate that policy. If you allow comments of a certain content, you would, to be consistent, have to allow reply comments refuting or repudiating or agreeing with those original comments. But it's your thread, I guess, so do whatever you want. Obviously. :shaka:
-
Apologies to the OP, to punaperson and to other forum members for joining in the religious fray.
:shaka: back on topic. :stopjack:
-
Yes, I would apply for a permit. Yes, I, am in favor of having to take a class in order to get a permit.
-
Ie you don't have to get certified or tested for the first amendment rights.
I actually disagree with these statements. It takes a significant amount of training and education in order to exercise your first amendment rights.
I personally think Arizona has one of the better systems (to me) where it's constitutional in almost all places, except places that may be more dense - where you need some sort of proof etc. When the carry law is struck down, I really think we will see a large dramatic change to the HRS 134-9. They will have to rework the whole set of statutes when we become shall issue. Many places have quite a few laws outlining where we can carry, what we can do with it. When we start carrying - they (the gov) will freak out because those restrictions are not currently in place. For example, there is absolutely nothing that prohibits me from carrying a firearm into a courthouse if I have a permit to do so. Other than a few signs outside, which I'm not sure are actually codified into law - but are rather just signs. Bars and alcohol? We have all kinds of things that I know for certain they will look at.
-
I actually disagree with these statements. It takes a significant amount of training and education in order to exercise your first amendment rights.
I have to disagree with your disagreement. As an individual, you can exercise your first amendment rights without training or certification. I could stand at Thomas Square (or other public areas) protesting Occupy and would not need to show any training documents or certifications. I may not be effective without training and have to obey the laws, but I can do it safely and legally. Same with publishing or posting on the internet, no training or certifications are legally required.
For CCW, some states do not require any training or license, but most do. However since there is some risk involved to the general public, ie negligent discharge/missing a target, then there should be at least a minimum standard that should be required and this would be tested while still allowing free exercise of 2nd amendment rights.
-
Yes, and i hope hi would recognize if we already have a ccw from another state so we dont need to go through it all over again...
-
When the carry law is struck down, I really think we will see a large dramatic change to the HRS 134-9. They will have to rework the whole set of statutes when we become shall issue.
I'm guessing they've got someone already writing the new law... I can hardly wait to read it....
... Many places have quite a few laws outlining where we can carry, what we can do with it. ...
I believe the fairly newly enacted (under court order) Illinois CCW law has 23 prohibited types of locations (bars, school parking lots, etc.). Good luck remembering all those and being able to clearly determine for certain if the area you want to enter is or is not prohibited.(I read one person claiming that outside a school you can park on the far side of the street and be legal, but not if you park on the school side of the street...). I believe one intent of such restrictions is too make so unclear as to exactly what conditions put you in legal jeopardy that you will just forget the whole thing... not just carrying, but even applying to carry. I'm pretty sure the tyrant bureaucrats in Hawaii will go to the mat and make every possible obstructionist move they can in terms of costs, prohibited locations, training requirements, wait times to get a license, etc. etc. etc. As I've written before, I hope I'm wrong and that some kind of rational view will prevail and they'll just say,"Okay, that is now the law so let's follow the letter and the spirit of the law and allow law-abiding citizens to carry whatever "arms" they prefer." I'd wager a fair sum it ain't gonna go that way...
-
Yes, and i hope hi would recognize if we already have a ccw from another state so we dont need to go through it all over again...
Oh, I'm pretty sure you're going to need to go through it all over again... with the possible exception of some active/retired law enforcement and/or military... and I wouldn't be surprised if they don't cut them too much slack. But again, I hope I'm wrong.
-
For CCW, some states do not require any training or license, but most do. However since there is some risk involved to the general public, ie negligent discharge/missing a target, then there should be at least a minimum standard that should be required and this would be tested while still allowing free exercise of 2nd amendment rights.
Statistics based upon over 20 years of experience with over 8 million CCW holders throughout the United States show that the general public is much more likely to be subject to criminal behavior by a Law Enforcement Officer than they are by a civilian CCW holder. Wonder what test they'll use to disqualify those "dangerous" LEOs?
-
I have to disagree with your disagreement. As an individual, you can exercise your first amendment rights without training or certification. I could stand at Thomas Square (or other public areas) protesting Occupy and would not need to show any training documents or certifications. I may not be effective without training and have to obey the laws, but I can do it safely and legally. Same with publishing or posting on the internet, no training or certifications are legally required.
For CCW, some states do not require any training or license, but most do. However since there is some risk involved to the general public, ie negligent discharge/missing a target, then there should be at least a minimum standard that should be required and this would be tested while still allowing free exercise of 2nd amendment rights.
You can disagree all you want, but it is really just a simple fact. How do you think that you learned to speak and read? How do you think that you gained reading comprehension and the capacity to engage in discourse? Communication takes years of training. You were undergoing training hopefully from the day you were born when other people were talking to you and communicating with you. Without that training - you can't really exercise your rights. You would not be able to truly communicate or express a message. In the event that you can't talk, you would have to learn alternative methods of engaging in discourse to express yourself. That's like learning to shoot with a different hand =).
-
You can disagree all you want, but it is really just a simple fact. How do you think that you learned to speak and read? How do you think that you gained reading comprehension and the capacity to engage in discourse? Communication takes years of training. You were undergoing training hopefully from the day you were born when other people were talking to you and communicating with you. Without that training - you can't really exercise your rights. You would not be able to truly communicate or express a message. In the event that you can't talk, you would have to learn alternative methods of engaging in discourse to express yourself. That's like learning to shoot with a different hand =).
So, at what point in the process does the government make you take a competency or proficiency test before you are allowed to voice your opinions in public?
-
Statistics based upon over 20 years of experience with over 8 million CCW holders throughout the United States show that the general public is much more likely to be subject to criminal behavior by a Law Enforcement Officer than they are by a civilian CCW holder. Wonder what test they'll use to disqualify those "dangerous" LEOs?
I call Bullshit. By your standard of CCW criminals are part of your imaginary 8 million.
-
I call Bullshit. By your standard of CCW criminals are part of your imaginary 8 million.
What's "imaginary" about 8 million CCW holders? From what I read it is probably closer to 10 million now.
From the Government Accountability Office (GAO) document: GUN CONTROL States’ Laws and Requirements for Concealed Carry Permits Vary across the Nation, issued in July 2012 (http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf (http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf)):
"According to state reporting, there were approximately 8 million active concealed carry permits in the United States as of December 31, 2011. Footnote: This number is an estimate based upon state reporting to GAO. Given that many states reported approximate numbers and some states that issue permits were unable to provide the number of permits, the number is likely understated."
Be sure to look at the chart of all the states which includes the number of residents, percentage holding permits, and permits issued, etc. ... those big zeroes really stand out for Hawaii as it is the only state having zeroes (Again, that data is as of December 31, 2011).
What is my "standard of CCW"?
Please explain what you mean by "criminals are part of your imaginary 8 million". An extremely minute percentage (hundredths or thousandths of one percent) of CCW licenses/permits are revoked annually, and only some of that minute number is due to criminal acts.
Here is a brief article about North Carolina CCW permitee crime compared to crime in the general population: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/12/foghorn/ny-times-uses-deceptive-statistics-to-promote-anti-gun-agenda-again/ (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/12/foghorn/ny-times-uses-deceptive-statistics-to-promote-anti-gun-agenda-again/)
Here is a link to an article by Dean Weingarten (former LEO) concerning the comparative rates of crime committed by Law Enforcement Officers and civilians with CCW permits: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/10/police-officers-likely-to-murder-than-concealed-carry-permit/#axzz30FuoOLAU (http://www.ammoland.com/2013/10/police-officers-likely-to-murder-than-concealed-carry-permit/#axzz30FuoOLAU) It has links to all the sources of data.
-
Here's your bullshit. Taken from your own quoted article.
"There are no complete and definitive sources of data that will give us an accurate ratio of unjustified homicides committed by police compared to CCW holders. The numbers are very small and no one keeps a national record of them."
Your article holds no bearing. It's is fluff and bullshit.
-
bubba808, I hope to meet all of you someday.Your my kind'a people. Human......... :) :) :)
-
So, at what point in the process does the government make you take a competency or proficiency test before you are allowed to voice your opinions in public?
I'm not sure what problem there is understanding that to exercise free speech, you must be capable of speech. And to be capable of speech, you must be taught and educated in how to do it? Thus proves the fallacy.
Furthermore, you must have training and education in order to effectively exercise your right to remain silent. You generally need training and education in order to properly exercise your right to counsel. You need training and education to properly exercise your right to be free of searches and seizures.
-
.
-
Here's your bullshit. Taken from your own quoted article.
"There are no complete and definitive sources of data that will give us an accurate ratio of unjustified homicides committed by police compared to CCW holders. The numbers are very small and no one keeps a national record of them."
Your article holds no bearing. It's is fluff and bullshit.
You don't answer the questions. What is "imaginary" about 8 million CCW permitees? (How many "real"/non-imaginary CCW permit holders are there in the United States, according to you?)
What is my "standard of CCW"? (I don't recall stating one, but perhaps I did...).
What do you mean by "criminals are part of your imaginary 8 million"? (I have no idea what this means... please enlighten me.)
1. So your argument is that because the national data is not "complete and definitive" the data that does exist is completely and totally invalid? In that case virtually all statistical data would be invalid because virtually none of it is "complete and definitive". No one (well, almost no one, apparently) believes that statistical analysis is only useful and/or an accurate representation of events if the data set is "complete and definitive". I believe there is enough data with enough integrity that a fair assessment, though not a "complete and definitive" one, can be made regarding the relative rates of crime committed by civilian CCW permitees and law enforcement officers.
2. I'm sure you know that the problem with obtaining accurate and complete data lies not with the civilian CCW crimes data, but with the fact that law enforcement agencies aren't known for making public full and accurate statistics regarding how many of their officers commit how many of what kinds of crimes. Perhaps if you lobbied them to be more forthcoming with such data we'd have a more accurate picture of how many crimes are really committed by law enforcement officers. I think I might bet my house that they are not over-reporting officer crime.
And if you don't believe any of the numbers at all, then you must be totally neutral about the comparative rates of crime, right? After all, if the lack of "complete and definitive" data makes any statistical claims invalid, the truth could be that law enforcement officers are actually much more prone to commit crimes than even the incomplete data set shows. You certainly would have no statistical basis to assert that "public safety" is jeopardized by issuing CCW permits to civilians because you have no data upon which to base that claim, it'd be pure armchair speculation on your part.
-
Regardless, Some don't have the maturity, nor possess the common sense, to carry.
I asked you about this claim of yours previously, but you did not respond, so I'll ask again.
What source do you use to reach this conclusion? We now know that it couldn't be based upon any kind of statistics because there couldn't possibly be a "complete and definitive" data set to make such an analysis, much less reach a reliable conclusion.
Is this conclusion of yours based upon your own peer-reviewed published research? Where can I read it? Or perhaps it hasn't been published yet and you could send me a pre-publication copy?
Otherwise, as you say: I call bullshit. Your assertion holds no bearing. It is fluff and bullshit.
And, I'm just guessing, but suspect that some of the people that you would deny the right to self-defense via CCW because you would judge them to "not have the maturity", nor "possess the common sense" could possibly object to your judgment of them and the subsequent denial of their right. But perhaps when you reveal your methodology for making such determinations you'll be able to convince me of it's validity. I'm just a little wary of people who tout "common sense gun safety".
-
You don't answer the questions. What is "imaginary" about 8 million CCW permitees? (How many "real"/non-imaginary CCW permit holders are there in the United States, according to you?)
What is my "standard of CCW"? (I don't recall stating one, but perhaps I did...).
What do you mean by "criminals are part of your imaginary 8 million"? (I have no idea what this means... please enlighten me.)
1. So your argument is that because the national data is not "complete and definitive" the data that does exist is completely and totally invalid? In that case virtually all statistical data would be invalid because virtually none of it is "complete and definitive". No one (well, almost no one, apparently) believes that statistical analysis is only useful and/or an accurate representation of events if the data set is "complete and definitive". I believe there is enough data with enough integrity that a fair assessment, though not a "complete and definitive" one, can be made regarding the relative rates of crime committed by civilian CCW permitees and law enforcement officers.
2. I'm sure you know that the problem with obtaining accurate and complete data lies not with the civilian CCW crimes data, but with the fact that law enforcement agencies aren't known for making public full and accurate statistics regarding how many of their officers commit how many of what kinds of crimes. Perhaps if you lobbied them to be more forthcoming with such data we'd have a more accurate picture of how many crimes are really committed by law enforcement officers. I think I might bet my house that they are not over-reporting officer crime.
And if you don't believe any of the numbers at all, then you must be totally neutral about the comparative rates of crime, right? After all, if the lack of "complete and definitive" data makes any statistical claims invalid, the truth could be that law enforcement officers are actually much more prone to commit crimes than even the incomplete data set shows. You certainly would have no statistical basis to assert that "public safety" is jeopardized by issuing CCW permits to civilians because you have no data upon which to base that claim, it'd be pure armchair speculation on your part.
All that typing you did for my very short sentence answer....
You're full of shit.
How much of your so called "8 million" is sworn LEO's?
You don't need to answer because you will end up quoting some bullshit, irrelevant article anyway.
-
How much of your so called "8 million" is sworn LEO's?
do sworn LEO's need to have a CCW permit?
-
I'm not sure what problem there is understanding that to exercise free speech, you must be capable of speech. And to be capable of speech, you must be taught and educated in how to do it? Thus proves the fallacy.
Furthermore, you must have training and education in order to effectively exercise your right to remain silent. You generally need training and education in order to properly exercise your right to counsel. You need training and education to properly exercise your right to be free of searches and seizures.
Chris,
Technically correct, but I think the true question was not that you might need education and training to MOST EFFECTIVELY exercise your rights, rather that the government doesn't (at least currently...) require a state mandated course of training or a competency test before you can exercise said rights.
-
do sworn LEO's need to have a CCW permit?
No. Some do choose to get them, but they are in a great minority in my opinion. Why would they? What benefit would it serve them and why would they waste the associated fees for the permit and/or training?
-
Unfortunately there is no easy way to figure out the bad eggs from the good eggs when it comes to CCW. Extensive training in liability and legal procedure may provide a foundation for most and may reform those Rambo wanna be types.
So what is "extensive" and who is responsible for the costs? Seems there has been a 'national discussion' recently about the chilling effect of the cost and effort required to get an ID for voting (a core fundamental right) yet none on the likely same effect on exercising y our Second Amendment rights. Why is that? And, what about the extensive history of concealed carry in other states where the "Rambo" mentality rarely factors into the real life application?
People need to be educated that they are accountable for every single round that is fired. While they may be attempting to stop a crime it does not justify a single loss of life on their part. While it may seem like common sense to most of us, when you add a sympathetic nervous system response to the mix most people forget to ensure they have a clear back drop before they fire. That is something that has to be trained and practiced.
In the heat of the moment your vision narrows, heart rate increases, and you experience auditory exclusion. You lose complex motor skills. If you don't have training in how to react when the shit hits the fan you may end up killing someone innocent. It may be the little girl standing behind the suspect, in the background.
You mean like the guy at the mall who drew down on the active shooter but didn't fire because he wasn't sure of his background? No argument from me about the need for training, but who decides what level is the minimum level? The same bureaucratic functionary responsible for issuing CCWs now?
Maturity, that's a huge one. Knowing when to intervene and when not to. Weighing the risk vs. benefit. Knowing when it's better to walk away vs. escalating. Knowing how to lower your head, put your ego aside, and make a mature decision based on logic not emotion.
The number of DGUs where no shots are fired are a pretty good indicator that your concerns really haven't been validated in the states with CCW. Are there accidents? Certainly. Is it an overwhelming concern that should somehow affect the exercise of a core fundamental Constitutional right? IMHO, no.
I'm a firm believer that if you can't defend yourself without a gun, you have no business carrying a gun for defense. Learn how to fight before you even think about CCW. You may have to fight to maintain possession of your gun.
I'm pretty tolerant of other opinions and generally suggest a reasoned debate to explore alternate viewpoints, but you just lost all credibility with this statement. That you should be so crass to think that just because you can't go hand-to-hand with a younger, stronger assailant that you shouldn't be able to carry a gun is quite shocking. That you would condemn anyone but the strong and physically fit an opportunity to defend themselves from a criminal attack that might kill or severely injure them is...well....how do I put this.....Hitler-ish...in a "master race, we gotta weed out the sick and the week" kinda way that I find it difficult to comprehend. That anyone, in this day and age would even suggest that a paraplegic suffer an assault rather that be "allowed" to use a firearm just because he can't "fight it out" or that a brittle asthmatic should just chance a life threatening asthma attack by fighting rather than use a firearm as the proverbial equalizer, is so utterly uncaring, so callous, so "superior" of you, that I find it difficult to find the words to tell you how offensive that statement is.
I can only imagine, but I bet that if it were you, or someone close to you, that was incapable of fighting, that you'd be much less caviler in dismissing the value of a human life just because they were disabled....
Just my 2 cents.
-
Well said. :thumbsup:
-
:worship: hi carry! :worship:
Very well said.
-
answer to poll question a resounding yes, have passport photo and fingerprint card ready and waiting.
and Thank You HiCarry also.
from one of the old(est?) and "crippled" member here.
-
"I'm a firm believer that if you can't defend yourself without a gun, you have no business carrying a gun for defense. Learn how to fight before you even think about CCW. You may have to fight to maintain possession of your gun."
HiCarrys response.
I'm pretty tolerant of other opinions and generally suggest a reasoned debate to explore alternate viewpoints, but you just lost all credibility with this statement. That you should be so crass to think that just because you can't go hand-to-hand with a younger, stronger assailant that you shouldn't be able to carry a gun is quite shocking. That you would condemn anyone but the strong and physically fit an opportunity to defend themselves from a criminal attack that might kill or severely injure them is...well....how do I put this.....Hitler-ish...in a "master race, we gotta weed out the sick and the week" kinda way that I find it difficult to comprehend. That anyone, in this day and age would even suggest that a paraplegic suffer an assault rather that be "allowed" to use a firearm just because he can't "fight it out" or that a brittle asthmatic should just chance a life threatening asthma attack by fighting rather than use a firearm as the proverbial equalizer, is so utterly uncaring, so callous, so "superior" of you, that I find it difficult to find the words to tell you how offensive that statement is.
I can only imagine, but I bet that if it were you, or someone close to you, that was incapable of fighting, that you'd be much less caviler in dismissing the value of a human life just because they were disabled....
My response:
WOW, I'm amazed how you got all of that out of my very generalized 2 sentence opinion. No where in my opinion I state that you must be strong or physically fit. No where do I state that you must be able to go hand to hand with a younger, bigger, stronger assailant. No where do I say you must fight it out to the bitter end. I simply stated you must know how to defend yourself. You must know how to fight for your gun or be able to create space.
I'm not big or strong but I am pretty sure that if you were to draw on me I can disarm you and hit you upon the side of your head with your own weapon; especially if you have not invested the time and training on how to counter an attack on your weapon.
For you to recommend that anyone can carry a weapon, and that those people don't need to take the responsibility to learn and practice weapon retention is shocking.
-
All that typing you did for my very short sentence answer....
Thanks for your concern, but I'm not typing in order to get an answer from you. At least not in order to get an answer from you that actually clearly, fully, and accurately addresses the issues you raise in wanting to deny people their right to self-defense. I know you don't have the evidence to back up your claims, but it's always educational for me to see how people without evidence make their arguments given the total lack of supporting evidence. For instance, some people would merely resort to writing:
You're full of shit.
Uh, huh. Please excuse me, but that rather seems like a response given by someone who doesn't have an actual answer, or facts, or anything at all, but, ad hominem. If you had something, why wouldn't you share it to help educate the members of this forum, many of whom seem willing to consider evidence and arguments presented here?
How much of your so called "8 million" is sworn LEO's?
No one ever claimed that ANY LEOs were part of the "so called "8 million"". What difference would it make? The comparison is between the crime rates of 1. civilian CCW holders and 2. law enforcement officers. The articles and Government Accountability Office research paper I linked to (which were just several of many possible documents and articles having extensive information about CCW, and CCW holder crime compared to LEO crime) are pretty straight-forward in their claims and sources. The article by Dean Weingarten gives the actual numbers of LEOs involved in his claims, and links to where those numbers came from. In that article Weingarten is quite open in discussing the problems of acquiring full and accurate data and provides several caveats regarding his data. In fact you quoted one of his sentences as your singular and only rebuttal to all the information linked to when you quoted: "There are no complete and definitive sources of data that will give us an accurate ratio of unjustified homicides committed by police compared to CCW holders. The numbers are very small and no one keeps a national record of them." Like I said, he has other caveats in the article as well. (Like I wrote previously the largest problem in gathering complete and accurate data is that law enforcement agencies attempt to "keep confidential" the data re officer-committed crime. The whole reason that Weingarten is comparing homicide rates is because those crimes are hard to cover up, even by law enforcement agencies.) Of course what you didn't include in your "rebuttal" was the very next sentence after the one you quote, which happens to be the final one of the article: "However, the numbers found for domestic homicide cases, which are some of the easiest solved and most highly publicised cases, offer strong evidence that CCW permit holders are less likely to commit unjustified homicide than police officers, as little as one third as much."
You don't need to answer because you will end up quoting some bullshit, irrelevant article anyway.
Thank you for your consideration, very generous of you. You mean as opposed to the sources of evidence that you provide to support your claims and views: ZERO. I suppose you may not see clearly that the criteria, standards, rules, or whatever you want to call them (or lack thereof), that you are suggesting, however vaguely, be implemented in order that someone be "allowed" by government to exercise their right to self-defense outside their home with a firearm (or other currently prohibited CCW weapon) are eerily similar to the statute currently in effect, wherein no one is granted that "privelege" by government authority. That is, it is "arbitrary and capricious"... no one knows what the actual "objective" standard is ("exceptional case"). When you use terms like "maturity" and "common sense" it amounts to the same thing, a totally subjective evaluation based upon nothing more than the whims of some authority figure given the power to make such decisions without any grounding in any evidence-based foundation. And we here in Hawaii see exactly how that turns out: no one gets their "license"... it's a cynical mockery of notion that "the people" have a civil, natural, fundamental, inalienable Constitutionally-protected right to self defense that ends the second they step outside their home doorway... and yet claim that there is a statutory process in place that guarantees them that right. You align yourself with that side of the argument by the unsupported statements you make.
-
"I'm a firm believer that if you can't defend yourself without a gun, you have no business carrying a gun for defense."
[and then later]
No where in my opinion I state that you must be strong or physically fit. No where do I state that you must be able to go hand to hand with a younger, bigger, stronger assailant. No where do I say you must fight it out to the bitter end. I simply stated you must know how to defend yourself.
You're original statement is very clear: You don't believe that anyone who cannot defend themselves "WITHOUT a gun", ought to be allowed to legally CCW a gun. It makes no mention of "weapons retention training", because that would make no sense at all given your clear "without a gun" clause. So your criteria for granting a CCW license would include some kind of physical test of defensive abilities.What is that test? What constitutes a passing or failing grade? Is the test the same for all individuals regardless of age, size, infirmities, medical conditions, etc.? How do you justify that?
You're breaking new ground here. None of the 40-something states that currently have "shall issue" CCW laws, to my knowledge, require passing a non-firearm related physical self-defense test. It figures that someone in Hawaii would come up with a new absurd hurdle.
Or are you going to try and weasel out of it again by claiming "I never said "successfully" defend yourself, just "defend yourself without a gun"". Or some bullshit like that?
-
It's simple. If you can't defend yourself (this includes the gun that you may carrying and may need to defend) you have no business carrying a gun. If you are unable to stop someone from taking your gun away from you and killing you and other people then too fucking bad, you do not deserve to CCW.
As a ccw you should take the initiative to get your fat ass off the couch and take some defensive tactics classes. It may save your live or the live of others.
That's my opinion. If you don't like it to bad. If I'm compared to hitler for believing that you should know how to defend yourself then so be it.
To obtain a CCW permit there should be a mandatory weapon retention class at the minimum.
If you don't believe that it is very simple to disarm someone I can show you if you choose. I have gloves and head gear. I have no problem demonstrating how I can take your gun away and beat you silly with it.
But then again. You are probably the type of guy that believes that a stink eye is a form of active aggression and is justification to shoot an an unarmed person because he/she looks mean and is bigger and younger then you. Remember! the gun is the equalizer. Idiot!!!!
-
It's simple. If you can't defend yourself (this includes the gun that you may carrying and may need to defend) you have no business carrying a gun. If you are unable to stop someone from taking your gun away from you and killing you and other people then too fucking bad, you do not deserve to CCW.
As a ccw you should take the initiative to get your fat ass off the couch and take some defensive tactics classes. It may save your live or the live of others.
That's my opinion. If you don't like it to bad. If I'm compared to hitler for believing that you should know how to defend yourself then so be it.
To obtain a CCW permit there should be a mandatory weapon retention class at the minimum.
If you don't believe that it is very simple to disarm someone I can show you if you choose. I have gloves and head gear. I have no problem demonstrating how I can take your gun away and beat you silly with it.
But then again. You are probably the type of guy that believes that a stink eye is a form of active aggression and is justification to shoot an an unarmed person because he/she looks mean and is bigger and younger then you. Remember! the gun is the equalizer. Idiot!!!!
As I suspected you've weaseled out of your original claim, without mentioning that you weaseled out of your original claim. ""I'm a firm believer that if you can't defend yourself without a gun, you have no business carrying a gun for defense." It has now become: "If you can't defend yourself (this includes the gun that you may carrying and may need to defend) you have no business carrying a gun." Why no mention of your original claim that no one incapable of defending themselves without a gun ought not be granted the "privilege" of CCW? What made you change your mind? So now your "minimum" requirement is a "weapon retention class". Why have you lowered your standards? What else would you require? You still haven't told us how you will determine who has, or does not have, the proper level of "maturity" and "common sense".
As for all your macho posturing and name-calling: bullshit. bullshit and fluff.
-
As for all your macho posturing and name-calling: bullshit. bullshit and fluff.
Ah yes, the thread keeps getting more weird.............
-
.
-
As I suspected you've weaseled out of your original claim, without mentioning that you weaseled out of your original claim.
WHAT?!?!? Really?
I wrote what I wrote.
As for me defining common sense and maturity, use some reading comprehension and read my earlier posts.
-
WHAT?!?!? Really?
I wrote what I wrote.
As for me defining common sense and maturity, use some reading comprehension and read my earlier posts.
You obviously have some ridiculous requirements in your mind as what would constitute the ability to carry. Putting all your posts together, it sounds like someone should have to go through and pass the police academy in order to qualify.
The courts have upheld reasonable limitations on rights, but yours wouldn't fly in any state, and not even in Chicago.
-
Quote from: punaperson on Today at 08:12:06 AM
As for all your macho posturing and name-calling: bullshit. bullshit and fluff.
Ah yes, the thread keeps getting more weird.............
I'm quoting the language of Dblnaknak, that Dblnaknak used toward me, back to him/her in the belief that that is the kind of language he/she understands.
I suppose it's clear enough now that Dblnaknak wants to impose irrational standards on law-abiding citizens before the state ought to allow said citizens the lawful ability to exercise their right to self-defense outside their home. The refusal to anwer simple direct questions about his/her standards and any evidence that would support them, the backtracking and/or attempts to deny what he/she clearly claimed, the unsubstantiated claims about weakness of evidence offered to support CCW as historically not dangerous to the general public, abundant name-calling and challenges to engage in physical confrontation... I'd say it's pretty clear.
My responses to his/her claims is partly just to see what kind of, and how deep, a hole he/she digs by further irrational and straw man comments. No need for more from me. Buh-bye. :shaka:
-
"I'm a firm believer that if you can't defend yourself without a gun, you have no business carrying a gun for defense. Learn how to fight before you even think about CCW. You may have to fight to maintain possession of your gun."
HiCarrys response.
I'm pretty tolerant of other opinions and generally suggest a reasoned debate to explore alternate viewpoints, but you just lost all credibility with this statement. That you should be so crass to think that just because you can't go hand-to-hand with a younger, stronger assailant that you shouldn't be able to carry a gun is quite shocking. That you would condemn anyone but the strong and physically fit an opportunity to defend themselves from a criminal attack that might kill or severely injure them is...well....how do I put this.....Hitler-ish...in a "master race, we gotta weed out the sick and the week" kinda way that I find it difficult to comprehend. That anyone, in this day and age would even suggest that a paraplegic suffer an assault rather that be "allowed" to use a firearm just because he can't "fight it out" or that a brittle asthmatic should just chance a life threatening asthma attack by fighting rather than use a firearm as the proverbial equalizer, is so utterly uncaring, so callous, so "superior" of you, that I find it difficult to find the words to tell you how offensive that statement is.
I can only imagine, but I bet that if it were you, or someone close to you, that was incapable of fighting, that you'd be much less caviler in dismissing the value of a human life just because they were disabled....
My response:
WOW, I'm amazed how you got all of that out of my very generalized 2 sentence opinion. No where in my opinion I state that you must be strong or physically fit. No where do I state that you must be able to go hand to hand with a younger, bigger, stronger assailant. No where do I say you must fight it out to the bitter end. I simply stated you must know how to defend yourself. You must know how to fight for your gun or be able to create space.
Your suggestion that you need to be able to "fight" before you can even think about getting a CCW is pretty clear, at least to most people reading your post. Any misinterpretation is due to your inarticulate post, not "our" comprehension. But, to be fair, please explain then exactly what you did mean. How hard or well must you "fight" before your satisfied?
I'm not big or strong but I am pretty sure that if you were to draw on me I can disarm you and hit you upon the side of your head with your own weapon; especially if you have not invested the time and training on how to counter an attack on your weapon.
I'm game. When and where?
For you to recommend that anyone can carry a weapon, and that those people don't need to take the responsibility to learn and practice weapon retention is shocking.
-
Ill PM you next week. I'm off island till then.
-
It's simple. If you can't defend yourself (this includes the gun that you may carrying and may need to defend) you have no business carrying a gun. If you are unable to stop someone from taking your gun away from you and killing you and other people then too fucking bad, you do not deserve to CCW.
Since many gun deaths of LEOs are from their own weapon, despite all their weapons retention training, by your criteria no LE should carry guns....
As a ccw you should take the initiative to get your fat ass off the couch and take some defensive tactics classes. It may save your live or the live of others.
Always a good choice, but not always realistic for some people with disabilities.
That's my opinion. If you don't like it to bad. If I'm compared to hitler for believing that you should know how to defend yourself then so be it.
To obtain a CCW permit there should be a mandatory weapon retention class at the minimum.
But, but, but, what about all the other stuff you said they needed before they could get a CCW?
If you don't believe that it is very simple to disarm someone I can show you if you choose. I have gloves and head gear. I have no problem demonstrating how I can take your gun away and beat you silly with it.
Again, I'm game. When and where?
But then again. You are probably the type of guy that believes that a stink eye is a form of active aggression and is justification to shoot an an unarmed person because he/she looks mean and is bigger and younger then you. Remember! the gun is the equalizer. Idiot!!!!
-
Ill PM you next week. I'm off island till then.
Make it public...I'm OK with it....
-
Dblnaknak wants to impose irrational standards on law-abiding citizens before the state ought to allow said citizens the lawful ability to exercise their right to self-defense
Why would being trained to defend and maintain custody of your firearm be a irrational requirement?!?!
-
Make it public...I'm OK with it....
Please make arrangements to have video and/or photos of the event. Otherwise we'll be subjected to endless revisionist versions... not from you, the other person. I can't wait to see what the "rules" will be for this! I hope it's not something like "You're lying face down on the ground and I'm on top of you... now draw your gun!" :shaka:
Maybe those members of the 89 (so far) who have said they would apply for CCW could all be there (those who reside on Oahu) and Dblnaknak could examine each of them and tell them (and us) which ones met his criteria for "maturity", "common sense", and "self defense without a gun"?
-
Why would being trained to defend and maintain custody of your firearm be a irrational requirement?!?!
Tell us, oh wise one...just how many CCW defenders have been disarmed by their attackers and shot with their own guns?
Compare that to the number of times a CCW holder successfully used his carry weapon for defense.
Try facts for a change by doing some research yourself.
-
.
-
I'm just trying to figure out why 2a admin keeps deleting my posts, and yet they allow all the other crazy stuff to continue. ???
Useless pics...
-
.
-
Useless pics...
I'm guilty
-
.
-
It's simple. If you can't defend yourself (this includes the gun that you may carrying and may need to defend) you have no business carrying a gun. If you are unable to stop someone from taking your gun away from you and killing you and other people then too fucking bad, you do not deserve to CCW.
Why would being trained to defend and maintain custody of your firearm be a irrational requirement?!?!
Because you're assuming the CCW holder is able to physically overpower or is as strong as their assailant. What happens when that person is a senior citizen or elderly, not be sexist but what if that person was a female? How about those who are in a wheelchair? Should they not also have the right to a CCW? IMO as long as you meet the requirements for the CCW more power to you.
-
Please make arrangements to have video and/or photos of the event. Otherwise we'll be subjected to endless revisionist versions... not from you, the other person. I can't wait to see what the "rules" will be for this! I hope it's not something like "You're lying face down on the ground and I'm on top of you... now draw your gun!" :shaka:
Maybe those members of the 89 (so far) who have said they would apply for CCW could all be there (those who reside on Oahu) and Dblnaknak could examine each of them and tell them (and us) which ones met his criteria for "maturity", "common sense", and "self defense without a gun"?
I think a public venue with an open invitation to those interested is the way to go...
-
I think a public venue with an open invitation to those interested is the way to go...
+1 :shaka:
-
I think a public venue with an open invitation to those interested is the way to go...
Sounds good. Unfortunately those of us on other islands will be dependent on some kind of report... a video report would be best for me... no need to decipher possibly evaluative terminology (fast/slow, big/small, effective/ineffective, hit/miss, cheated/played by the rules, etc..
-
Yankee Marshall: Guns Are Too Dangerous 4 Untrained Civilians.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f20NDMEddY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f20NDMEddY#ws)
+1 :thumbsup: That about sums it up... without any reference to the research that leads to the same conclusion.
-
Bubba808, let me make this easy for you
1. There will probably be some sort of training requirement in order to be able to get a carry permit. That should make you happy.
ok
2. Christians don't all agree with a total pacifism philosophy as you would and the links that you posted showed that. Even if they all did, you can't apply your beliefs in order to trump the constitution.
please quote where I advocated or stated a total pacifism philosophy? Sorry, I dont recall making a statement like that, unless I made a mistake?
Also, can you tell me where I said my beliefs trump the constitution?
I said for me, personally, I would not use CCW.
as HiCarry has recommended "never, never, never shooting to wound", that means, if using CCW, it would be to kill.
The criteria discussed for when to use deadly force was "if actor fears serious injury, or serious property damage etc"
For me, personally I am trying not to kill anyone because I fear serious injury or property damage, as I dont believe the bible says that.
-
Sounds good. Unfortunately those of us on other islands will be dependent on some kind of report... a video report would be best for me... no need to decipher possibly evaluative terminology (fast/slow, big/small, effective/ineffective, hit/miss, cheated/played by the rules, etc..
OK by me...but I may be a little too busy to video....
-
.
-
By too busy, do you mean attempting to avoid getting disarmed and pistol whipped with your own weapon? :rofl:
I think he means "repeatedly and successfully simulating the shooting of an assailant unsuccessfully attempting to disarm him and pistol whip him with his own weapon!" :thumbsup:
-
Also, can you tell me where I said my beliefs trump the constitution?
I said for me, personally, I would not use CCW.
as HiCarry has recommended "never, never, never shooting to wound", that means, if using CCW, it would be to kill.
The criteria discussed for when to use deadly force was "if actor fears serious injury, or serious property damage etc"
For me, personally I am trying not to kill anyone because I fear serious injury or property damage, as I dont believe the bible says that.
Maybe that is where the confusion lies. It sounded like you were trying to make broad statements covering groups, when you were just discussing your personal opinion on only yourself carrying.
-
Maybe that is where the confusion lies. It sounded like you were trying to make broad statements covering groups, when you were just discussing your personal opinion on only yourself carrying.
There were numerous statements about criteria for ANYONE to receive government permission to CCW, including comments about other peoples' lack of "maturity" and "common sense" and the concern he/she had about being hit when out in public by "random flying bullets" [my paraphrase]. It's always been about "others" and what rules ought to govern their right to self-defense outside the home, and not just a personal individual choice by the person in question.
-
Maybe that is where the confusion lies. It sounded like you were trying to make broad statements covering groups, when you were just discussing your personal opinion on only yourself carrying.
Agree, there is confusion. I will try to be more clear in the future (or not comment). I was not making broad statements, I stated more than once that these my personal choices and did not apply to others.
-
I love how all of these type of threads end in arguments.
:popcorn:
-
The more conversation we have the better. Constructive conversation. But lets not forget. We represent a united front. WE will not give up our guns, ever. WE WILL have concealed carry without "permission". We dont need permission. But we will be safe and always take the higher ground. Tell the truth with facts and logic. Only the gun haters lie about guns.I am proud to belong to such a group of men and women of integrity and patriotism......sniffle, sniffle. We will achieve our goal. Until then hang tuff boys. We are all in this together.
-
.
-
Unfortunately, several individuals have turned the WE crowd into the US and ME crowd with their thinking.
I don't think it is at all surprising that people within the firearms-owning community (at least 100 million people in the U.S.) have different views, values, and beliefs about everything, including firearms. Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly both tout themselves as gun owners and post videos and photos of themselves shooting, and they founded an organization ("Americans for Sensible Solutions") basically (ultimately) intent on legislating guns out of private hands. There has been a lot of attention in the past year to "minorities" (women, African-American, Hispanic, Asian, etc., LGBT, "liberal", etc.) in the gun-owning community and how to expand that "minority" membership. There are a lot of "differences" among gun owners, and some gun owners are quite outspoken on their beliefs about who should or should not have what kind of firearm under what conditions (e.g. "assault" rifles or pistols, disqualifying standards for ownership or CCW, CCW in general or restrictions on who, when, where, etc.).
That's all well and good. I favor a broad interpretation of First Amendment rights to expression. And when those people make public statements supporting laws that would curtail or end my right to "keep and bear arms" I believe it is my responsibility to counter whatever arguments or data they present to support their position. Not in order to "change the mind" of the person posting a "restrictive" view of Second Amendment rights, but so that other readers (possibly fence-sitting lurkers) can see a counter-argument and/or data that is perhaps more sound. Usually it's not too difficult to counter such arguments because the people making them tend not to be logically consistent and rarely have any substantial data (that will withstand critical scrutiny) to support their positions.
But in a group of 100 million people who have (perhaps only) one thing in common, gun ownership, there are going to be a lot of differing opinions, even about the one thing they have in common.
-
i would apply even though i would likely not carry (here, at least). just to excercise my right. and because it would apply to other states, hopefully.
-
Also, can you tell me where I said my beliefs trump the constitution?
I said for me, personally, I would not use CCW.
as HiCarry has recommended "never, never, never shooting to wound", that means, if using CCW, it would be to kill.
The criteria discussed for when to use deadly force was "if actor fears serious injury, or serious property damage etc"
No. Again, you are incorrect and seem to have a great deal of difficulty grasping even simple concepts. You do not "shoot to wound" in part because it would damage your claim of fear of death or great bodily injury, as previously explained in great detail. And secondly, because trying to "shoot to wound" means attempting to hit a much smaller target under severe stress, which would greatly increase your chances of missing altogether.
But that does not mean that you "shoot to kill" either. You shoot to stop the threat so that your perceived fear of death or great bodily injury is eliminated. Don't interpret "don't shoot to wound" to mean "shoot to kill." It is incorrect tactically and legally. And in truth, most victims of gunshots by a handgun survive.....
-
Quote from: Dblnaknak on April 29, 2014, 10:04:13 AM:
Ill PM you next week. I'm off island till then.
Make it public...I'm OK with it....
Okay, it's the end of "next week"... any update on the scheduled "demonstration" (of CCW disarming of HiCarry by unarmed Dblnaknak)? :shaka:
-
Quote from: Dblnaknak on April 29, 2014, 10:04:13 AM:
Ill PM you next week. I'm off island till then.
Okay, it's the end of "next week"... any update on the scheduled "demonstration" (of CCW disarming of HiCarry by unarmed Dblnaknak)? :shaka:
Still waiting.....
-
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/136659-pistol-packin-grannie-gets-shot-three-times-lets-detroit-thugs-know-shes-packin-worst-way/ (http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/136659-pistol-packin-grannie-gets-shot-three-times-lets-detroit-thugs-know-shes-packin-worst-way/)
while we're waiting - let's all enjoy this gem.....
-
.
-
HiCarry, This is what you wrote-verbatim:
"I suggest that anyone considering buying a gun for protection have a very frank discussion with themselves about whether or not you are capable of using it and taking a human life. If you are not fully committed to using that firearm and willing to take a life to protect you or your family, you shouldn't have a gun for that purpose. .......You do not, and I will repeat this, you do not shoot to wound!! You shoot to stop the threat, which means getting rounds into the largest area of the bad guy that will likely stop his progress. That means center mass. I'll say it again....you NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, shoot to wound. "
You have difficultly communicating simple concepts. Say what you mean.
The definition of the word:
Wound-the act of inflicting an injury.
Used in a sentence: The seargant was seriously wounded by the bullet.
"Shooting to wound" refers to use of a firearm to injure someone without killing them.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_to_wound (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_to_wound)
"Shoot to kill" refers to aiming shots with specific intention of causing fatal injury aka deadly force.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot_to_kill (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot_to_kill)
never, never, never shoot to wound can easily be understood as never shoot to injure without killing.
No. Again, you are incorrect and seem to have a great deal of difficulty grasping even simple concepts. You do not "shoot to wound" in part because it would damage your claim of fear of death or great bodily injury, as previously explained in great detail. And secondly, because trying to "shoot to wound" means attempting to hit a much smaller target under severe stress, which would greatly increase your chances of missing altogether.
But that does not mean that you "shoot to kill" either. You shoot to stop the threat so that your perceived fear of death or great bodily injury is eliminated. Don't interpret "don't shoot to wound" to mean "shoot to kill." It is incorrect tactically and legally. And in truth, most victims of gunshots by a handgun survive.....
Lets analyze your concept of "center mass" -Center mass. It’s ‘operations central’ for your body, houses your heart, a most important muscle that sends blood to all parts of your frame. Your lungs are also here and they are necessary for the balanced exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide. You got nerves, lots of nerves that pass through center mass. The vagus nerve for instance represents the golden highway of neurological life sustaining information between your brain and vital organs. This nerve is the master switch for heart rate and blood pressure. Turn off that switch, empty the pump of blood or puncture a lung and a person is likely to die—quickly. This folks is where we are going to put our bullets.
Now how can one misconstrue that?
Your weak, inconsistant arguments make your credibility appear questionable.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/rJRNEne.jpg) (http://imgur.com/rJRNEne)
HiCarry, This is what you wrote-verbatim:
"I suggest that anyone considering buying a gun for protection have a very frank discussion with themselves about whether or not you are capable of using it and taking a human life. If you are not fully committed to using that firearm and willing to take a life to protect you or your family, you shouldn't have a gun for that purpose. .......You do not, and I will repeat this, you do not shoot to wound!! You shoot to stop the threat, which means getting rounds into the largest area of the bad guy that will likely stop his progress. That means center mass. I'll say it again....you NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, shoot to wound. "
You have difficultly communicating simple concepts. Say what you mean.
The definition of the word:
Wound-the act of inflicting an injury.
Used in a sentence: The seargant was seriously wounded by the bullet.
"Shooting to wound" refers to use of a firearm to injure someone without killing them.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_to_wound (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_to_wound)
"Shoot to kill" refers to aiming shots with specific intention of causing fatal injury aka deadly force.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot_to_kill (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot_to_kill)
never, never, never shoot to wound can easily be understood as never shoot to injure without killing.
Lets analyze your concept of "center mass" -Center mass. It’s ‘operations central’ for your body, houses your heart, a most important muscle that sends blood to all parts of your frame. Your lungs are also here and they are necessary for the balanced exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide. You got nerves, lots of nerves that pass through center mass. The vagus nerve for instance represents the golden highway of neurological life sustaining information between your brain and vital organs. This nerve is the master switch for heart rate and blood pressure. Turn off that switch, empty the pump of blood or puncture a lung and a person is likely to die—quickly. This folks is where we are going to put our bullets.
Now how can one misconstrue that?
Your weak, inconsistant arguments make your credibility appear questionable.
-
Your weak, inconsistant arguments make your credibility appear questionable.
Gotta be a troll. Granted, a troll that has problems with spelling and grammatical construction of sentences, otherwise the only explanation is REMAINDER OF COMMENT DELETED.
-
Gotta be a troll. Granted, a troll that has problems with spelling and grammatical construction of sentences, otherwise the only explanation is REMAINDER OF COMMENT DELETED.
(http://i.imgur.com/rJRNEne.jpg) (http://imgur.com/rJRNEne)
lol, guess when you cant hold an intelligent conversation, you resort to petty name calling. Speaks alot to your character.
Scrubs.
-
lol, guess when you cant hold an intelligent conversation, you resort to petty name calling. Speaks alot to your character.
Scrubs.
Never pays to engage a troll with actual debate. Wastes our time and gives the troll undeserved acknowledgment!
:stopjack:
-
.
-
answer to poll question a resounding yes, have passport photo and fingerprint card ready and waiting.
answer to this poll, IMHO is 105 of the 2500+ 2AHawaii forum members voted.
Naturally members of a 2A forum will be pro firearm, yet less than 4.5% have voted in this poll.
I think there is alot of good info in the forum and people can read and decide for themselves
-
.
-
answer to this poll, IMHO is 105 of the 2500+ 2AHawaii forum members voted.
Naturally members of a 2A forum will be pro firearm, yet less than 4.5% have voted in this poll.
I think there is alot of good info in the forum and people can read and decide for themselves
Please explain how the statistical validity (or invalidity) of polling works based upon the number actually polled compared to the total number in the polled category group (e.g. total number of adult citizens of the United States, or total number of registered voters in the United States, etc.). In light of your assertion about the polling numbers on this question on this site being invalid due to the current self-selected sample being 4.5%, please explain how Gallup, Harris, Pew, etc. conduct their surveys and what percentage of the total potential group members they poll compared to the poll on this site. Thanks. I'm waiting to be educated.
-
.
-
I guess the fact that 70-80% of the members on this forum haven't been here in ages and/or don't participate doesn't count for anything :crazy:
Since we are talking statistics now... how about this ratio: III% ...
During the American Revolution, the active forces in the field against the King's tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists. They were in turn actively supported by perhaps 10% of the population. In addition to these revolutionaries were perhaps another 20% who favored their cause but did little or nothing to support it. Another one-third of the population sided with the King (by the end of the war there were actually more Americans fighting FOR the King than there were in the field against him) and the final third took no side, blew with the wind and took what came.
Three Percenters today do not claim that we represent 3% of the American people, although we might. That theory has not yet been tested. We DO claim that we represent at least 3% of American gun owners, which is still a healthy number somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million people. History, for good or ill, is made by determined minorities.
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-is-three-percenter.html (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-is-three-percenter.html)
-
http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/05/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-major-seco (http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/05/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-major-seco)
Is this what got all your panties in a bunch?
-
http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/05/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-major-seco (http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/05/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-major-seco)
Is this what got all your panties in a bunch?
Are you really on a 2A site gloating about a setback in the courts for 2A rights?
(http://i.imgur.com/tYCyKHG.jpg) (http://imgur.com/tYCyKHG)
-
Boys, go stand in the corner till I tell you to come out !!!
-
Are you really on a 2A site gloating about a setback in the courts for 2A rights?
No gloating, I'm asking is this why your panty is bunched up. LoL. Im asking if the reason for your inability to read and respond intellectually is impaired because you're blinded and frustrated by our countries highest courts denial to even hear the Drake case? As Drake was specifically for CCW. (punaperson, mauidog, and q) are a bunch of dilusional 2A extremists that can't accept the fact that there ALOT more to firearms than your pathetic dream of power trips due to inferiority complexes.
You only post to alienate and distance members and supporters of the 2A community apart. SMH. If this was not your intention, revisit your post and behavior, stick to presenting the facts and let the community decide for themselves without your agendas.
-
No gloating, I'm asking is this why your panty is bunched up. LoL. Im asking if the reason for your inability to read and respond intellectually is impaired because you're blinded and frustrated by our countries highest courts denial to even hear the Drake case? As Drake was specifically for CCW. (punaperson, mauidog, and q) are a bunch of dilusional 2A extremists that can't accept the fact that there ALOT more to firearms than your pathetic dream of power trips due to inferiority complexes.
You only post to alienate and distance members and supporters of the 2A community apart. SMH. If this was not your intention, revisit your post and behavior, stick to presenting the facts and let the community decide for themselves without your agendas.
Go back and read YOUR posts. Dissecting and analyzing people's word choices, vocabulary, understanding of word meanings, etc.is NOT the way to have an intelligent conversation. You're quibbling, not having a discussion.
-
No gloating, I'm asking is this why your panty is bunched up. LoL. Im asking if the reason for your inability to read and respond intellectually is impaired because you're blinded and frustrated by our countries highest courts denial to even hear the Drake case? As Drake was specifically for CCW. (punaperson, mauidog, and q) are a bunch of dilusional 2A extremists that can't accept the fact that there ALOT more to firearms than your pathetic dream of power trips due to inferiority complexes.
You only post to alienate and distance members and supporters of the 2A community apart. SMH. If this was not your intention, revisit your post and behavior, stick to presenting the facts and let the community decide for themselves without your agendas.
If you're a 2A supporter, I'm the man in the moon!
-
.
-
Puna-i was addressing what started this thread, and the discussion about statistics.
Q had stated that 90% on this forum want CCW.
To successfully demonstrate what 90% on this forum want, well 90% would have to vote for CCW. However, currently only 105/2403=4% not even close to 90% on this forum. Understand now?
Please explain how the statistical validity (or invalidity) of polling works based upon the number actually polled compared to the total number in the polled category group (e.g. total number of adult citizens of the United States, or total number of registered voters in the United States, etc.). In light of your assertion about the polling numbers on this question on this site being invalid due to the current self-selected sample being 4.5%, please explain how Gallup, Harris, Pew, etc. conduct their surveys and what percentage of the total potential group members they poll compared to the poll on this site. Thanks. I'm waiting to be educated.
-
When 2A wrote " let's try and keep this civil. I think this is a great learning opportunity for people who are on the fence about CCW."
Im sure the public would be very interested in some peoples comments and behavior as so called "2A supporters". SMH
-
Puna-i was addressing what started this thread, and the discussion about statistics.
Q had stated that 90% on this forum want CCW.
To successfully demonstrate what 90% on this forum want, well 90% would have to vote for CCW. However, currently only 105/2403=4% not even close to 90% on this forum. Understand now?
I did a simple search for "90%". Nowhere does Q say anything about 90% in the forum wanting anything...
... so, would you like to revise your previous statement, or should we judge you on the merits presently in evidence?
-
Bubba808, I'm gonna make a guess that the anti-2a crowd like GK are happy that you are "on our side".
You should self-reflect a bit, spend some time to listen and learn about responsible firearm ownership instead of picking nonsense fights with the 2a supporters in this forum.
-
Bubba808, I'm gonna make a guess that the anti-2a crowd like GK are happy that you are "on our side".
:thumbsup: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
I did a simple search for "90%". Nowhere does Q say anything about 90% in the forum wanting anything...
... so, would you like to revise your previous statement, or should we judge you on the merits presently in evidence?
Your research skill is only outmatched by your IQ.
-
Bubba808, I'm gonna make a guess that the anti-2a crowd like GK are happy that you are "on our side".
You should self-reflect a bit, spend some time to listen and learn about responsible firearm ownership instead of picking nonsense fights with the 2a supporters in this forum.
Yeah, I think u right, no sense argue already. This thing got blown way da he'll out of proportion. Just saying get different 2a supporters when it comes to CCW, and everyone should respect each other instead of name calling and shet.
-
Thank you, bubba808.
I agree. Everyone has differing opinions on CCW. No one is forcing anyone to do something they don't want to.
Let's stop the name calling and arguing and do a reset. :shaka:
-
Yeah, I think u right, no sense argue already. This thing got blown way da he'll out of proportion. Just saying get different 2a supporters when it comes to CCW, and everyone should respect each other instead of name calling and shet.
I agree. And if you could show some respect toward people who are trying to have a debate and NOT make it a high school name calling contest, maybe it wouldn't get blown way out of proportion.
You have to give respect if you expect to get it. People tend to reap what they sew. So I suggest you stop trying to parse everyone's words to prove a minor point and actually think about the MESSAGES we are trying to convey. Starting an argument over minute details is never productive. Facts are one thing and are fair game in a debate, but you're obviously just trying to pick a fight.
Your behavior is what most call trolling. We know it when we see it.
-
I agree. And if you could show some respect toward people who are trying to have a debate and NOT make it a high school name calling contest, maybe it wouldn't get blown way out of proportion.
You have to give respect if you expect to get it. People tend to reap what they sew. So I suggest you stop trying to parse everyone's words to prove a minor point and actually think about the MESSAGES we are trying to convey. Starting an argument over minute details is never productive. Facts are one thing and are fair game in a debate, but you're obviously just trying to pick a fight.
Your behavior is what most call trolling. We know it when we see it.
Did I start name calling? No cuz I don't need to.
SMH. U just can't STFU huh? No can!
-
Did I start name calling? No cuz I don't need to.
SMH. U just can't STFU huh? No can!
It appears you have a tough time with many things. One of them is the need to have the last word. Another is being rude. Telling a forum member to shut the F*** up is an extreme insult. Not to mention it shows you've lost the argument. When you resort to trying to end the conversation, that indicates you're ready to throw in the towel and cry "Uncle!"
And nobody over the age of 16 uses "SMH." LOL!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
(http://i.imgur.com/2pqWmsF.gif) (http://imgur.com/2pqWmsF)
-
.
-
.
-
HiCarry, This is what you wrote-verbatim:
"I suggest that anyone considering buying a gun for protection have a very frank discussion with themselves about whether or not you are capable of using it and taking a human life. If you are not fully committed to using that firearm and willing to take a life to protect you or your family, you shouldn't have a gun for that purpose. .......You do not, and I will repeat this, you do not shoot to wound!! You shoot to stop the threat, which means getting rounds into the largest area of the bad guy that will likely stop his progress. That means center mass. I'll say it again....you NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, shoot to wound. "
You have difficultly communicating simple concepts. Say what you mean.
The definition of the word:
Wound-the act of inflicting an injury.
Used in a sentence: The seargant was seriously wounded by the bullet.
"Shooting to wound" refers to use of a firearm to injure someone without killing them.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_to_wound (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_to_wound)
"Shoot to kill" refers to aiming shots with specific intention of causing fatal injury aka deadly force.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot_to_kill (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot_to_kill)
never, never, never shoot to wound can easily be understood as never shoot to injure without killing.
Lets analyze your concept of "center mass" -Center mass. It’s ‘operations central’ for your body, houses your heart, a most important muscle that sends blood to all parts of your frame. Your lungs are also here and they are necessary for the balanced exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide. You got nerves, lots of nerves that pass through center mass. The vagus nerve for instance represents the golden highway of neurological life sustaining information between your brain and vital organs. This nerve is the master switch for heart rate and blood pressure. Turn off that switch, empty the pump of blood or puncture a lung and a person is likely to die—quickly. This folks is where we are going to put our bullets.
Now how can one misconstrue that?
Your weak, inconsistant arguments make your credibility appear questionable.
Self defense, as a concept and as a legal defense, is anything but simple. Which may be why you are having such a difficult time understanding. Even after I attempted to explain that you should not interpret "never shoot to wound" as "shoot to kill" you do just that with a simplistic dictionary definition of "shoot to kill" and "Shoot to wound" without taking into consideration what I attempted to explain. Which, I thought was pretty clear...although I am happy to consider that I may not have been as clear as I could have been, I'm bettin' that if we polled the readers, most would understand exactly what I meant to say.
I am, and will continue to be an advocate of reasoned discussions about controversial subjects as it pertains to 2A issues on this forum, in large part to assist those new or unfamiliar to the complexities of various issues. But your childish outbursts, and seemingly undying need to justify your mostly unfounded opinions, make it clear that you don't really want to learn. You think you know it all and nothing is going to change your mind. You have the righteousness of your beliefs and facts and learned opinions of those that have far, far more experience (not necessarily referring to myself here...) mean little to you. If you are going to stubbornly stick to your opinions regardless of what anyone may try to tell you, just let us know and we'll quit wasting our time. If you want to learn, then I suggest that you deflate your ego a bit, turn down your righteous indignation toward anyone who disagrees with you, and actually open your mind up to new ideas.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO7uNLJvbvw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO7uNLJvbvw)
This might help clear up shoot to wound vs shoot to kill vs shoot to stop the threat.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO7uNLJvbvw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO7uNLJvbvw)
This might help clear up shoot to wound vs shoot to kill vs shoot to stop the threat.
Well, technically, I think shooting to kill is shooting to stop :P... but shooting to stop is not shooting to kill. Shooting to wound is neither shooting to stop nor shooting to kill! :D
Anyways, to echo what Q said: Shooting center mass does not constitute the center mass of the body all the time. A shooter would generally understand that we mean shoot at the center of the available mass that gives you the best chances of scoring a hit to your target.
I think one thing you are missing bubba is that pulling the trigger IS using deadly force. Because, specifically, you know or should have known that such an action reasonably could have resulted in death or serious bodily harm. Therefore, if you shoot to wound, you are saying - "I cant stop this person yet, but I will just shoot em to make a point," and are using deadly force before the threshold to do so has been met.
-
No gloating, I'm asking is this why your panty is bunched up. LoL. Im asking if the reason for your inability to read and respond intellectually is impaired because you're blinded and frustrated by our countries highest courts denial to even hear the Drake case? As Drake was specifically for CCW. (punaperson, mauidog, and q) are a bunch of dilusional 2A extremists that can't accept the fact that there ALOT more to firearms than your pathetic dream of power trips due to inferiority complexes.
You only post to alienate and distance members and supporters of the 2A community apart. SMH. If this was not your intention, revisit your post and behavior, stick to presenting the facts and let the community decide for themselves without your agendas.
Shannon, is that you?
-
Puna-i was addressing what started this thread, and the discussion about statistics.
Q had stated that 90% on this forum want CCW.
To successfully demonstrate what 90% on this forum want, well 90% would have to vote for CCW. However, currently only 105/2403=4% not even close to 90% on this forum. Understand now?
What I understand now is that you have confirmed my suspicion that you have absolutely no understanding of statistics in general nor polling statistics in particular. Do you really believe for there to be a valid (accurate) poll of the American adult people or American registered voters (for examples) that ALL of them have to be polled? That would not merely be woefully mistaken, but also be an idiotic and moronic belief revealing (miraculously) a state of comprehension even lower than complete and total ignorance about statistics and polling. Please note that I did not call you and idiot or a moron or ignorant. The whole point of polling or surveys is that it is statistically possible to conclude with a reasonable probability what an entire group holds as a view while sampling only a minute percentage of that actual group.
So, according to your belief that to know what a percentage of members of this site likely believe, you have to poll ALL of them, you must then discount and/or invalidate any and all polls that sample microscopic fractions of the group they draw a conclusion about? Correct? Or is it just this poll on this site and not any other polls? If so, why? Please explain.
For instance, a recent Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/168770/half-illinois-connecticut-move-elsewhere.aspx#1 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/168770/half-illinois-connecticut-move-elsewhere.aspx#1)) asking adult residents (600 per state) of all 50 states whether they would move to another state if they were able to, claimed that the margin of sampling error is ±5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. Using the state of California as an example, the sample polled there of 600 people out of an adult population of 29 million is .0000206% of the total group for which the conclusions of the poll had the margin of sampling error is ±5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. Compared to the 4.5% sample of the current poll on this site/thread, the poll here has a sample 218,447 TIMES larger than the Gallup poll.
And the current Fox poll re "How much does Obama lie?" (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/16/fox-news-poll-many-voters-say-obama-lies-to-country-on-important-matters/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/16/fox-news-poll-many-voters-say-obama-lies-to-country-on-important-matters/)), which has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points, polled 1,012 registered voters out of the total 137 million registered voters in the U.S., which is .000000738% of the group for which conclusion are drawn with only a three per cent margin of error. The percentage sample for the poll on this site/thread is 6,428,571 TIMES greater than the Fox poll sample.
Is your polling statistical analysis methodology based upon revealed biblical mathematics, or what? Please explain.
-
Did I start name calling? No cuz I don't need to.
SMH. U just can't STFU huh? No can!
Bubba808, I'm going to ask you to stay away from topics of CCW. Since you stated before that this is your personal belief for yourself and you refuse to look at the merits as a legal right, it doesn't make sense for you to be arguing this way. Thanks
-
Smackdown! :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
-
answer to this poll, IMHO is 105 of the 2500+ 2AHawaii forum members voted.
Naturally members of a 2A forum will be pro firearm, yet less than 4.5% have voted in this poll.
I think there is alot of good info in the forum and people can read and decide for themselves
You purport to say that with Hawaii's, our country's for that matter, low voter turnout then invalidates our democratic electoral process. Truthfully that may not be bad thing, you get my point though right?
I have been very reluctant to enter this thread because of the volatility between participants, I do have just one statement to make however and I will step out. 2aHawaii is a forum that supports the design and structure of the second amendment. The basic jist of the amendment is that we the people have the right to, "keep and bear arms". Enough said. Why would you join 2aHawaii and then tear apart the very context of the the second amendment as was written by our founding fathers? You are entitled to your opinion, would it not be better, though; to create your own 2aHawaii "sort of" forum to express your agenda to those that support the "sort of" position you have with the second amendment.
I am regretting getting into this thread. I am ready for the whipping, I respectfully decline any further engagement. Thanks for letting me share my thoughts.
-
Bubba808, I'm going to ask you to stay away from topics of CCW. Since you stated before that this is your personal belief for yourself and you refuse to look at the merits as a legal right, it doesn't make sense for you to be arguing this way. Thanks
You purport to say that with Hawaii's, our country's for that matter, low voter turnout then invalidates our democratic electoral process. Truthfully that may not be bad thing, you get my point though right?
I have been very reluctant to enter this thread because of the volatility between participants, I do have just one statement to make however and I will step out. 2aHawaii is a forum that supports the design and structure of the second amendment. The basic jist of the amendment is that we the people have the right to, "keep and bear arms". Enough said. Why would you join 2aHawaii and then tear apart the very context of the the second amendment as was written by our founding fathers? You are entitled to your opinion, would it not be better, though; to create your own 2aHawaii "sort of" forum to express your agenda to those that support the "sort of" position you have with the second amendment.
I am regretting getting into this thread. I am ready for the whipping, I respectfully decline any further engagement. Thanks for letting me share my thoughts.
Kekoa, thanks for chiming in, even if only momentarily. I'm sure that you are not the only person hesitant and/or not writing on this or other threads (this one has over 4500 views and only 180 comments).
My opinion is that even if Bubba808 is a troll, perhaps even a paid troll (extremely low probability given the poor quality of comments) from MDAFGSIA or EFGS (aka Bloomberg Bucks), the positions/views/"arguments" presented by him/her, no matter how illogical, irrational, incoherent or lacking in supporting evidence are indicative of the typical views held by a significant segment of the general population that opposes a more literal (actual meaning of words) interpretation of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". By countering those views here, those of us who argue against such views to other citizens, including those citizens who are our elected or appointed representatives in legislatures and law enforcement, etc. are able to "train" by seeing what the "enemy" is offering to support their beliefs, values, and actions. Of course it's not really necessary as we've heard all this stuff before, much of it over 30 years ago from Handgun Control, Inc., etc. Still, it's my hope (I have no data to support any belief or conclusion) that some people that read these threads either 1. gain new (or reinforcing) information and/or arguments that help them determine a logical evidence-based position on Second Amendment rights (which they can then express repeatedly to those in positions of power who determine to what degree we can exercise those rights), or 2. are entertained or possibly even amused.
If someone started their own site or even thread about "2ahawaii sort of" it would have very few viewers. Probably even trolls would avoid it. Here, Bubba808, troll or not, has a relatively large audience, which perhaps meets some need that would not be met by an unread un-viewed dedicated anti-Second Amendment (anti-CCW for the average person) site.
I'd support a free expression mode for the thread, but I understand that this is a private entity and no First Amendment right exists here, so I also understand that at some point it looks fruitless and pointless. Admins call.
-
http://www.concealednation.org/2014/01/i-left-my-glock-27-loaded-for-3-years-straight-and-a-remarkable-thing-happened/
-
http://www.concealednation.org/2014/01/i-left-my-glock-27-loaded-for-3-years-straight-and-a-remarkable-thing-happened/ (http://www.concealednation.org/2014/01/i-left-my-glock-27-loaded-for-3-years-straight-and-a-remarkable-thing-happened/)
some good links from that site
http://www.concealednation.org/category/beginners-guide/ (http://www.concealednation.org/category/beginners-guide/)
http://www.concealednation.org/2014/03/00672-percent-a-percentage-that-people-who-carry-concealed-should-know-about/ (http://www.concealednation.org/2014/03/00672-percent-a-percentage-that-people-who-carry-concealed-should-know-about/)
thanks for the link, jl
-
Kekoa
A well stated, fact based, "argument" should never be regretted during these "discussions." Thanks for weighing in.
-
so much petty bickering.
-
so much petty bickering.
Geezus, this thing still going on? Need to find that dead horse .gif someone had.
Talk about self-flagellation!
-
For sure! Then my wife would hate me because of the CCW guns i would "have to buy".
-
Geezus, this thing still going on? Need to find that dead horse .gif someone had.
Talk about self-flagellation!