I posted this to FB after calming down - which took some effort - from reading the latest round of HI bills. I've passed on info about those laws via replies to others here in HI who have posted about gun related stuff, but I try to keep my status update posts middle of the road. I have TONS of very liberal friends and my aim there is to inform not to harp on my viewpoint.
-------------

Some more FYI on US gun violence and gun safety laws for those who are interested:

Louisiana is the worst state according the the Brady Campaign scorecard (2/100) and is, in fact, the worst state in terms of gun violence.

Hawaii scores 50/100 on the Brady scorecard, is considered by gun enthusiasts to be among the top 5 most restrictive states, and is the 3rd safest state in terms of gun violence.

Maryland scores 45/100, only 5 worse than Hawaii, on the Brady list yet is the 2nd most gun violent state.

California has the strictest gun control laws according to the Brady Campaign. It is also the 4th most gun violent state.

Vermont and New Hampshire tie for the 4th lowest scores in gun safety laws (6/100) according to the Brady Campaign, yet they are the 2 safest States in the Union in terms of gun violence.

Conclusion: The strictness of gun safety laws is not a reliable indicator of effective prevention of gun violence. There must be other factors involved and [opinion] neither side of our national debate is looking for them. [/opinion]

Sources (extremely unscientific as they are):
http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/ (The Brady Campaign, 2011 data)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
(Wikipedia: gun homicide per capita stats compiled from 2004 Census and DOJ data. Gun violence has declined considerably since then across the board.)

:shrug: Facts and figures are fun. The government should use them more often when making important decisions about things like gun safety, climate change and how money is best saved and spent. And We the People, theoretically being the government, would do well to look at them carefully, too.

Thanks for sharing clshade. I also used to do that until I got tired dealing with the well-intentioned but unrealistic one-liner wonder posts of my liberal friends on Facebook.  As much as I hate to, now I just mind my own business and let them live their own delusion.  Harder and harder to find a common ground with people who cannot be reasoned with.

Thanks Jl808. Fortunately I'm well generally respected by my friends enough that I don't get too much of that. I do my part by purposefully wording things very, very carefully.

Not sure why I feel like sharing some of this stuff. Just frustrated with how broken our public process is. This is my activism, in a way. I figured you guys might appreciate it for the tightrope walk that it is.

Here is a message I sent back to a friend of mine from Germany (of all places) who asked me to clarify what all this stuff about the 2nd amendment was that she's been seeing from all her American friends. She had suggested, basically, making strict training requirements the law of the land and wondered why we didn't just do that if gun safety was such an issue. It was an interesting exercise putting together an explanation for someone with her history and distance. Her grandparents were willing Nazis. Her parents ~hated~ them and themselves and ground that guilt into their daughter. Its a sad story, really. My response:

-----------------

I know. The issue is completely out of hand here and makes little sense. To help make a little sense of it there are 2 factors that most people here don't talk about clearly:

1) Since 1929 when the first gun control laws were passed in the States the difference between the weapons that civilians can own and the ones law enforcement and the military (and criminals) can own has grown more and more pronounced.

2) As a nation that made itself by violence and defense against an oppressive government there is a large segment of the population that does not trust the government to decide who can and cannot have firearms.

And the basis of the arguments on both sides of the issue here is fear. One side is afraid that the government will grow too powerful and tyrannical if it is allowed to disarm the people. The other side is fearful that people they don't know and don't trust have weapons that they don't understand.

Like the rest of the political divisions in this country, these divisions have grown worse in recent years. On this issue the 2 sides hardly even talk to each other.

What you suggested is absolutely reasonable and you aren't wrong. The trouble is getting the 2 sides to agree on anything reasonable. The anti-gun folks are horrified at the number of accidents and gun related crimes and have no idea how the other side can possibly condone that in order to have, just for fun, weapons they don't need. The pro-gun folks (I hate to say this, but it is true) point to the Nazi's and say "What's to keep our government from doing that? If you think it can't happen here you are dreaming." Neither side is entirely wrong.

The core of the issue isn't really guns. It is trust. Something that Americans have a tough time with as a whole.

I know. The issue is completely out of hand here and makes little sense. To help make a little sense of it there are 2 factors that most people here don't talk about clearly:

1) Since 1929 when the first gun control laws were passed in the States the difference between the weapons that civilians can own and the ones law enforcement and the military (and criminals) can own has grown more and more pronounced.

2) As a nation that made itself by violence and defense against an oppressive government there is a large segment of the population that does not trust the government to decide who can and cannot have firearms.

And the basis of the arguments on both sides of the issue here is fear. One side is afraid that the government will grow too powerful and tyrannical if it is allowed to disarm the people. The other side is fearful that people they don't know and don't trust have weapons that they don't understand.

Like the rest of the political divisions in this country, these divisions have grown worse in recent years. On this issue the 2 sides hardly even talk to each other.

What you suggested is absolutely reasonable and you aren't wrong. The trouble is getting the 2 sides to agree on anything reasonable. The anti-gun folks are horrified at the number of accidents and gun related crimes and have no idea how the other side can possibly condone that in order to have, just for fun, weapons they don't need. The pro-gun folks (I hate to say this, but it is true) point to the Nazi's and say "What's to keep our government from doing that? If you think it can't happen here you are dreaming." Neither side is entirely wrong.

The core of the issue isn't really guns. It is trust. Something that Americans have a tough time with as a whole.

I think this is spot on.  I may have to steal this.