And here is where perception and your personal capabilities come into play. If individuals feel they can go hand to hand and be successful, then by all means, do so. Unfortunately, many of those who advocate this method may have little actual experience with trying to physically control a drunk or drugged individual. I generally feel pretty comfortable going "hands on" but in atrue life or death situation, my experience tells me controlling such a person, especially alone, is fraught with the possibility that you will be over powered. I have been involved in many, many, many "take downs" of violent individuals over the course of my career. And I can tell you that even with several well trained and capable individuals, physically subduing someone isn't always as easy as it is in the movies. Someone who knows the reality of this situation isn't likely to put himself into a situation where the "bad guy" has a good change of overpowering him before going to his gun. That would place the "good guy" at a severe tactical advantage, including then being unable to access and utilize his gun. 

mahalo for bearing with me as i try to understand your reasoning.  If one has little experience dealing with situations, why not recommend getting training in this area instead of escalating to shooting?
were either this video, the video of the local shouting racial slurs or the thread about the teenage boy getting shot at Roosevelt, where advocating for ccw realy life or death? 

I think there are a couple of points to examine here. First, as mentioned above, many with experience in dealing with violent individuals realize that going "one on one" with a nutjob isn't necessarily a great idea (Think ICE or PCP.....) and may advocate going to the gun early. I can't say I disagree, and that in some instances, such as those with physical disabilities or kids/spouses to care for that make it impractical to leave expediently, it may be the only choice. Again, it is a personal choice, one that you may have to justify at trial and that will be judged as to "reasonableness," but a personal choice nonetheless. And there is a lot of truth in assuming that any individual that would charge you while holding a gun is also dumb/crazy/drugged/drunk enough to try and hurt or kill you over a stupid argument. It is a fallacy to think that you can reason with, or deal logically with someone so deranged.

the "many" you refer actually skews the data as these are people who "deal" with violence on a regular basis.  How many people in Hawaii are actually victims of the crime scenarios you mention? Do you have real crime statistical numbers from Hawaii recently that can prove the threats you percieve as (dumb/crazy/drugged/drunk/deranged) are real and in the quanity to justify ccw?  I mean compared to the mainland, I feel Hawaii is relatively safe and per capita crime is much lower here.   Why is it that in most of your "what if" scenarios, the guy with the gun is either physically weak or is challenging some drunk, drugged crazed fiend? What about if ccw does become common that the drunk, drug crazed fiends will now be packing heat too, so now we gotta worry about the masses being smart enough to use good practices and judgement when using a firearm.  That scares me more than the highly unlikey event of being in a life or death situation here, what do you think? 


I agree. Leave the scene if you can. But what if that's not practical? What if you have family, friends, high value items that you cannot gather up without letting down your guard and placing yourself in a tactically disadvantageous position? Hard to defend yourself if you're carrying your igloo back to the car.....I do think that he should have called 911, or directed someone else to do so. Getting the police there should be a priority, but not necessarily THE priority. 

if its life or death... I say screw practicality, you can run, or try your best to defend yourself.  High value items... maybe not so smart to bring these all over.   Family and friends should join you in your resistance/defense.  Bottom line, pick your battles wisely. 

I suspect that was an attempt to inject some levity,so I'll do the same, adding that you should also be gripping the butt of your firearm....

hey, look at me I learned a new word. LoL,  seriously gripping the butt sounds great, keep it holstered

There are lot's of folks that may think going to the gun early is the answer. That may, or may not, be "correct" which is why I think rationally discussing these types of situations is the best way to look at many different possibilities and solutions. It is always best to have options, including avoiding the situation if possible, but also the option to use a firearm if the situation dictates. Discussing options also helps ferret out the internet warriors who's only options are to go to the gun. Stating unequivocally that you just need to walk away or to always go immediately go to the gun dismisses the great many viable options that may be available, and is an indicator that you are not open to a reasoned, rational discussion on the matter. 

who are these "lots of folks", surely they are in the minority of the population here.  I think when i sat in hunters ed with my wife they shared some statistics like less tahn 3% of Hawaii population legally own guns. i also think that even among firearm owners here in Hawaii I dont think the majority would choose to "go to the gun early" as you say

I think your statement suggests that you are not very familiar with the realities of self defense with a firearm. If you have moral objections to using deadly force, that is your prerogative. But don't expect others to agree. 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. That being said, once you make the decision to get a gun, you should endeavor to learn as much as possible about it and the subject of self defense. If you had done that, you would have realized how, and [0I say this without trying to insult you, ignorant you are on the subject. 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 are correct, please forgive my ignorance of firearm defense.  I do not expect anyone to agree with my personal choices and I think I have made that clear that these are my choices only.  With that said, i dont agree that you need to be fully committed to taking a life,  i do agree with committed to using it.  I appreciate you not insulting my admitted ignorance to your reasoning.  Please, if you dont mind take the time to explain why not shoot to wound.. doesnt shooting to wound, neutralize the threat? Why never never?

Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws are just that. It simply says that if you are lawfully in a place you are not mandated to retreat. It does not automatically justify a claim of self defense, nor does it somehow allow you to "shoot first and ask questions later. You can "stand your ground" with or without a firearm, but to suggest that you should then only have the same weapon as the aggressor is naive and, as you suggest, probably comes from fantasy rather than reality. And again, avoid the situation is always the better choice, IMHO, but that does not mean that circumstances may preclude that option. 

You mean kung fu isnt real? LoL

But we should not burden the otherwise lawabiding citizen with the requirement that they integrate into their thought process, during the heat of a potential self defense situation, the possibility that the loud, threatening, posturing individual is "just acting up" rather than presenting a credible threat. That's like saying you should have to determine that the gun pointed at you is real and loaded before using deadly force. It simply isn't practical nor possible and to think such a requirement should be imposed is, again, IMHO, a very bad idea. As for other's not "understanding" the "local way." Again, I'm sorry. If you go to the mainland and wander into gang territory, would you suggest that you not be able to use your firearm when one of the gang members was threatening you because in reality, in that area, such threats were merely the "local way" to treat outsiders? I doubt it. 

I still think that one should understand or familiarize with "local ways" if youre in the islands.  I think it is the traveller responsibilty.  Same goes for outside of the country ... tread lightly.  And also different regions within this country. I mean ive been to the four corners and throughout and have been met with racism and disrespect in certain places cuz ignorant whites or blacks thinks locals from Hawaii are mexicans or cant tell the difference between a Japanese, Korean, or Chinese...but its ok, I didnt want to shoot and killem because they were ignorant. I just shook my head and kept walkin...the correlation to local ways which are cultural differences that may not be fully understood versus criminal gang activity as a local way is a terrible comparison imho.  Im not saying locals dont attack and use of force is not justified if they do, im justcsaying a little familiraization goes a long way, as does a open mind.

A plan is always good. Discuss with your family what you expect them to do in these situations. They should call the police, stay out of the way, take shelter, or, if trained and equipped, participate in a coordinated effort to provide the family self defense. 

I totally agree with this, and I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this to help gain a better understanding of what is the correct thing to do and also what the law provides for.

Re: Shooting to "Wound"

This is basically how it is:  If you could have "wounded" the guy, then he wasn't enough of a threat to utilize deadly force (otherwise, you would have used it).  The basic thought is that if you aren't willing to stop the threat, then you haven't reached the threshold where you should be pulling the trigger anyways.  Therefore, you just shot someone to shoot them basically!

I see, so where is this threshold defined exactly, I hope something as serious as taking another persons life isnt arbitrarily left up to the individual who is perceiving the threat.  Otherwise I had better be practicing my "quick draw" like you so as even if I am in the wrong but I see you drawing on me, I can justify my defense quicker, better, faster, just like the old westerns..etc.  smh

I see, so where is this threshold defined exactly, I hope something as serious as taking another persons life isnt arbitrarily left up to the individual who is perceiving the threat.  Otherwise I had better be practicing my "quick draw" like you so as even if I am in the wrong but I see you drawing on me, I can justify my defense quicker, better, faster, just like the old westerns..etc.  smh

mahalo for bearing with me as i try to understand your reasoning.  If one has little experience dealing with situations, why not recommend getting training in this area instead of escalating to shooting?
were either this video, the video of the local shouting racial slurs or the thread about the teenage boy getting shot at Roosevelt, where advocating for ccw realy life or death?

the "many" you refer actually skews the data as these are people who "deal" with violence on a regular basis.  How many people in Hawaii are actually victims of the crime scenarios you mention? Do you have real crime statistical numbers from Hawaii recently that can prove the threats you percieve as (dumb/crazy/drugged/drunk/deranged) are real and in the quanity to justify ccw?  I mean compared to the mainland, I feel Hawaii is relatively safe and per capita crime is much lower here.   Why is it that in most of your "what if" scenarios, the guy with the gun is either physically weak or is challenging some drunk, drugged crazed fiend? What about if ccw does become common that the drunk, drug crazed fiends will now be packing heat too, so now we gotta worry about the masses being smart enough to use good practices and judgement when using a firearm.  That scares me more than the highly unlikey event of being in a life or death situation here, what do you think? 

if its life or death... I say screw practicality, you can run, or try your best to defend yourself.  High value items... maybe not so smart to bring these all over.   Family and friends should join you in your resistance/defense.  Bottom line, pick your battles wisely.

hey, look at me I learned a new word. LoL,  seriously gripping the butt sounds great, keep it holstered

who are these "lots of folks", surely they are in the minority of the population here.  I think when i sat in hunters ed with my wife they shared some statistics like less tahn 3% of Hawaii population legally own guns. i also think that even among firearm owners here in Hawaii I dont think the majority would choose to "go to the gun early" as you say

you are correct, please forgive my ignorance of firearm defense.  I do not expect anyone to agree with my personal choices and I think I have made that clear that these are my choices only.  With that said, i dont agree that you need to be fully committed to taking a life,  i do agree with committed to using it.  I appreciate you not insulting my admitted ignorance to your reasoning.  Please, if you dont mind take the time to explain why not shoot to wound.. doesnt shooting to wound, neutralize the threat? Why never never?

I see, so where is this threshold defined exactly, I hope something as serious as taking another persons life isnt arbitrarily left up to the individual who is perceiving the threat.  Otherwise I had better be practicing my "quick draw" like you so as even if I am in the wrong but I see you drawing on me, I can justify my defense quicker, better, faster, just like the old westerns..etc.  smh

I have assumed you are genuine in your attempts to seek knowledge on this matter, but this last response of yours makes me wonder if I have wasted my time and energy. Funtimes is very knowledgeable on these matters, and I would suggest that you try to absorb what he is trying to tell you rather than make a smart ass comment that does nothing but show how ignorant you are on this subject. So, how about you actually open your mind, as you suggested "travelers" do earlier, so that you can learn rather than using tired and worn memes better suited to the anti gun crowd? If you are truly interested in learning, you shouldn't diss those that have expertise in the matter. So, to reiterate what Funtimes was trying to explain: A self defense claim will be judged on what you perceived at the time, knowing only what you knew at the time the event happened. How well you articulate how you felt (including feeling afraid for your life), what you saw, and what actions the other actor took will all factor into whether your actions were reasonable and what another similarly situated individual would have done in those circumstances. If you want to call that process "arbitrary" so be it. But that's the reality of the situation and like it or not, that's what you will have to deal with.

Lets just keep it simple: if you want to fist fight someone, go ahead and fist fight them; that's fine.

But smart people will use things that reduce the nschizophreniaphysical confrontation and/or give them the upper hand in the situation so that they can neutralize the threat without risking increased probability of bodily harm and/or death.

And there is no need to disrespect Funtimes; he is just stating the obvious and the knowledge he acquired through legitimate training and experience. If you don't like the fact that some people don't need to puff up their chest and risk the possibility off getting their ass beat, and would rather instead choose the path of least resistance, then take it out on a paper with some crayons or something, because there are many people with legitimate experience who really don't have the time or the luxury to put themselves in a greater risk of injury or death simply because they are butthurt and want to cater to their ego.

Sir - Deadly force is left to the person who perceives that they have a potential threat of serious bodily harm or death.   
Damn, that sucks imho.

You can talk all the crap about drawing that you want, after three years of teaching over 1,000 students in Hawaii and practice my times continue to come down and the motions become more fluid.  That's just a fact of training.
I still didnt get where I talked crap, I thought it was a compliment on your speed, and my point was that there would be a need for quicker draw if the reality was ccw.  If it was offensive, pleaee dont shoot, it was not intentional.

The fact still remains that if you had the opportunity to "wound" the individual instead of shoot to stop the threat then you probably had opportunities to perform some other action that did not equal deadly force.   This is the same principle that people get hemmed up on warnings shots.
well at least I can understand the logic you use with the "wounding" which is all I wanted to know.

first off, smart the way you use it can be interpreted as lazy, or possibly not giving a shit about anothers life, man. the reason i say arbitrary is its so subjective, "how someone feels",  what if individual with undiagnosed schizophrenia,  or just unstable like an Uesugi, or just overly sensitive... then they feel scared and threated and whipping out guns everwhere.

now I never meant any disrespect, im not sure how you interpreted what I wrote but I thought it was almost a complement on his draw speed from the youtub ed video.  Hey, im just trying to understand if there is a definition of the threshold funtimes described.  As I stated, I sincerely hoped it wasnt arbitrary, but as he pointed out, it is.  So be it.    As far as your insults.... youre the very one who said that ccw would cause everbody to start acting a whole lot nicer.. my opinion...you need to work on your etiquette.

So basically you are comparing the training that individuals like Funtimes and myself received to undiagnosed schizophrenia?
im not comparing that, you are, im saying that if ccw is allowed others who apply could be granted the priveledge with the condition.

The way you try to validate your point just continues to reveal that either 1) you have absolutely no training in CCW, or 2) that you think using a firearm to defend yourself is somehow cheating or not honorable, which is an ego problem.
at least I try to validate my points.  I have already established the fact that I am not trained in ccw.
1.  That said, what special training are you referrring to that is/will be required for ccw? Hunters ed, a shooters course?, and now, if a peruta type law passes, no good cause for requesting and being granted ccw.  Its not necessarily, you, definately not funtimes, and hicarry that im really worried about.  Its the bulk of the dheep in society that m a y apply and have the power of ccw, but without the training or sense to use it responsibly.   What if they aim for center mass and miss, and wound, continue shooting? What if they miss and hit innocent bystanders? It seems the risk of opening ccw up will almost be a pandoras box of sorts, and its definately NOT the Hawaii I want in the future.  I think at this point, with the lack of crime statistics that warrant ccw, ccw is unnecessary here in Hawaii.
2  i do think it could be dishonorable to defend yourself with a firearm, depending on circumstances.  I also think people could abuse this privilege, if granted, by using deadly force when NOT absolutely necessary.   And that is my problem.

And why do you keep thinking that someone who is CCW trained automatically wants to kill someone for minor egotistical infractions?
I do not think that.You have it in your head that if someone insults us or hurts our feelings, that we are just going to shoot them.
do you have mental telepathy?  I dont think this either, but as a proponent of ccw, how do you know someone else who is granted ccw, wont do what you describe?

. Sorry, but the guys I know on this forum are not of that sort, so please don't try and say what someone might or might not do in a situation that does and/or does not demand presentation/application of lethal force.
you say this yet you, hicarry, paint elaborate, "what if" scenarios about what someone weak, physically ill, getting attacked by drunken drug crazed gang bangers..might or might not do and justfy application of lethal force.  Your double standard is silly, its seems like you are doing a great job of pushing people genuinely interested in understanding ccw and 2a away with your cocky and abrasive comments and attitude.  Seriously...you want to gain support or teach people about what you know, i suggest you learn to be polite. 
And I did say that, because an armed society is a polite society, given the fact that if you try to mess with someone who is armed, chances are they do have, in their choice of options, the ability to shoot you.
arent we already an armed society? Why aren't you polite yet? So, now if ccw is granted youre gonna start treating others respectfully and be polite?  If so, that may be the strongest arguement yet to grant ccw
Once again, if you don't like the fact that people will take the path of least resistance to avoid bodily harm or or death while trying to neutralize a threat, don't CCW if/when Hawaii allows it.
I may, I may not choose to exercise ccw, im trying to learn more about it so as to make my own decision on wether to support or not.  When the time to decide comes... I will.

Not to bash on you, but your arguments are very similar to the mindset of gun grabbers.  Why do you need this, why do gou need that (i.e. ar15 or 30rd mags).  To some it is a right that should not be infringed upon.

The problem is operating in hypotheticals. Are the situations you present possible? Yes. Is it likely? Not very, especially when you consider all the other states that issue ccw. These hypotheticals don't seem have any real basis. You say ccw will open up Pandora's box. There are around 30 states that issue ccw, but they don't seem to be having a lot of issues with these extreme scenarios you are presenting. Might I suggest some bedtime reading? http://hawaiiccw.com/gun-myths/concealed-carry-myths/people-permits-commit-crimes/ Research the topic from a different angle, you might be surprised.

@Bubba808

To clarify just a little more for you:

Our subjectiveness goes off of this 'mystical' reasonable person standard.   That type of stuff is generally left up to the jury, who is the 'reasonable person' (all together).  But, normally, in most of the country - trying to hurt someone with a weapon, or actually hurting someone (with anything) could get you laid down on a metal slab for life.  Some places even allow you to defend property with lethal force.  I would hate to say that the standard is not high, but it really doesn't take much to be able to seriously hurt or injure someone.  Where someone might see punching as no problem, to another that could be the most traumatic experience of their life. 

I would like to say that for the most part, people generally know when they are terrified.  People tend to avoid conflicts as best as possible, and most will leave or try to get away if they can. I think the lone rangers that you may be concerned with are few and far between.  When I first was carrying firearms in FL / GA, I realized that after a while it kind of changed and molded my behaviors.  The places that I was worried about needing a gun, I ended up not going to as often after I had a gun.  Other behavior changes were present to, such as walking in different and less populated entrances of the mall; all the punk ass kids were hanging out of the movies, so we would go adjacent though a sears or borders.

re - special training:
I do not think that Hawaii will buy or accept the basic training.  It's possible, and our courses that we instructed do meet the requirements for some states.  Other than saying I would like to see constitutional carry, what I would want is the tiered permit system like Arizona.  To carry generally, no permit is required... to carry in specific dense places you need proof of training.  Training for this stuff is generally like 20/25 rounds on target out to 25 yards.  It could be anything similar, but expect a scoring requirement.  professionally, I think any class without a scoring requirement is kind of just a fake class now. 

Re citizen shot and wounded:  What happens is the citizen can sue.  If the person dies, then it's possible he could be tried for some sort of manslaughter charge or reckless xxx.  But honestly, if it was a legit shot - this is probably going to be hard to pin criminally - and very easy civilly.

re hawaii crime:  Crime in hawaii is not non-existent.  In fact, back for 2009 - Hawaii was ranked 35th in the Country for violent crime.  While they were not the worse, there are far better; Vermont who had constitutional carry was the safest and ranked #1.  Also, the property crime rates in Hawaii are some of the most horrible in the country.  We were the 5th worst place in existence.  People rob and steal from people all the time in Hawaii.  Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but I have good word that crimes are under-reported by the media in Hawaii to preserve the tourism industry.  After teaching classes, I've had people come to learn who have been held hostage in their homes, been drug out at gun point by criminals, who have been raped, attacked, carjacked, and had all their personal possessions stolen.  Hawaii just isn't as safe as people think it is.   We do well in murder, but that's mostly due to the inactivity of gangs when you compare it to many other places.

Its pretty insulting, but I forgive your ignorance.   im simply struggling to understand other CCW proponents perspective so im asking questions? Its called getting educated and informed.  I have enjoyed firearms for hunting and target practice since I was a kid, and I still do enjoy it.    I have no problem with using firearms for these endeavors.  I struggle with the concept of everday citizens packing and possibly killing people, I am content with military/LEO possessing this power.  Forgive me for challenging, questioning, and validating others opinion.  Maybe you should ask more questions as your understanding is limited. The topic is CCW, which isnt a right or privilege as it is currently restricted here, therefore, currently nothing is being infringed upon.  This is not Arizona, Vermont, Alaska, Utah, or Kentucky.... this is Hawaii... I am comfortable with gun ownership w/o CCW here.  If there were stronger arguments for CCW, I may choose to support it, but at this time... imho, its unnecessary.

I struggle with the concept of everday citizens packing and possibly killing people, I am content with military/LEO possessing this power.

Of course im trying to illustrate the other side of the coin, if the rebutt had merit, then the hypotheticals would be centered around the " average person" instead of the weak, frail, ill, elderly, with the heart condition, being attacked by drunk, drug crazed, gangsters. 

Im going off my experience and travels to states/countries that had relaxed gun laws, I swear every other day as I watched the nightly news, there was a shooting on the highway from road rage, or a shooting in a parking lot or, something involving a gun.   It was also very uncomfortable being around people who were carrying and I was not.

You have it in your head that if someone insults us or hurts our feelings, that we are just going to shoot them.
do you have mental telepathy?  I dont think this either, but as a proponent of ccw, how do you know someone else who is granted ccw, wont do what you describe?