So when do you "need" to believe in God?  Some of the time or all of the time?  I mean if you aren't in immediate fear of death or immediate need of salvation, then you only believe in God when you need him?  I didn't think so.  You "carry" God with you all the time, just in case right?

well bud, actually, it doent quite work that way.  because I believe,  I need to live as GOD has commanded and do my best to stay on the straight and narrow path.  my everlasting life, after this physical body rots away, is based on my ability to live as prescribed as much as possible.  so to answer your question, every moment that I don't live IAW GODs laws, I jeapordize my chance at salvation, and will be put to death.  I carry GOD with me all the time because I have to, NOT JUST IN CASE!

Define"need". Clearly explain how your definition of need has any causal connection or relationship, or even correlation, with CCW and self-defense.
please see any dictionary? really any othese can do, but #4 fits the best.  is there any necessity arising from any circumstance of a situation or case that justifies CCW in Hawaii
need  -noun 
1. a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation: There is no need for you to go there. 
2. a lack of something wanted or deemed necessary: to fulfill the needs of the assignment. 
3. urgent want, as of something requisite: He has no need of your charity. 
4. necessity arising from the circumstances of a situation or case: There is no need to worry. 
5. a situation or time of difficulty; exigency: to help a friend in need; to be a friend in need. 

Necessity? Why must there be a "necessity"? If there is a "possibility" of a person enduring serious bodily injury at the hands of a criminal then that is all that ought to be required. See my post above. What I asked was how do you determine if anything is or is not a "necessity". You don't want to answer that question. Why? 

Define your terms. Clearly explain what the definitions you offer have to do with CCW and self-defense.
for example, are there statistics that depict a large enough problem in Hawaii [that a gun can solve] to warrant every citizen being allowed to carry a concealed firearm?

Again you avoid answering the question asked of you? Do you ever actually answer a question, or always deflect? What "statistic" would "depict a large enough problem in Hawaii" that would create your condition of "necessity"? If one person who could possibly have defended themselves had they been armed suffers serious bodily injury, that is "necessity" enough (given that all the statistics show that CCW has not in other jurisdictions increased crime). And clearly there is more than one person so injured in Hawaii, and likely more than one that could better defend themselves were they armed.

You wrote: "...to warrant every citizen being allowed to carry a concealed firearm". Ever heard of a "straw man argument"? You're full of them. No one that I am aware of has ever suggested that every citizen should be allowed to carry a concealed firearm. Why did you make that up? Why can't you just deal with the actual facts and claims without making things up that are no more than misleading and false red herrings? Name one person on this forum, or even anywhere else, that has suggested all convicted violent felons, adjudicated mentally ill, children, etc. carry concealed. Go ahead, support your claim. Let's see it.

How would you characterize what you are doing here? It seems you're making judgments and evaluations based upon the fact that people disagree with you on factual data and don't subscribe to your belief system.
expressing my opinion, and trying to understand if there are reasons to support CCW in Hawaii.  my opinions is not based on the fact that people disagree with me or my beliefs.. 

You make judgments and evaluations of people, including name calling, based upon people disagreeing with you. Clearly those are merely your opinions, I'm not disputing that. Your claim that you are only dealing with facts and/or reasons and not your opinions is absurd.  

If you choose to quote the "bible" you ipso facto have chosen to ignore the very concept of "facts".
  I believe in GOD and the bible contains fact.  my choice.  you can do whatever you want.   

Gee thanks. Sorry, but you don't get to choose what is and what is not "fact". I know you want to, because there is no actual evidence that would substantiate the vast majority of the superstitious mythology that is your "bible". When you use that document to attempt to justify secular laws you lose all credibility. Unless you want to say that all other religions and their "sacred scriptures" from their "gods" are equally valid with yours. Is that what you believe? And it's just a geographical happenstance of your birth location that you are a christian rather than a muslim or zoroastrian?    

What statistic(s) would satisfy your criteria for their being a "sufficient" "need (necessary)" [sic]?
see above   

Yeah, no answer is your answer. Good job.

Please clearly explain how the declining crime rate has any bearing on the issue of individuals being legally allowed to carry a weapon outside their property for the purpose of self-defense. Please refrain from quoting your "bible".
have you read any of the other posts?  Its others opinion that CCW reduces crime rates.  Im saying crime rates are reduced anyway, independent of CCW.   

Uh. Aren't you the person who claimed to have taken a statistics class?  Where's your multivariate time-regression analysis? Do I really have to explain this to you? Crime rates are going down. What does that have to do with how much they would have gone down had there been CCW in Hawaii? How do you know what it would have done had CCW been in place? Perhaps it would have gone down much more had CCW been in effect in Hawaii (as the majority of studies show is the case). You have nothing but pure speculation. Useless. Or are you are arguing that since crime has gone down, no one needs to do anything more to attempt to lower the crime rate even more because it is now so low that no one should care about the few remaining victims?

Really? That's laughable. Anyone who quotes the "bible" as authority for anything hasn't the foggiest notion of what "objectivity" is. You may be "trying", but you are failing miserably.
yes, youre laughable.  what do you believe in?  I think youre failing at this post. 

None of your business what I do or don't "believe in". I tend to choose verifiable facts that will withstand critical scrutiny as determined by the preponderance of replicable data. I'll give you a hint: It doesn't include any superstitious fairy tales full of "miracles". See David Hume.

You have "not seen anything substantial" in all the DGU data and other information presented because your a priori assumptions and beliefs and biases are so strong that you are incapable of reasoning. This lack of critical thinking skills, including the ability to evaluate evidence, is further borne out by your unwarranted belief that your "bible" is somehow authoritative in spite of all the evidence clearly showing that it is nothing but a collection of fables and myths mostly from a pre-literate culture that has since been added to, deleted from, edited, and changed in many ways, both in content and language meanings whenever it suited the power-controlling needs of the clerical bureaucrats who could intimidate and scare the ignorant masses by threats of "hell" and various kinds of torture (e.g. burning at the stake) if a person questioned the bureaucrats "authority" in any way (e.g. the earth revolves around the sun). Someone could just as meaningfully quote the Spiderman or Star Trek archives, but anyone who took their blabber of "authoritative" quotes seriously is equally deluded and incapable of critical thinking or evidence evaluation.
sorry, I haven't, care to site specifically which data I am supposed to be convinced by?  I thought you were confused about even basic definitions of terminology?  how did you come up with this gem?  you can think of the bible that way,and if you read my posts, I explain that.   lol smh.    star trek n spiderman- well u seem spacey to me

You make my point. If you examine all the evidence and conclude that the "bible" contains mostly factual accounts of events, then I'm not surprised in the least that you read all the studies regarding CCW and write the kinds of things you do about that subject.   

Again, your back to the "need" issue. Define it. And explain what kind of "need", and how any kind of "need" would meet your criteria for sufficiency for CCW.
please read above, I don't like repeating

You don't like actually answering questions is what you don't like. I'll give you another chance: What specific "necessity" would warrant, in your opinion, granting a person in Hawaii a CCW license, given that crime is going down anyway?

As we all know, anyone can "see" anything they want in the "bible". Anyone can justify anything they want using that mythological collection of fairy tales as an "authority". Whatever you see or don't see there has no bearing on the issue of CCW to anyone other than yourself or other deluded believers in such nonsense.
we all?  I dont agree.  the question was simply "does the bible say we can kill others when we feel threatened?"

Sorry, my mistake. I meant "all rational people with critical thinking skills willing to look at all the evidence and evaluate the quality of that evidence". Why do you seem to believe that it would matter to anyone other than yourself (and your fellow believers in superstition) what your "bible" says about such matters? Do you really believe that your particular document has any special authority compared to anything else ever written by other people throughout the history of mankind? I'll go with Kant's Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics.

Aloha bubba808,

In your own words, I think we can all agree that, "the right that the founding fathers had intended is to keep and bear arms and includes the right to carry, and by not granting, is an abuse of power."

Can we also agree that we each have different opinions, different tolerances, different physical statures, and are shaped by different past experiences?

Based upon one's own opinions/tolerances/physical statures/past experiences/etc., can we agree that where one individual may be/feel safe, another individual may be/feel threatened, insecure, and/or unsafe?

By not taking these things into consideration, an individual can be marginalized and his/her safety can be compromised.

In my mind it boils down to this:

An individual should have the option to exercise the ability to CCW, if that individual so chooses.

If one individual personally feels uncomfortable with exercising the ability to CCW, then that individual may certainly opt not to CCW.

However, just because one individual personally feels uncomfortable with the idea of CCW, themselves, that individual should not project his/her misgivings onto others, and preclude another individual from exercising the ability to CCW, if the other individual so chooses to CCW, and as long as the other individual can do so responsibly.

Or, perhaps I may have oversimplified the issue?

Respectfully,
new guy

It is impossible, IMHO, to "justify" CCW by stating the statistical odds of any one individual person needing a gun to defend themselves. Even if there was only 1 rape, 1 violent assault, and 1 murder per year, I would hold that there is still a need for CCW.

It is not the odds of anything bad happening that drives the desire to CCW, although in high crime areas one can certainly see more easily why one would choose to carry. Rather, I tend to think of it as what happens to "me" or "mine." In that regard it doesn't matter if the murder rate is very low if that murder is me or one of my loved ones.

this is the most meaningful response in this whole thread. I can accept this answer, and fully understand it.  it isn't pretty, but its the truth.  thanks HiCarry

It is not the odds of anything bad happening that drives the desire to CCW, although in high crime areas one can certainly see more easily why one would choose to carry. Rather, I tend to think of it as what happens to "me" or "mine." In that regard it doesn't matter if the murder rate is very low if that murder is me or one of my loved ones.

Mauidog,
Your follow on questions were irrelevant so i deleted them. 
Do you NEED a fire extinguisher?  No, but even if I did, you wont see me carrying one around just incase there were fires.  Now if I came across fires everyday, then I would carry it everyday.
Do you NEED an airbag in your car?  According to the government I do, they are in my newer cars n trucks no matter what.
Do you NEED a police force?  Me personally, No, but its not my choice.
Do you NEED life insurance?  No, but if were going to die soon, I'd wish I bought some so my family would be set.
Do you NEED a first aid kit at home, at work and in the car?  Yes, yes, no.  But you wont see me carrying one around cuz I dont need bandaids that often.
Do you NEED to learn CPR?  No,  but if I was interested in saving lives, or had friends/family with heart conditions, I would learn.
Do you NEED to learn how to swim? No, but I grew up here so I did learn. 
Do you NEED to finish high school?  No, but its not a good idea not to.
Do you NEED to go to the dentist twice a year? No but I do, but you wont see me carrying macsack around just in case I get a cavity.
Do you NEED to carry a gun?  The majority of the people will never have to use their concealed firearm. So based on your statement, then, no, I dont need to carry one.

Snipped:

Thanks bubba.

I am really nobody special. I am a transplant I grew up in NY & FL then the Army brought me here in 97, I have been here ever since. I am an Aircraft Mechanic, Citizen Soldier, Gentleman Farmer and Model Rocket Scientist. I bought my first firearm in the late 90's and have been a collector and recreational shooter time and money permitting. I am not all high speed nor do I claim to be. I have no other training in firearms besides what I have learned in the military and the NRA pistol course the missus and I took to get our affidavits. I have received the Army Marksmanship Unit rifle training similar to the slides and vids others have posted here recently. I am a PMI (Preliminary Marksmanship Instruction) instructor at my unit I can do M16/4 rifle but I will usually do the class for the M9 pistol. I have some college but no degree, I am a married homeowner we are childless at this time. I am not much on the bible I have tried to read it a few times but couldn't make it out of Genesis. I am a heavily lapsed Catholic, my wife is a Theravada Buddhist, I consider myself to be an Agnostic Theist at present.

Aloha see you around

p.s. I like rusty M-N's....

There is ONE word you used in your responses to my post that makes any sense at all, bubba.  That word is in red.... CHOICE.

If you choose to not prepare for an emergency, then you are responsible for the consequences.  My decision is my responsibility.  It's a very, very simple concept called individual responsibility. 

You live your life as you see fit, and I live mine as I choose.  As long as neither of us cause problems for the other or cause harm to our families, then what I do is none of your business.  Live and let live. 

Freedom ... liberty ... individual responsibility ... choice.

Speaking of God and the right to bear arms.....  A pastor (or priest if you're Catholic) was delivering a sermon entitled "Stand Still and Let the Good Lord Fight Your Battles", on the topic of not fighting but letting God vanquish evil himself.   As he was delivering the sermon, a gust of wind lifted his garment and the congregation noticed he was carrying a gun.

After the service a congregant asked him, "I understood your sermon, but aren't you contradicting yourself by carrying a gun? You did say you are supposed to let the Lord fight your battles for you?"

"I do", said the pastor / priest "the gun is just to hold them off until the Lord gets here".

understood, just dont want stray bullets headed my way when im out in public.  Individual responsibility is great, until it does affect or cause harm to our families.  Thanks

Okay, Mister "the odds are..".  What are the odds of  "stray bullets headed my way when im out in public" being caused by legal concealed carry permit holders?  Name as many incidents as you can, in the last 30 years, in which an innocent bystander in public was shot and killed by a stray bullet fired from a private citizen legally carrying a concealed weapon.

Now, for extra credit, list how many times an innocent person was shot and injured or killed by POLICE trying to stop a suspect.

Once you compile those "lengthy" lists, calculate the odds of which is more likely.  Based on that calculation, state your conclusion based purely on the facts and evidence your research includes.

Be sure to EXCLUDE any reports of "nearly killed", "almost shot" and other yellow journalist attempts to paint CCW permit holders in a bad light.

Again, LEGALLY CARRIED firearms only.

I assume you already have an idea of these numbers and details of the shootings that form the basis of your fear that stray bullets are a given where CCW is legal.

Okay, Mister "the odds are..".  What are the odds of  "stray bullets headed my way when im out in public" being caused by legal concealed carry permit holders?  Name as many incidents as you can, in the last 30 years, in which an innocent bystander in public was shot and killed by a stray bullet fired from a private citizen legally carrying a concealed weapon.

Now, for extra credit, list how many times an innocent person was shot and injured or killed by POLICE trying to stop a suspect.

Once you compile those "lengthy" lists, calculate the odds of which is more likely.  Based on that calculation, state your conclusion based purely on the facts and evidence your research includes.

Be sure to EXCLUDE any reports of "nearly killed", "almost shot" and other yellow journalist attempts to paint CCW permit holders in a bad light.

Again, LEGALLY CARRIED firearms only.

I assume you already have an idea of these numbers and details of the shootings that form the basis of your fear that stray bullets are a given where CCW is legal.

Sup new guy, I can agree with mostly everything you stated, heres my 2 cents.
by leaving the "choice" to exercise CCW up to an individual,  while that person may now be safer , can the safety of other citizens can be compromised???  to what extent? if the amount of crimes that CCW prevents, is equal or less than the amount of problems it creates, why would it be a good idea?  for a selfish individual, its a great idea, for a family, or community, maybe not such a good idea?  im not sure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States