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 

I did once before and I'd do it again in a heartbeat if we became a  "shall issue" state!! 

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 ... 

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 ... 

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