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.

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 for all your macho posturing and name-calling: bullshit. bullshit and fluff.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

Make it public...I'm OK with it....

Why would being trained to defend and maintain custody of your firearm be a irrational requirement?!?!

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...