The portion you highlighted in red was about CCW that is used to stop crime.

I don't think the issue of mental health and gun ownership is an all or nothing question requiring. It is a difficult thing to do and probably nearly impossible to make sure no innocent people have their rights restricted but I don't think that dictates the answer be that no regulation can be done on the matter. The severity of the infringement on someone's rights has to be weighed against the need. Requiring someone to have an ID to vote might make someone miss their chance to vote however the need for security of the voting system is a much greater need. Probably the bigger need than keeping crazies from having guns is keeping bad criminals from having guns. If we don't have some answers on ways of keeping criminals from buying guns and just say that it is more important that the rest of us don't have to have any sort of regulation at all then it looks like we are fine with letting criminals have guns.

That's a good point, but I think the idea we need to highlight is that keeping law-abiding citizens from carrying DOES NOTHING to discourage criminals from carrying.  So, loosening the restrictions on carry for us won't cause more criminals to carry guns... They're not EVER going to get permits for them! So the only argument they're left with is the "somebody cuts in line at Safeway, bloodbath ensues" myth, which we can easily disprove.  Plus, Joe Bag-o-Malasadas knows that isn't happening, because if it was, it would be on the national news every night.

How did Carlisle get elected?  He is an idiot.  Not just to be mean and belittle him but an actual idiot.

"Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote."

There is nothing that can stop people who shouldn't have firearms from having them that won't effect law abiding citizens.

Criminals do not follow the law

You are right, it will affect law abiding citizens. But we can weigh the affect on law abiding citizens against the need to keep certain people from having guns. I am not saying where the line should be drawn right now but a minor inconvenience to law abiding citizens might be warranted if it meant a much safer society. Just because a law abiding citizen might be affected doesn't mean we cannot do anything on the matter. We see this with the first amendment.

And you are right, criminals won't follow the law but some gun control laws would make it harder for a criminal to get a gun because the law abiding will follow the law. For example if we had no regulations other than a law that says criminals cannot own guns then I as a law abiding citizen might unknowingly sell a gun to a criminal. However with some forms of background checks, I as a law abiding citizen will be able to refrain from selling the criminal a firearm thus making it harder for said criminal to get a gun.

Lets consider a parallel, I as an adult can drink alcohol and serve alcohol at a party and a law abiding youth at my party won't take any. However a law that says I cannot make it such a situation where youth can easily drink the alcohol will keep me as a law abiding citizen from creating a situation where a youth could easily obtain alcohol. Ok, not the perfect parallel, but you get what I am getting at right? Perhaps the law concerning guns being kept in secure locations so a youth cannot access it might be more applicable?

Dep AG said that carrying a gun intimidates..only LE and military can do that....


AAAHHHH! MUDDABITCH!

.

This went more or less like I thought it might.

The entire "debate" was biased from the start. Right from the opening statement by the supposed "moderator" referencing the Xerox murders.

Carlisle and Louie did what politicians do best, play on the fear and ignorance of the average citizen that knows nothing about firearms. Whenever rude and inconvenient facts were presented, they were ignored or swept aside with statements like "Well, I don't know about that, but I feel.....blah, blah,blather etc. Carlisle resorted to outright fabrications and fantasy and showed an alarming ignorance regarding criminals for someone who was once DA. Probably why there are so many more criminals on the street today. Louie made it seem as if something wonderful would be taken away from the people if CCW or open carry was allowed in Hawaii. Rather than a Constitutionally protected Right being restored. The really sad thing is, these were once the top LE officials in the state.

Kudos to Harvey and Bill for their patience and restraint. I don't think I could've sat next to Carlisle without smacking him. I've wanted to every time I've met the little twerp.

We need CCW to protect us law abiding citizens from criminals like this: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/27804533/oahu-teen-gets-10-year-sentence-for-beating-death-of-elderly-man

We need CCW to protect us law abiding citizens from criminals like this: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/27804533/oahu-teen-gets-10-year-sentence-for-beating-death-of-elderly-man

Yes, we really do.
 This kid only has to serve 3years and 4 months to be eligible for parole, for murdering a man in cold blood.

Yes, we really do.
 This kid only has to serve 3years and 4 months to be eligible for parole, for murdering a man in cold blood.

says 10 years...is that the reason why he is smirking?

says 10 years...is that the reason why he is smirking?

You have to read all the way to the last line ...

Marsolo must serve at least three years and four months of his sentence before he becomes eligible for parole.

says 10 years...is that the reason why he is smirking?

Yes, 10 years is the sentence handed down by the judge. The parole board then gets to decide "the minimum" he must serve to be eligible for parole. In other words, 10 years doesn't mean 10 years. With "good" behavior, and assuming the parole board decides he's learned his lesson, he can be released into the public in 3 years and 4 months. Sooner if they credit him with "time served" while he awaited trial, which they usually do.

This is how we end up with people amongst us with 50 prior convictions.

.

I am a little disappointed by Bill Richter. On some real serious issues it seems he beat around the bush and failed to answer a few of the issues. The one that most stood out was when the moderator was trying to get an answer on how to make sure we keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. I don't know if he did it on purpose or just got sidetracked by the TRO question but I think it hurt his side for a lot of the undecided viewers.

I appreciate your constructive criticism.

Both sides brought up some good points and failed to address some good points. The conversation suffered too many tangents that could have addressed big issues but then got stuck on smaller technical ones. When Mr. Richter had the chance to rebut the belief that CCW never stops/rarely stops crime he got sidetracked and never brought the issue back up. That was one key argument that he could have easily pushed back in their faces and neglected to. I don't mean to attack him for it, I understand how an in an active debate things can move fast, I just wish it had been mentioned.

I beg to differ. I tried to bring it up and I did. In the process of doing so I was scolded by the moderator to "stop interrupting" and when Louie finished speaking at 17:19 the moderator had already started changing the topic before the timer reached 17:20 so there could be a cooling off period.....

The fact is that the moderator was extremely biased and steered the conversation in the direction he wanted. And when "we" started gaining any traction he would switch topics or otherwise derail us. Did you note how, despite telling me I had to stop interrupting he remained quiet when Carlisle wouldn't let me get a word in edgewise when he was spouting off about the drinking/alcohol thing?

I appreciate your constructive criticism.

I beg to differ. I tried to bring it up and I did. In the process of doing so I was scolded by the moderator to "stop interrupting" and when Louie finished speaking at 17:19 the moderator had already started changing the topic before the timer reached 17:20 so there could be a cooling off period.....

The fact is that the moderator was extremely biased and steered the conversation in the direction he wanted. And when "we" started gaining any traction he would switch topics or otherwise derail us. Did you note how, despite telling me I had to stop interrupting he remained quiet when Carlisle wouldn't let me get a word in edgewise when he was spouting off about the drinking/alcohol thing?

You did as well as can be expected under the circumstances HiCarry. Carlisle and Louie were allowed to spew rhetoric, opinion, and disinformation throughout the supposed "debate". The moderator was obviously ignorant in regards to firearms and biased in favor of gun control. I don't recall a single "fact" being put forth in defense of Hawaii's laws from that side of the table. Any time you or Harvey presented a factual argument the moderator allowed them to answer with rhetoric or changed the topic. A good moderator would've called them on it and forced them to respond to the question or concede the point.

But this is the nature of the argument for gun control. Logic, reason and factual evidence is not on their side, they must resort to fear mongering and hiding behind ignorance to promote their cause.

I beg to differ. I tried to bring it up and I did. In the process of doing so I was scolded by the moderator to "stop interrupting" and when Louie finished speaking at 17:19 the moderator had already started changing the topic before the timer reached 17:20 so there could be a cooling off period.....

The fact is that the moderator was extremely biased and steered the conversation in the direction he wanted. And when "we" started gaining any traction he would switch topics or otherwise derail us. Did you note how, despite telling me I had to stop interrupting he remained quiet when Carlisle wouldn't let me get a word in edgewise when he was spouting off about the drinking/alcohol thing?

I didn't realize you were Mr. Richter, well nice to meet you. I did notice that you brought it up and was told to stop interrupting. I was just waiting for him to finish so you could bring up the counterpoint and throw the argument right back in his face. I don't blame you for that really but I just think it was a missed opportunity to provide a real strong argument. I wasn't thrilled with the moderator either, sometimes he would focus on one issue but other times it seems like he had ADD.

This is not to say I would have done any better!

I didn't realize you were Mr. Richter, well nice to meet you. I did notice that you brought it up and was told to stop interrupting. I was just waiting for him to finish so you could bring up the counterpoint and throw the argument right back in his face. I don't blame you for that really but I just think it was a missed opportunity to provide a real strong argument. I wasn't thrilled with the moderator either, sometimes he would focus on one issue but other times it seems like he had ADD.

This is not to say I would have done any better!

Unfortunately the moderator was extremely biased and would change the subject every single time Bill or Harvey brought up a point that Peter couldn't counter, the most glaring was Bill's question to Peter regarding fragmenting bullets and stopping power.

I watched it live but also had it recorded and I watched it with my wife the next day.  While she doesn't share the strong views that most of us do she saw straight through their hypocrisy and elitist privilege, especially when it came to mental health.  I think the thing that pissed her off the most was their ability to arbitrarily refuse her constitutional right to purchase a weapon for self defense simply because she had seen a therapist when her parents got divorced 15 years ago.....  I thought you guys did a great job bringing that to light with Kaiser's ability to just check yes without providing an explanation.