we still need to continue to fight, but things are not looking good for the near future
the incident in aiea practically guarantees SB 898, which is getting voted on next week (the one that despite 10 to 1 opposition in testimony, was approved unanimously in committee) will get overwhelming passed because "common sense gun safety regulations"
this bill enables "the system" to remove firearms and ammunition from an individual without due process immediately, bypassing due process, the right to know what you are being accused of, the right to attorney, the right to face your accuser, etc, etc, etc.

and ask yourself, what has happened to all the pro-gun bills that were introduced? never heard in committee, and definitely won't be heard now
and the hunting suppressor bill, which passed overwhelmingly in the first committee vote seems to be held in committee too

we still need to continue to fight, but things are not looking good for the near future
the incident in aiea practically guarantees SB 898, which is getting voted on next week (the one that despite 10 to 1 opposition in testimony, was approved unanimously in committee) will get overwhelming passed because "common sense gun safety regulations"
this bill enables "the system" to remove firearms and ammunition from an individual without due process immediately, bypassing due process, the right to know what you are being accused of, the right to attorney, the right to face your accuser, etc, etc, etc.

and ask yourself, what has happened to all the pro-gun bills that were introduced? never heard in committee, and definitely won't be heard now
and the hunting suppressor bill, which passed overwhelmingly in the first committee vote seems to be held in committee too

It's a good thing we live in a constitutional democratic republic where the rights of the few cannot be denied by a tyrannical majority nor a few powerful elites (politicians who happen to be committee chairs)!

My only disagreement with you is that the same fate you outline for all the bills was destined whether this particular incident had occurred or not. For example, tomorrow the media could report 10 cases on the same day of women in Hawaii who prevented rapes outside their homes by using firearms, illegally carried. I'll bet you a big (okay, "small") pile of money that the legislature would not take any steps at all to further any of the "shall issue" CCW bills. And, yes, I really do think it's "that bad".

My only disagreement with you is that the same fate you outline for all the bills was destined whether this particular incident had occurred or not. For example, tomorrow the media could report 10 cases on the same day of women in Hawaii who prevented rapes outside their homes by using firearms, illegally carried. I'll bet you a big (okay, "small") pile of money that the legislature would not take any steps at all to further any of the "shall issue" CCW bills. And, yes, I really do think it's "that bad".

i never mentioned what might have happened if the incident not occurred, so there is no reason to disagree..

Wow.
I was enjoying a nice day in beautiful Hawaii....

Until you had to remind me that I'm still living in Hawaii.

i never mentioned what might have happened if the incident not occurred, so there is no reason to disagree..

You wrote: "the incident in aiea practically guarantees SB 898"

You imply that the result of the vote was not "practically guaranteed" until the Aiea incident. Are you claiming that the outcome the vote on SB898 would have been different had that incident not taken place? In what way to what degree? Of course there is no way to determine what the vote would have been without the incident, but there is a long history of the Hawaii legislature floor votes when the voting body (in this case the senate) is 100% or near 100% Democrats and the bill has previously been passed out of two committees by unanimous votes. I don't know the total legislative history of the Hawaii legislature but I'd be very surprised if there was ever a bill that met those conditions and was then defeated in the floor vote. If such is the case 100% or nearly 100% of the time I think it would be reasonable to conclude that such a bill is "practically guaranteed" to pass the floor vote independent of any extra-legislative events.

Wow.
I was enjoying a nice day in beautiful Hawaii....

Until you had to remind me that I'm still living in Hawaii.

Why in the world would you want to ruin a perfectly beautiful day by getting on the internet? 

You wrote: "the incident in aiea practically guarantees SB 898"

You imply that the result of the vote was not "practically guaranteed" until the Aiea incident. Are you claiming that the outcome the vote on SB898 would have been different had that incident not taken place? In what way to what degree? Of course there is no way to determine what the vote would have been without the incident, but there is a long history of the Hawaii legislature floor votes when the voting body (in this case the senate) is 100% or near 100% Democrats and the bill has previously been passed out of two committees by unanimous votes. I don't know the total legislative history of the Hawaii legislature but I'd be very surprised if there was ever a bill that met those conditions and was then defeated in the floor vote. If such is the case 100% or nearly 100% of the time I think it would be reasonable to conclude that such a bill is "practically guaranteed" to pass the floor vote independent of any extra-legislative events.

if you really feel that much of a need to be correct about this, then i concede

people are calling for more gun laws / bans...the theme I get is that "This is Hawaii not the mainland...why we need guns? up & up " etc...
more laws don't affect the criminal..people don't get that. They believe in a utopia where guns don't exist and they want to reach. There is a point of diminishing returns

If HI had a series of active shooter/mass shootings, our stupid politicians would call for a complete ban and confiscation of all guns thinking that would solve the problem.

If HI had a series of active shooter/mass shootings, our stupid politicians would call for a complete ban and confiscation of all guns thinking that would solve the problem.

We need to ban cars! Do you have any idea how many people are killed each year through senseless car accidents and violence?

Nevermind, next thing you know they'll have to ban shoes because all the walking in constrictive shoes is causing bunions....

It's a good thing we live in a constitutional democratic republic where the rights of the few cannot be denied by a tyrannical majority nor a few powerful elites (politicians who happen to be committee chairs)!

My only disagreement with you is that the same fate you outline for all the bills was destined whether this particular incident had occurred or not. For example, tomorrow the media could report 10 cases on the same day of women in Hawaii who prevented rapes outside their homes by using firearms, illegally carried. I'll bet you a big (okay, "small") pile of money that the legislature would not take any steps at all to further any of the "shall issue" CCW bills. And, yes, I really do think it's "that bad".

This would be a good time to present studies about women preventing rape with firearms.

This would be a good time to present studies about women preventing rape with firearms.

There are all kinds of studies about DGUs (defensive gun uses), starting with Gary Kleck's work in the late 80s. Besides the raw numbers, we also know that the people who use firearms for self-defense suffer fewer injuries during crimes than people who do not put up any defense or defend without a weapon.

If a guy pulls a knife on a woman, and she pulls a gun, and he leaves, did she prevent a rape? A robbery? An assault? A kidnapping? A murder?

There are all kinds of studies about DGUs (defensive gun uses), starting with Gary Kleck's work in the late 80s. Besides the raw numbers, we also know that the people who use firearms for self-defense suffer fewer injuries during crimes than people who do not put up any defense or defend without a weapon.

If a guy pulls a knife on a woman, and she pulls a gun, and he leaves, did she prevent a rape? A robbery? An assault? A kidnapping? A murder?

Hmm, I wonder how we could answer these questions...         

I'm depressed completely with this state...  An 80 YO lady get the crap beat out of her, and a guy gets stabbed in the throat,   I suggest we should be able to have armed self defense and the utopians ask why meeting violence with violence is a good thing....  f**king disgusting....   

Hmm, I wonder how we could answer these questions...         

We could only answer those specific questions if 1. the criminal announced his intent, and/or 2. the criminal began the assault/rape/robbery/etc. before being stopped.

What we do know for sure: a crime was averted and a potential victim was not successfully victimized. Another successful defensive gun use (DGU). And the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that there are far more DGUs than criminal victimizations using guns. Thus the net cost/benefit analysis, on that basis alone, comes down on the side of "benefit".

But no statistical analysis, no matter what it's "conclusion", regarding any aspects of firearms uses has any bearing on the fact the the right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing fundamental individual enumerated right that shall not be infringed (unless you live in a jurisdiction ruled by traitors to the Constitution).

I'm depressed completely with this state...  An 80 YO lady get the crap beat out of her, and a guy gets stabbed in the throat,   I suggest we should be able to have armed self defense and the utopians ask why meeting violence with violence is a good thing....  f**king disgusting....   

I feel your pain. Maybe we should start a new topic "The particular emotional and intellectual pain I suffered today when I saw/read/heard another asinine thing in Hawaii"? Talk about depressing...

I follow the national news re firearms and Second Amendment rights fairly closely, and every day I read about DGUs by CCW licensees in other states and every day I read about states taking measures to make it less restrictive (aka more freedom and liberty) for citizens to keep and bear arms to defend themselves (14 states now have some version of permitless/"constitutional" carry (and 23 more have/had bills introduced in their legislatures this session), and the others (except for 5) are all "shall issue"). Yet here in Hawaii NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON MAY LEGALLY EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS DESPITE EVERY FUCKING LEGISLATOR AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAVING SWORN AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. They are all traitors. There is no other way to say it. They deserve to be held accountable for their traitorous/treasonous acts. They make a mockery of the concept of "the rule of law". And they do so with total impunity. It literally makes me sick.

Other than that, it's all good. 

We could only answer those specific questions if 1. the criminal announced his intent, and/or 2. the criminal began the assault/rape/robbery/etc. before being stopped.
What we do know for sure: a crime was averted and a potential victim was not successfully victimized. Another successful defensive gun use (DGU). And the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that there are far more DGUs than criminal victimizations using guns. Thus the net cost/benefit analysis, on that basis alone, comes down on the side of "benefit".
But no statistical analysis, no matter what it's "conclusion", regarding any aspects of firearms uses has any bearing on the fact the the right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing fundamental individual enumerated right that shall not be infringed (unless you live in a jurisdiction ruled by traitors to the Constitution).

I don't believe we should avoid statistical analysis out of fear of it's conclusion. You're right, the 2A gives us a fundamental right, but the courts have allowed a certain grey area between gun control and gun rights. I have "faith" that the research will favor gun rights.

Looks like HI is ready to become a self declared sanctuary state.   State leaders probably following the marching orders of their leaders like Clinton, Obama and old man Soros.   They must be getting cash under the table to promote this crap.
I'm at the point of hoping these baboozes get their wish.  Fed funding for local law enforcement, transportation, infrastructure, gone.   Have them moved to Makiki, Manoa.
We can be whistle blowers and turn in local officials who don't follow fed law.   
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/04/18/breaking-news/hawaii-resolution-calls-for-creating-sanctuary-state/

Gov Ige will build a wall around Hawaii to keep Immigration agents out.