once they introduced that other guy as being part of the every town-whatever its called, I thought to myself, "oh boy, here we go. another anti-gun person with biased opinions"

I can't stand watching Chin's body language and facial expressions
I wonder if he practices talking that way or if it's just his natural way of talking.  if it is, it is really irritating.  seems like he's trying to convince us of his way of thinking through more expressive body language and facial expressions, bc the words themselves are not very convincing.  most of the time he doesn't answer the question, and just says how he feels, or how he thinks something should be.
his expressions just look very fake to me.  body language of a liar.  but maybe I'm reading too much into it bc I really don't like the guy.

when seconds count, the police are minutes away
better to have a gun in the hand than a cop on the phone
I'd rather have conceal carry, but if it goes open carry, I'm ready for that too   

Agreed!

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Chin-Nuts brought up Bryan Uesugi case a couple times at least.  he said that he wasn't diagnosed with a mental illness, iirc.  but he was diagnosed but considered not a danger.  i think it was Queens originally that was seeing him, but switched to Kaiser for a reason idk.  this was years prior to the shooting.  later, families of the victims sues Xerox and Kaiser for ignoring the signs of mental illness.  the article says they settled, but i thought i read that its still ongoing, but i cant find a link saying its still ongoing, so I could be wrong
it is my belief that this is why Kaiser is so anti-gun and won't clear its patients when red flagged


https://murderpedia.org/male.U/u/uyesugi-byran.htm

when seconds count, the police are minutes away

And in more instances that not, it will always be this way.  That's why I believe that an armed society is a polite society.  We as armed citizens need a way to protect ourselves, our family, and each other.

I always think of that attempted mass murder of church patrons and how the mass murderer was killed by armed church goers.  It's tragic because some innocents got killed but it would have been worse had it not been for those armed citizens.

And now I wonder, if carry permits were allowed back in Nov. 2, 1999, would nut job Bryan even attempt mass murder at Xerox (since nut jobs are basically cowards unless they have superior control) or would one of the would be victims cap his worthless ass and save us taxpayers the expense of housing that turd for life.

[snippity]
The anti side played on emotion a lot. Especially Chris who mentioned in almost every speaking chance that he is a veteran.  Well so are the other 2 guys on our side, and none used their status to draw emotion.  Which worked out for us because it helped squash his "i'm a veteran, so the military trained me to be an expert" type of reasoning.  With all his talk about being trained, you would think that he was a grunt or something. Turns out he's a helicopter pilot.  Per his companies website, he was awarded the Bronze Star.  For what, IDK.
[snippity]

I'm a veteran.  I wasn't in the military .... I was in the Air Force.   

However, I was qualified "expert" with small arms.  I was required to re-qualify annually.  I was able to compete once in an Excellence in Arms event, where I was one point from qualifying.  I'm 99.99% sure the guy next to me got half a round on the very edge of my target.  His target looked like a dozen hits landed.  Mine had the center ripped  out keyhole style.  First count, they said I made 297 out of a possible 300.  When they handed the target to the second counter, he touched the ripped edge and felt the stray hole on the edge.  He said they had to subtract 10, giving me one point below the threshold for the next round in the competition.  I was a little angry that the guy next to me messed up my chances of going forward, but I did win 3 1/2 cases of beer from a coworker who bet me 2 beers a point.  He'd shown up a little hung over and without much sleep -- that was his excuse anyway.      Winning the bet made me a little less bitter about losing the round.

What that shows is that someone who did not grow up with guns, who had never fired a handgun before Air Force training, and who practiced on his own to maintain enough of his skill to make expert each year is totally capable of being more than just proficient with a firearm.

Being in combat, or any fire fight, is an experience I don't envy anyone.  But, if I ever am in that situation, I know I can hit the target.

Since then, I've taken a 5 day defensive handgun class to learn about the tactical areas of firearm application for self defense.  Clearing a room, putting 2 shots on target (center mass) in 3 seconds, and critical skills like clearing jams and checking for danger AFTER stopping the threat in front of me.

In the Air Force, I signed a document titled something like "Use of Lethal Force."  It went through the same points that Vet Chris was trying to state.  Firing a weapon at another person MAY (is not guaranteed) result in the taking of a life.  Killing a human being must be something you are prepared to do when your own life is in danger.  Funny how Chris kept forgetting that last part. 

Most people I think will do what they have to do when faced with a threat to their own life.  One of the reasons we trained with silhouette targets is it desensitizes you when pulling the trigger toward another human being.  The 2-page form had all the points Chris made and more.  It ended with: if you are unwilling or unable to see yourself ever using a firearm to harm another human being for any reason, including to save yourself or someone else, you should not own a firearm.  You should also sign the form and identify yourself as a "Conscientious Objector," someone who wants to serve in the military, but who is opposed to combat on moral grounds.

Chris had every chance in his military career, I'm sure, to identify as a contentious objector, but he didn't.  Why not?  Maybe because he did not hold moral, religious or other personal beliefs that would stop him from killing an attacker.  What does that say about him?  Was he conflicted that he was in a position where he didn't want to be?  Did he change his mind?  Did he ever kill anyone at all?  Was the carnage of war in general something that changed his view about civilians being armed?

I think Chris may have PTSD, and he should seek counseling.  His arguments and lecturing were pure emotion, even if the points are valid,  He said nothing that focused on the Constitutionality of bearing arms, but rather tried to convince us that carrying a firearm -- no, a machine designed only to kill -- is a really serious decision.  Well, duh! 

By the way, firearms are designed to kill, but it's the use of those firearms that separates murder from self defense.  If the other guy has a knife, gun or other potentially deadly weapon, I WANT lethal force on my side, too.  If there's more than one of them, a Tazer or Pepper Spray isn't going to hack it.

I'm a veteran.  I wasn't in the military .... I was in the Air Force.   

However, I was qualified "expert" with small arms.  I was required to re-qualify annually.  I was able to compete once in an Excellence in Arms event, where I was one point from qualifying.  I'm 99.99% sure the guy next to me got half a round on the very edge of my target.  His target looked like a dozen hits landed.  Mine had the center ripped  out keyhole style.  First count, they said I made 297 out of a possible 300.  When they handed the target to the second counter, he touched the ripped edge and felt the stray hole on the edge.  He said they had to subtract 10, giving me one point below the threshold for the next round in the competition.  I was a little angry that the guy next to me messed up my chances of going forward, but I did win 3 1/2 cases of beer from a coworker who bet me 2 beers a point.  He'd shown up a little hung over and without much sleep -- that was his excuse anyway.      Winning the bet made me a little less bitter about losing the round.

What that shows is that someone who did not grow up with guns, who had never fired a handgun before Air Force training, and who practiced on his own to maintain enough of his skill to make expert each year is totally capable of being more than just proficient with a firearm.

Being in combat, or any fire fight, is an experience I don't envy anyone.  But, if I ever am in that situation, I know I can hit the target.

Since then, I've taken a 5 day defensive handgun class to learn about the tactical areas of firearm application for self defense.  Clearing a room, putting 2 shots on target (center mass) in 3 seconds, and critical skills like clearing jams and checking for danger AFTER stopping the threat in front of me.

In the Air Force, I signed a document titled something like "Use of Lethal Force."  It went through the same points that Vet Chris was trying to state.  Firing a weapon at another person MAY (is not guaranteed) result in the taking of a life.  Killing a human being must be something you are prepared to do when your own life is in danger.  Funny how Chris kept forgetting that last part. 

Most people I think will do what they have to do when faced with a threat to their own life.  One of the reason we trained with silhouette targets is it desensitizes you when pulling the trigger toward another human being.  The 2-page form had all the points Chris made and more.  It ended with: if you are unwilling or unable to see yourself ever using a firearm to harm another human being for any reason, including to save yourself or someone else, you should not own a firearm.  You should also sign the form and identify yourself as a "Conscientious Objector," someone who wants to serve in the military, but who is opposed to combat on moral grounds.

Chris had every chance in his military career, I'm sure, to identify as a contentious objector, but he didn't.  Why not?  Maybe because he did not hold moral, religious or other personal beliefs that would stop him from killing an attacker.  What does that say about him?  Was he conflicted that he was in a position where he didn't want to be?  Did he change his mind?  Did he ever kill anyone at all?  Was the carnage of war in general something that changed his view about civilians being armed?

I think Chris may have PTSD, and he should seek counseling.  His arguments and lecturing were pure emotion, even if the points are valid,  He said nothing that focused on the Constitutionality of bearing arms, but rather tried to convince us that carrying a firearm -- no, a machine designed only to kill -- is a really serious decision.  Well, duh! 

By the way, firearms are designed to kill, but it's the use of those firearms that separates murder from self defense.  If the other guy has a knife, gun or other potentially deadly weapon, I WANT lethal force on my side, too.  If there's more than one of them, a Tazer or Pepper Spray isn't going to hack it.

Did the Air Force call it "Excellence in Arms" or was it what it was called back in the day when the Air Force was part of the Army? Today and in the Army I know of it is called EIC or leg matches

Did the Air Force call it "Excellence in Arms" or was it what it was called back in the day when the Air Force was part of the Army? Today and in the Army I know of it is called EIC or leg matches

If I remember, it was an all services event.  Not sure who ran it, but I was told that was one way they screen for potential Olympic participants.

If I was rich enough, I wouldn't carry a gun.  I would be like Floyd Mayweather and have some huge dudes (he requires that they know how to fight) as my bodyguards. I would still add couple protection dogs into the mix.

The one thing that pisses me off about the "other side's" comments, is they all leaned toward, "This is why carry is bad, and therefore we think no one should carry."

They are making the choice for us, rather than trusting each individual to make that choice for themselves.  If someone does something bad, they INDIVIDUALLY must face the consequences.  That's how America is supposed to work.

We are still in the midst of limits and restrictions imposed by government in the name of "public safety."  How many times did I hear "public safety" mentioned in the debate?  10?  15?  More?

I missed the part of the amendment that said we can keep and bear arms unless the government decides we can't due to public safety.

By the way, firearms are designed to kill, but it's the use of those firearms that separates murder from self defense.  If the other guy has a knife, gun or other potentially deadly weapon, I WANT lethal force on my side, too.  If there's more than one of them, a Tazer or Pepper Spray isn't going to hack it.

My sentiments exactly.

The one thing that pisses me off about the "other side's" comments, is they all leaned toward, "This is why carry is bad, and therefore we think no one should carry."

They are making the choice for us, rather than trusting each individual to make that choice for themselves.  If someone does something bad, they INDIVIDUALLY must face the consequences.  That's how America is supposed to work.

We are still in the midst of limits and restrictions imposed by government in the name of "public safety."  How many times did I hear "public safety" mentioned in the debate?  10?  15?  More?

I missed the part of the amendment that said we can keep and bear arms unless the government decides we can't due to public safety.

Yes.  Everytime I heard the tearful, sobbing sad story of "all in the interest of public safety" I would throw my hands up in frustration.

At one point I yelled: "WHO THE F**K DIED AND PUT YOU IN CHARGE OF WHAT EVERYONE THINKS???"

Last night's "debate" was like watching a soap opera.

I think Chris may have PTSD, and he should seek counseling.  His arguments and lecturing were pure emotion, even if the points are valid,  He said nothing that focused on the Constitutionality of bearing arms, but rather tried to convince us that carrying a firearm -- no, a machine designed only to kill -- is a really serious decision.  Well, duh! 

Chris is a professional consultant who I met a couple years ago.  He is contracted by multiple organizations, including Everytown and Moms Demand Action.  He organizes movements and does stuff like this for a living.  He's not a firearms expert but he did what he's good at:which is talking to regular people and using empathy to build a relationship with others watching.  Avi's role as the attorney was to give the history and background.  Doug's job was to tie it into life in Hawaii.  It would've been better if we had a woman on to work the empathy part on our side.

There are two different audiences, gun people and non-gun people, who see things very differently in the debate.

Chris's bio:
https://hawaiicbc.net/listings/chris-marvin/

All of Chin's arguments essentially boiled down to: "My feeling of safety matters more than your constitutional right to defend yourself". Guy is a clown and his voice is annoying as hell

Good debate.
I thought Kevin O'Grady did a real good job.
Doug Chin was real cringe worthy with all his feel statements.
The law professor had a good showing.
Kainoa did pretty good but I think he got a little too emotionally aggressive at a couple of points.
Chris did alright but he was too high makamaka