https://www.kitv.com/news/crime/tantalus-shooting-new-details-released-as-suspect-faces-charges/article_92603fb9-1cfb-40ab-9eda-ad8aa1f63e67.html

She explained that Garside drove her to an unknown cemetery, where they smoked methamphetamine. The woman claimed that Garside gave her some money and that she gave it back to him. She then drove the car and they went up to the Tantalus Drive, the hills.

The woman then stopped the car at some point along Tantalus Drive when Garside wanted her to go to a different place but she refused. Then, Garside allegedly shot her in close range which made her lose her hearing for a moment. Afterwards she opened the car door and ran to hide in some bushes until he left the area.

Shooter and victim smoked meth before he shot her after she refused sex. He's also a felon, so how did he get a gun?

https://www.kitv.com/news/crime/tantalus-shooting-new-details-released-as-suspect-faces-charges/article_92603fb9-1cfb-40ab-9eda-ad8aa1f63e67.html

She explained that Garside drove her to an unknown cemetery, where they smoked methamphetamine. The woman claimed that Garside gave her some money and that she gave it back to him. She then drove the car and they went up to the Tantalus Drive, the hills.

The woman then stopped the car at some point along Tantalus Drive when Garside wanted her to go to a different place but she refused. Then, Garside allegedly shot her in close range which made her lose her hearing for a moment. Afterwards she opened the car door and ran to hide in some bushes until he left the area.

Shooter and victim smoked meth before he shot her after she refused sex. He's also a felon, so how did he get a gun?

I've yet to see more than one or two on the anti-gun side actually define the "real problem."  All they have are agendas they pretend are solutions.  Yet, when you stop to think how any of their solutions would have stopped a single crime, you see the truth.

I've yet to see more than one or two on the anti-gun side actually define the "real problem."  All they have are agendas they pretend are solutions.  Yet, when you stop to think how any of their solutions would have stopped a single crime, you see the truth.

Yeah that’s what happens when every possible gun crime has already had a law against it on the books for decades now, and your true agenda is simply to disarm lawful U.S. citizens.

The sum total of Everytown for Internment Camps argument for SB401’s unconstitutional total ban on the sale of semiautomatic long guns boiled down to: “Some lunatic (most likely a tranny…) could use one in a mass shooting, someday, even though they’ve been lawful here since forever, and it hasn’t come close to happening yet.”

That’s it.

Then, when some Tarnass or Rhoadkill drafts the damn bill for them, they ritually begin by noting, what? …… THAT HAWAII RANKS NEAR THE BOTTOM OF GUN CRIME NATIONALLY, that’s what.

Now what was I going to say …. Oh yeah, it’s not possible to hate them enough.

Are guns the problem? Yes and no.
Guns do not make humans more violent, but they do make us capable of being more effective when they are violent.

The problem with this story is drugs and I would bet some other social ills that often tie into drug use.
But if the guy didn't have a gun he couldn't have shot her (obviously). Doesn't mean he wouldn't have still been violent, he might have still punched her, hit her with an object, etc. but she wouldn't have gotten shot.

For the sake of this issue I think it would be good to differentiate premeditated gun crimes and non-premedicated gun crimes. If I am going to target someone to kill them, rob them, etc then I am specifically arming myself and planning to use violence. However if I am not planning to be violent but a situation arises (bar fight, domestic argument, etc.) then there is a likelihood that what would have normally been a fistfight now becomes a murder. Not because I planned to commit a murder but because I now was in an aggressive state and I have a firearm so in my altered state of mind, I might now use it. I remember the story of a murder at a bar in Kaneohe, would have just been a fistfight most likely but the guy pulled out a knife and stabbed the other guy in the heart, killing him. Did the knife make him more aggressive? Probably not but it enabled him to kill the guy where before probably no one would have died.

So the gun isn't the problem, but it also isn't not part of the problem either.

I think the left has this myopic view about how gun regulations will solve the problem and there are certain logical elements to it but it is not a comprehensive view of the overall problem.

Are guns the problem? Yes and no.

 


To me, guns are never the problem.  Guns in the wrong hands are.

Are guns the problem? Yes and no.
Guns do not make humans more violent, but they do make us capable of being more effective when they are violent.

The problem with this story is drugs and I would bet some other social ills that often tie into drug use.
But if the guy didn't have a gun he couldn't have shot her (obviously). Doesn't mean he wouldn't have still been violent, he might have still punched her, hit her with an object, etc. but she wouldn't have gotten shot.

For the sake of this issue I think it would be good to differentiate premeditated gun crimes and non-premedicated gun crimes. If I am going to target someone to kill them, rob them, etc then I am specifically arming myself and planning to use violence. However if I am not planning to be violent but a situation arises (bar fight, domestic argument, etc.) then there is a likelihood that what would have normally been a fistfight now becomes a murder. Not because I planned to commit a murder but because I now was in an aggressive state and I have a firearm so in my altered state of mind, I might now use it. I remember the story of a murder at a bar in Kaneohe, would have just been a fistfight most likely but the guy pulled out a knife and stabbed the other guy in the heart, killing him. Did the knife make him more aggressive? Probably not but it enabled him to kill the guy where before probably no one would have died.

So the gun isn't the problem, but it also isn't not part of the problem either.

I think the left has this myopic view about how gun regulations will solve the problem and there are certain logical elements to it but it is not a comprehensive view of the overall problem.

Constitutional rights are the problem.

Were it not for protections of individual rights, the government could seize all firearms, thereby taking them out of the equation.

It's a two-way argument.  If you think guns are at least part of the problem, then you must also believe that the Second Amendment prevents the only solution -- a complete and total ban of firearms in civilians hands.

Now let's do the 1st Amendment.  People who speak against the government are creating division and tension.  do away with that, and the nation will be healed by believing in what the government does.  Think about all the anti-Trump press that would have never existed.  trump would have been 1000 times more successful in his first term had the press and individuals been barred from calling him Hitler, a racist and a fascist.

The whole problem is Americans enjoy our freedoms so much, we take them for granted.  it's the few among us who violate the trust freedom requires who demonstrate the downside of freedom.

Freedom, or security.  It's not a thought experiment.  The story has been played out time and time again throughout history.

Constitutional rights are the problem.

Were it not for protections of individual rights, the government could seize all firearms, thereby taking them out of the equation.

It's a two-way argument.  If you think guns are at least part of the problem, then you must also believe that the Second Amendment prevents the only solution -- a complete and total ban of firearms in civilians hands.

I think this is a false dichotomy that only works if we think of gun violence as an all or nothing type thing but we know that while guns do correlate to higher murders, there are also other factors that play a role and that without those factors you can have high levels of gun ownership without high levels of murder.

The whole problem is Americans enjoy our freedoms so much, we take them for granted.  it's the few among us who violate the trust freedom requires who demonstrate the downside of freedom.

Freedom, or security.  It's not a thought experiment.  The story has been played out time and time again throughout history.

I have thought about this freedom vs security quite a bit and I think it is not something we can put as one or the other, it is very much a sliding scale and we are always trying to find the right balance.

I often point out to people making arguments for stricter gun control that we could save far more lives, solve more social problems, and significantly reduce the number of firearm murders if we got rid of alcohol. Oddly enough they rarely want to admit or consider that option.

I think this is a false dichotomy that only works if we think of gun violence as an all or nothing type thing but we know that while guns do correlate to higher murders, there are also other factors that play a role and that without those factors you can have high levels of gun ownership without high levels of murder.


I have thought about this freedom vs security quite a bit and I think it is not something we can put as one or the other, it is very much a sliding scale and we are always trying to find the right balance.

I often point out to people making arguments for stricter gun control that we could save far more lives, solve more social problems, and significantly reduce the number of firearm murders if we got rid of alcohol. Oddly enough they rarely want to admit or consider that option.

Straw argument.  I never said any of that.  What i said was, you only eluded to a solution, which is the removal of guns from society.  i went further to identify why that solution can't happen without the Constitution being changed (or ignored).

"Are guns the problem? Yes and no."
"So the gun isn't the problem, but it also isn't not part of the problem either."

In other words, there can never be a solution as long as guns are allowed to be in the hands of the public.  You can't declare guns to be not "not part of the problem either" and believe any solution other than 100% confiscation must also be part of the solution.

Any equivocation as to guns being the problem, even as a small part, means you must also believe guns must be eliminated to solve the problem.

This is all very philosophical, and that’s fine.

But, I believe any human being has the right to defend themselves or others against violence perpetrated against them by anything or anyone whatsoever, and that no man has the right to obstruct their ability to do so, whatsoever.

That some others use the same means that a moral man uses to accomplish that defense, for the purposes of crime, is an utterly separate issue indeed.

To point to this latter case as justification for obstructing a moral man’s ability to defend himself, is effectively, the promotion of a crime, one way or another.

Straw argument.  I never said any of that.  What i said was, you only eluded to a solution, which is the removal of guns from society.  i went further to identify why that solution can't happen without the Constitution being changed (or ignored).

"Are guns the problem? Yes and no."
"So the gun isn't the problem, but it also isn't not part of the problem either."

In other words, there can never be a solution as long as guns are allowed to be in the hands of the public.  You can't declare guns to be not "not part of the problem either" and believe any solution other than 100% confiscation must also be part of the solution.

I was not saying that you were making a false dichotomy about the second amendment. Where I thought the false dichotomy was when you said
"If you think guns are at least part of the problem, then you must also believe that the Second Amendment prevents the only solution -- a complete and total ban of firearms in civilians hands."
Actually it is more of a non-sequitur but painting is as we either have the 2nd amendment or no privately owned arms is the false dichotomy because it isn't all or nothing.

"You can never have a perfect solution as long as guns are allowed to be in the hands of the public" would be an accurate way of saying it.

Any equivocation as to guns being the problem, even as a small part, means you must also believe guns must be eliminated to solve the problem.

That is a non sequitur.

This is all very philosophical, and that’s fine.

But, I believe any human being has the right to defend themselves or others against violence perpetrated against them by anything or anyone whatsoever, and that no man has the right to obstruct their ability to do so, whatsoever.

That some others use the same means that a moral man uses to accomplish that defense, for the purposes of crime, is an utterly separate issue indeed.

To point to this latter case as justification for obstructing a moral man’s ability to defend himself, is effectively, the promotion of a crime, one way or another.

That's how a freedom-thinking person who believes in the means of self defense and the defense against tyranny would think.

He firmly believes guns are the problem, because guns allow people incapable of killing otherwise to use lethal force.  Cops are often indoctrinated into the belief that fewer guns in the public's hands make their lives much safer.  Therefore. they tend to fall on the anti-gun side of the argument even though they say they believe in the right to bear arms.  if you haven't caught on yet, EEF falls into that grouping.

i think he struggles with cognitive dissonance when it comes to the right to own guns.  He sees benefits to both a right to keep and bear arms as well as the hypothetical elimination of firearms in the hands of the public.

Until he's able to reconcile his quandary to a reasonable conclusion, I expect him to continue to espouse both a pro-2A and anti-gun position.

He proves this with:

"You can never have a perfect solution as long as guns are allowed to be in the hands of the public" would be an accurate way of saying it.

This is all very philosophical, and that’s fine.

But, I believe any human being has the right to defend themselves or others against violence perpetrated against them by anything or anyone whatsoever, and that no man has the right to obstruct their ability to do so, whatsoever.

That some others use the same means that a moral man uses to accomplish that defense, for the purposes of crime, is an utterly separate issue indeed.

To point to this latter case as justification for obstructing a moral man’s ability to defend himself, is effectively, the promotion of a crime, one way or another.

I agree with you in principle however I think the reality with human beings is that we are not all that moral, or more accurately that we are not always consistently moral. Most humans can get angry at points in their life and we know that when we get angry our capability for high level reasoning starts to diminish. So, for example, if you had a few drinks at the bar and a guy shoves you for "giving stink eye" your brain (and mine too) is not going to think through pulling your concealed weapon out and using it in the same way that you would in a calm state. In this scenario, you are not an evil person going out looking to hurt someone, you are not an immoral criminal, but being human you are subject to emotional survival reactional responses that in hind sight would be a bad choice and the only difference between two sides with black eyes and a murder charge is the presence of the weapon. Humans, at our best, are rational beings, but often we are not at our best. Half of all murder suspects and half of all murder victims are found to be under the influence at the time of the murder.

Flapp, in his dishonesty, will have you believe in some strawman misrepresentation of what I said. I hope this helps expand on what I meant at by the firearm having a part to play.

I agree with you in principle however I think the reality with human beings is that we are not all that moral, or more accurately that we are not always consistently moral. Most humans can get angry at points in their life and we know that when we get angry our capability for high level reasoning starts to diminish. So, for example, if you had a few drinks at the bar and a guy shoves you for "giving stink eye" your brain (and mine too) is not going to think through pulling your concealed weapon out and using it in the same way that you would in a calm state. In this scenario, you are not an evil person going out looking to hurt someone, you are not an immoral criminal, but being human you are subject to emotional survival reactional responses that in hind sight would be a bad choice and the only difference between two sides with black eyes and a murder charge is the presence of the weapon. Humans, at our best, are rational beings, but often we are not at our best. Half of all murder suspects and half of all murder victims are found to be under the influence at the time of the murder. I hope that helps expand on what I meant at by the firearm having a part to play.

We should outlaw alcohol and illegal drugs.  That'll fix it!

We should outlaw alcohol and illegal drugs.  That'll fix it!

I am not going to engage with you if you continue to make dishonest strawman comments about my position.

I agree with you in principle however I think the reality with human beings is that we are not all that moral, or more accurately that we are not always consistently moral. Most humans can get angry at points in their life and we know that when we get angry our capability for high level reasoning starts to diminish. So, for example, if you had a few drinks at the bar and a guy shoves you for "giving stink eye" your brain (and mine too) is not going to think through pulling your concealed weapon out and using it in the same way that you would in a calm state. In this scenario, you are not an evil person going out looking to hurt someone, you are not an immoral criminal, but being human you are subject to emotional survival reactional responses that in hind sight would be a bad choice and the only difference between two sides with black eyes and a murder charge is the presence of the weapon. Humans, at our best, are rational beings, but often we are not at our best. Half of all murder suspects and half of all murder victims are found to be under the influence at the time of the murder.

Flapp, in his dishonesty, will have you believe in some strawman misrepresentation of what I said. I hope this helps expand on what I meant at by the firearm having a part to play.

As you’ve no doubt noticed, it seems I have an Old Testament mentality about pretty much everything.

I find thinking about shades of grey, well, kind of unpleasant.

I hear tell that I will be judged as I have judged others, so I guess I should look into this sooner rather than later ….

That's how a freedom-thinking person who believes in the means of self defense and the defense against tyranny would think.

He firmly believes guns are the problem, because guns allow people incapable of killing otherwise to use lethal force.  Cops are often indoctrinated into the belief that fewer guns in the public's hands make their lives much safer.  Therefore. they tend to fall on the anti-gun side of the argument even though they say they believe in the right to bear arms.  if you haven't caught on yet, EEF falls into that grouping.

i think he struggles with cognitive dissonance when it comes to the right to own guns.  He sees benefits to both a right to keep and bear arms as well as the hypothetical elimination of firearms in the hands of the public.

Until he's able to reconcile his quandary to a reasonable conclusion, I expect him to continue to espouse both a pro-2A and anti-gun position.

He proves this with:

"You can never have a perfect solution as long as guns are allowed to be in the hands of the public" would be an accurate way of saying it.

I think you do EEF a valuable service as an effective foil, and I learn much too from your thinking.

I think EEF does me a valuable service, because I tend to see those on the other side as not even human.

I admit that can’t be right ….. at least sometimes 

I am not going to engage with you if you continue to make dishonest strawman comments about my position.

Wanna bet?

#TheLastWord

As you’ve no doubt noticed, it seems I have an Old Testament mentality about pretty much everything.

I find thinking about shades of grey, well, kind of unpleasant.

I hear tell that I will be judged as I have judged others, so I guess I should look into this sooner rather than later ….

I had not noticed but that will help frame future comments for a better understanding.

I too have/had a tendency to see certain things in black and white but I try to balance that idealism and realism, with varying levels of success.

I tend not to go with the flow and if I see a flawed argument in favor of guns I will point it out even though it clearly goes against the aim of the pro gun community. This does not always put me in the best relations with the hardcore gun rights activists on this forum as you can tell by Flapp needing to have the last word. Maybe it is because I am a moderate, or maybe it is a stubborn attachment to accuracy and logical consistency but I do not see the gun rights argument as one without pros and cons on both sides. I frequently find myself reexamining my own positions on guns, trying to find the right balance of protection of gun rights and reasonable and effective gun control laws. I do not think we can leave firearms out of the conversation about the problem in the same way I don't think the left can focus only on firearms in conversations about the problem.

And thanks for your nice assessment of me 

I had not noticed but that will help frame future comments for a better understanding.

I too have/had a tendency to see certain things in black and white but I try to balance that idealism and realism, with varying levels of success.

I tend not to go with the flow and if I see a flawed argument in favor of guns I will point it out even though it clearly goes against the aim of the pro gun community. This does not always put me in the best relations with the hardcore gun rights activists on this forum as you can tell by Flapp needing to have the last word. Maybe it is because I am a moderate, or maybe it is a stubborn attachment to accuracy and logical consistency but I do not see the gun rights argument as one without pros and cons on both sides. I frequently find myself reexamining my own positions on guns, trying to find the right balance of protection of gun rights and reasonable and effective gun control laws. I do not think we can leave firearms out of the conversation about the problem in the same way I don't think the left can focus only on firearms in conversations about the problem.

And thanks for your nice assessment of me

Hey I give you credit for standing up for your point of view in a space populated by hard-asses ready to fight at the drop of a hat.

That takes some balls.

I'm deeply suspicious of group think myself, but the truth is, these guys are just super serious, for very, very good reasons.

So we all get to fight another day - right?

All the best to those on this forum!

Humans are the problem.  Not guns.

So what are we gonna do?  Get rid of ourselves to solve the problem?  Of course not.

Respect the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Actions have consequences.  And this applies to both criminals and law-abiding citizens.  Everybody.

Again, Actions have consequences.  There's the solution.  Will it eliminate crime?  Murders? Accidental Death? Mass Shootings?  No.  Will it reduce it?  I believe so.

Maybe that's the problem.  People want a perfect solution.  Hint:  This is Reality.  Not Fantasy Island.  People need to wake up to accepting that all we can do is make the best of an imperfect world.