2L8v, that's kind of my point. Of course criminals don't obey laws. That is why incrementalism is the ONLY valid gun control strategy and the anti-gun strategists know it. Every new law is a step in the direction of having almost no guns available - the only way it has ever been demonstrated to reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals.

That is the key for us in the pro-gun stance: removing guns, at its most extreme, only reduces GUN violence - if that. States like NH and VT demonstrate that the presence of guns in the hands of citizens reduces ALL violence.

My point is that in order to build a common language with the idiots on the left we have to demonstrate that our way is better than theirs even for what it is they (say they) want to do. CCW works. Really damned well. And it reduces all violent crime not just "gun violence." In no cases does extreme gun control (Chicago, anyone?) actually reduce violence of any kind.

You can say "But its not about 'gun violence', it is about disarming the people so they are easier to control!" Of course it is, but we can't say that and still play in the nice illusion that is politics in D.C. We don't need to make that argument - and get called tinfoil hat wearers - when the CCW argument is so strong.

The key thing to understand about most liberals (though certainly not all) is that they really do believe that fewer guns for any reason makes us safer. They aren't thinking of it in terms of government tyranny at all and aren't knowingly trying to undermine our defense against tyranny, they really are just trying to make things safer. If we can prove that universal CCW would make things safer a significant number of them can be swayed to support it.

Nationally, at least, and in some other battleground states. I think HI has a variety of reasons that CCW is a steep uphill battle - and none of them have to do with public safety.

De-criminalize pakalolo. Prices would go down leaving no incentive for people to kill each other over drug money and territory.

Reality: The US has the most firearms per capita

Reality: We have among the highest rates of gun violence among the 1st world nations and worse than several 3rd world nations.

Reality: Anti-gunners use this as their premise that reducing the availability of any guns for any reason will contribute to reducing gun violence.

Reality: Countries that have drastically reduced civilian access to firearms have a marked drop in gun related violence

Reality: We either address this effectively or it will continue being the basis of incremental gun control legislation that doesn't actually make us any safer.

Here is some reality. The U.S. 28th in gun homicide rates. The U.S. not in the top 10 for violent crime rates...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/01/10/fox-affiliate-thoroughly-debunks-piers-morgan-s-gun-homicide-statisti

The article is confusing/comparing violence rates and gun homicide rates. The US in the top ten GUN homicides in the world and has the most gun violence of any developed nation.

edit- damn. My source was quite wrong. Clicked the wrong link in my search and didn't catch it. Bugger. The actual UN data I thought I was referring to isn't collated the same way. The UN .xls form data is here: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

Gotta keep the numbers in their proper place - or what the numbers say is not reality. If you have a source that puts the US at 28th for gun homicides I'd love to see it.

I'm not refuting the point of the article, though. The UK is a MUCH less safe place than the US. But the libs focus on GUN violence stats because they think more guns = more violence. They are wrong.

That's my point: compared to the UK the US has MORE guns and LESS violence. Yes, we have more gun deaths and accidents but WAY less violence over all.

So the arguments that more guns = less safety is false. The argument that more guns = more gun accidents and death is true but less guns = less safety overall. If VT and NH are used as examples more guns in the hands of civilians = the most safety of all - INCLUDING safety from gun violence.

That's the bigger picture that the 2nd amendment argument from the right-wingnuts (from the point of view of the libs) are drowning out. They ~really~ need to stop it because it only wins arguments with people who already agree with you.

As to the topic - the best way to keep bad guys from ~using~ guns (since we can't really keep them from getting them) is to allow citizens to be armed if they wish to be. We all know this and the data supports it. Why we aren't hammering the hell out of that data to make the point that more guns, and guns ~carried~, IS more safety is beyond me.

clshade, you starting to make sense. 
I think thats what i am trying to say, just dont know how to say it.  It makes sense

It is not about guns. It never was. It is all bout finding the real cause of the increase of these events.
Check this out.
http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2013/01/17/obamabiden-knowingly-avoid-right-target-to-stop-gun-violence/

Now why is it that they continue on this path to destroy rights?  They even got us gun owners debating on what new regulation is 'acceptable' 

"Shall not be infringed"  im sticking by that...

Anything more is reliqueshing your freedom.  A lawful gun owner is not a criminal!

It is not about guns. It never was. It is all bout finding the real cause of the increase of these events.
Check this out.
http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2013/01/17/obamabiden-knowingly-avoid-right-target-to-stop-gun-violence/

Now why is it that they continue on this path to destroy rights?  They even got us gun owners debating on what new regulation is 'acceptable' 

"Shall not be infringed"  im sticking by that...

Anything more is reliqueshing your freedom.  A lawful gun owner is not a criminal!

Amen!

It is not about guns. It never was. It is all bout finding the real cause of the increase of these events.
Check this out.
http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2013/01/17/obamabiden-knowingly-avoid-right-target-to-stop-gun-violence/

Now why is it that they continue on this path to destroy rights?  They even got us gun owners debating on what new regulation is 'acceptable' 

"Shall not be infringed"  im sticking by that...

Anything more is reliqueshing your freedom.  A lawful gun owner is not a criminal!

Amen.  Everyone seems to be "acceptable" with a grandfather clause or something.  We shouldnt have to keep compromising!!!

It is not about guns. It never was.

Wrong. For the political base of the left it IS actually about safety. Read that sentence again if you think I'm disagreeing with you.

What I'm doing is pointing out how to talk to those people who don't believe that and not sound like a paranoid lunatic to them.

The politicians may be all about restricting freedom but their base is ~actually~ about safety and think gun control is the way to do it.

We will never change the minds of the politicians. We MUST change the minds of their base. And the data supports our arguments about overall safety.

Wrong. For the political base of the left it IS actually about safety. Read that sentence again if you think I'm disagreeing with you.

What I'm doing is pointing out how to talk to those people who don't believe that and not sound like a paranoid lunatic to them.

The politicians may be all about restricting freedom but their base is ~actually~ about safety and think gun control is the way to do it.

We will never change the minds of the politicians. We MUST change the minds of their base. And the data supports our arguments about overall safety.

this is lost on FAR too many people who speak out on the issue.  instead of properly framing their protests, they pretend that they're speaking to people who think like they do. 

and that's why we have muppets like Ted Nugent and Alex Jones and more saying stupid ass things that make us look like psychos.  i'll give wayne la pierre a bit a slack because i think he's trying to divide people on purpose.  whether thats a good tactic, remains to be seen.

We don't need any further gun restrictions.

The laws in place work very well.

A) The problem is criminals buy illegal guns.

B) People need to secure their firearms in safes.

Its so hard to come up with a good reason to keep our laws the way they are other than its our constitutional rights. In the media they say assault rifles aren't used for hunting but our 2nd isn't about hunting, so frustrating. If we had to make an argument it would be best it not be specifically about guns but about our rights being degraded and we got to find a way to make it appeal to everyone to get more support.

Wrong. For the political base of the left it IS actually about safety. Read that sentence again if you think I'm disagreeing with you.

What I'm doing is pointing out how to talk to those people who don't believe that and not sound like a paranoid lunatic to them.

The politicians may be all about restricting freedom but their base is ~actually~ about safety and think gun control is the way to do it.

We will never change the minds of the politicians. We MUST change the minds of their base. And the data supports our arguments about overall safety.

What you write matches what I've observed talking with my liberal "friends" about guns. I once discussed the theater with my friend.

Me: "if I was in that theater with you and I had a gun, would you wish I was there or I wasn't?"

He: "of course I'd wish you were there.  But it's because I trust you and know that you wouldn't shoot me. But how would I know that the next person with a firearm won't shoot me by accident?"

Ok so what I got out of this so far is the following...

1. Harsher punishment for crimes involving with firearms
2. Better funding for HPD
3. Allow CCW

What do you guys think about this...

4. Incentives for purchase of gun safes?
5. Incentives for taking firearm training
6. Incentives for passing safety, education and skill tests in proper handling and use of firearms?  A requirement for CCW perhaps? (I know I'm dreaming but one can dream right?)
7. What about deputizing those with impeccable safety records and those that pass all tests and requirements?  Allow CCW automatically?  Call it a citizens deputy program?

A deputized citizen might be able to volunteer at schools or other places in case HPD officers are understaffed.

Hmm thinking about making this a win win for the state also... How about setting up an annual required test and fee to maintain a "deputy" status and to fund such a program?

Send some wall street bankers to prison and seize their assets. Those guys are criminals. And you better believe they are armed.

I believe a determined person will get his/her hands on a gun, whether criminally or not.

That being said, it is my personal opinion that making it easier for the lawful guys to have guns if they wish to have it would make the country safer.

Gonna take my senator to lunch this week. Any other suggestions?

My main argument now is that when laws fail (i.e. murder, burglary etc.) then laws that will ENABLE the citizen need to be passed. If govt. wants to take away or limit a law abiding citizens' means to defend themselves then it is only logical that the govt. take responsibilty for the citizen's personal safety. Then the govt. must provide the same means as a firearm or any other tool the citizen has or used to have - 24 hour instant access to protection. Asimple analogy is fire - the fire dept. can't be there the moment a fire is started thus we have fire extinguishers till they can respond; the same with firearms or any other defensive tool. Bottom line the govt. can not respond to a personal safety issue adequately. I was watching a "documentary" called Planet Rock narrated by Ice T and the main issue was laws that targeted drugs. Some laws made the illicit drug trade worse.

On another note, why do I have to fill out a form when I buy pepper spray?

edit - typing at the same time... excellent post, ren.

Jl808,

Some other possible talking points.

- Gun safety training is only a valid requirement if gun owners are allowed to carry their weapons in a way that might constitute a public threat. This is already handled for hunters via the hunters' safety course requirement. Handgun owners have no legal way to carry their firearms in a way that is a public threat. The safety training law is attempting to solve a problem we don't have.

- Annual reregistration will only tax the small firearms offices of the police departments more. It is already protocol to use registration records to confiscate any firearms owned by a person who commits a crime that makes them ineligible to own firearms. Since this is true and no measure of safety is to be gained from annual re-registration, it looks solely like an income generating stream.

- To date, firearms registration has been free other than the unavoidable 1 time fingerprint fees. This makes compliance with the law easy for those most likely to turn to crime: low income gun owners. Since there is no safety benefit to be gained, no demonstrated need for the regular safety trainings that the registration fees would help pay for there is no benefit to society from this law, only increased costs and increased risks that potential criminals will source guns on the black market. 

- Requiring proof of registration for purchasing ammunition is unreasonable. A wife might ask her husband to pick up some ammunition for her pistol on the way home from work, a friend might buy some ammunition as a gift, and the sports supply stores that sell ammunition don't have the means to verify the registrations putting undue responsibility on them.

- Given that Hawaii already has some of the most effective gun regulations in the US as well as an exemplary low gun violence rate, further restrictions on law abiding gun owners may well be counterproductive - as evidenced by the substantially higher crime rates in cities and states with more severe gun control laws. Consider carefully before imposing further limitations and burdens on those who follow the law.

- With the exception that there is no way for the people of Hawaii to legally bear arms, other than while hunting, our firearms regulations strike a critical and difficult balance between ensuring public safety and meeting Hawaii's responsibility to protect it's people's 2nd amendment rights.

We don't need any further gun restrictions.

The laws in place work very well.

A) The problem is criminals buy illegal guns.

B) People need to secure their firearms in safes.

True dat! +1

Thanks guys. Besides constitutional rights, I think there are 2 topics to talk about here trying to understand where the legislature is coming from.

1. Public safety
2. Taxation / income for state

For safety, instead of punishing folks for no crime committed, I think we have to address the real issue is that it's the insane and not the tool that is causing the mass murders.

To really address the mass murder issue, the state needs to look into mental health issues why these insane individuals commit homicide and suicide.

For the issue of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, I think this is an elephant. Additional laws are an easy way out for legislators because the law abiding are easy targets unless we speak up like we did on Saturday. Maybe they can start dealing with the real issue instead by eating the real elephant one bite at a time. I'm in no way an expert in this so I do not suggest anything on this except what you guys already have which is to make penalties stiffer for those who commit crime with a firearm.

How can the legislature make things safer in terms of firearm ownership?  If the state is really interested in making firearm ownership safer, then how about tax incentives for firearm owners to buy a good safe for their firearms as well as tax incentives for taking firearm related safety classes?  Firearm ownership and protecting ones family is expensive enough as it is. Ammo to practice the use the firearm safely by going to the range is also expensive enough; no need to make ammo even more expensive. The last thing we need are gun owners who cannot practice safety with what they have because ammo is expensive and additionally taxed.

As far as taxation, well it sounds like taxation with no representation. I don't think any of us want to be taxed for no good reason.

One thing I was thinking that may add overall safety for the community is to look at CCW more seriously.  What I am suggesting is that only those that have impeccable record (no criminal, drug. alcohol or mental issues) and have demonstrated that they can be trusted with a firearm in public (training in both firearm and law) should be allowed to CCW. Yes it is a constitutional right but even I don't want just any Yahoo (mental issues or lack of training) to be able to CCW and possibly be a menace to the public.

I am suggesting that the state might be able to legislate some kind of civilian deputy program or whatever might be a more appropriate name that will be not easy to maintain (annual testing, license fee, etc) but will ultimately result in some form of OC or CCW. What do you guys think about this?

Not only will this improve overall safety (as proven by CCW stats) but also addresses police shortage issues by allowing some civilians to perform some police duties in their neighborhood without becoming cops.  Sure the police union would not want this but this is a less expensive way to cover the police force shortage in Hawaii.

If applicants were somehow "taxed" to maintain such a program, I think it would be an acceptable reason for such a taxation.

I know the legislature is ultimately interested in finding additional tax revenue to cover the budget deficit but I would not want to be taxed for no good reason at all.

I'd appreciate feedback if there are any holes in this thinking.