posted
Imagine violence was only expressed by driving nails into wood. It's a strange and arbitrary example, but bear with me.
Anytime someone becomes extremely angry, or intoxicated and angry, or coldly malicious, or what have you they drive nails into wood. Now imagine that in this strange world, in one village straddling a river, on one side of the village hammers from Home Depot are sold to almost anyone who wants them and can scrape together a modest amount of money. On the other side of the river are basically flat rocks and such, or frying pans, other tools that can drive nails into wood quite well but aren't designed with that task in mind.
Which side of the river do you think would get more nails driven into wood? If there is a task at hand, better tools will mean that task is completed more often. Violence is no different. Firearms are basically the pinacle tool humans have invented for violence.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, I looked up Hawaiian requirements for concealed carry permits and I'm not seeing a huge difference it would make...
quote: Requirements: 1. Show reason to fear injury to his person or property 2. Citizen of the United States 3. At least 21 years of age 4. Qualify to own a firearm under Section 7 of Chapter 134 of the Hawaii State Statutes. This section describes the disqualifying criminal background factors. 5. Sane 6. Qualified to use the firearm
Nearly all states require residency for a permit, so, no change there...
Oh...I see!
quote: These States recognize Hawaii's permit
Alabama Alaska Arizona Idaho Iowa Kansas Kentucky Michigan Mississippi Missouri Nebraska North Carolina Oklahoma South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Wisconsin
quote:Hawaii recognizes these State's permits . . . . .
Yea, I can see how the LAST thing Hawaii would want is hoards of armed tourists sipping mai tais and eating poi, narrowly eyed watching each other for a hint of a bulge. Ugg!
Alaska really should continue exposed carry, my goodness, it's still a frontier for realies yo.
So, maybe the MOP would be more of a contiguous 48 kinda deal...guns on planes scare the shit out of me.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So, I looked up Hawaiian requirements for concealed carry permits and I'm not seeing a huge difference it would make...
That's because you're not even showing me the basic respect of actually reading my posts.
"It's technically legal, but permits have to be issued on a case-by-case basis and the police chief here has categorically refused to issue any permits up until this point."
Conceal Carry is effectively illegal here.
quote:So, maybe the MOP would be more of a contiguous 48 kinda deal...
So after this entire thread you still support your original plan for the rest of the US to conceal carry then? Why?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I support reforming current carry laws, as they vary so much from state to state, however interstate travel is not at all regulated (not saying it should).
I support a citizen who lives up to the rather strict restrictions & vigorous training & discipline required to meet my suggested oversight to be licenced to do so, and as a fedcarry holder, they would be held to a higher standard with criminal consequences.
I am AGAINST shall issue states and guns on planes.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Your police chief has jurisdiction over your whole state?
Over the entire island of Oahu, yes, which is part of the city and county of Honolulu. (there's no distinction between the two in terms of law enforcement) The other islands are sparsely populated and rural, but have similar arrangements. As of July 2014, for example, there were 183 conceal carry permit holders in the state, with no more being currently issued. The current holders are all security professionals, retired police officers, and military members. AFAIK there are no civilians (which I should qualify as non-security, non-law enforcement) who have been authorized to conceal carry.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I support a citizen who lives up to the rather strict restrictions & vigorous training & discipline required to meet my suggested oversight to be licenced to do so
Why?
quote:I am AGAINST shall issue states and guns on planes.
You know civilians can't carry on planes already, right? When you fly with a gun it's checked luggage. Or do you mean you're against guns being transported by plane at all?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why? Because if you don't give an enemy an escape route (of your choosing, not his) and instead back them into a wall, they will fight to the death for every inch.
Or in plain English, to have a snowball's chance in hell to get any kind of positive forward movement on needed gun control past the NRA and such, one must be realistic in one's goals.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I may well be just wrong, but I had thought that it was not impossible to get to the baggage area, from the cabin, just difficult and likely to set off alarms.
I literally just don't want guns on planes...gives me creeps.
Aluminium is a very cool material, but unless at, like, .5", not bullet resistant.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Why? Because if you don't give an enemy an escape route (of your choosing, not his) and instead back them into a wall, they will fight to the death for every inch.
Or in plain English, to have a snowball's chance in hell to get any kind of positive forward movement on needed gun control past the NRA and such, one must be realistic in one's goals.
So you support and advocate for concealed carry and lax gun control laws - including wanting to conceal carry yourself! - because you think there's no realistic chance of more reasonable gun control laws being passed? That makes no sense. That's like me saying "I support pollution and the destruction of the environment" because I don't believe enough effective environmental protection laws are being passed.
So again, why do you say, in regards to concealed carry, "I support a citizen who lives up to the rather strict restrictions & vigorous training & discipline required to meet my suggested oversight to be licenced to do so" if you just think it's a necessary evil? Do you mean to say "I don't support it, but I think anything more restrictive than that will cause the citizens with their 'backs to the wall' to 'fight to the death' for their right to conceal carry"? Because I don't think that's a true or reasonable assumption either (as can be demonstrated with lots of other countries that have passed more restrictive gun laws or even disarmed without incident, Australia for example), but at least it makes some sense as a coherent position. Supporting something you know is bad just because you don't think it would be possible to effectively prohibit it is not.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm also not a fan of the way of thinking that says, "A special interest group has basically taken a major political issue hostage, radically shifting the national status quo in just two generations. One of the very plausible consequences of this is an additional, unnecessary thousands of deaths per year, but in fact even discovering the number of additional deaths is difficult because that same group also works hard to prevent as much scientific research into the issue as possible. If they had their way, no such research would be done anywhere.
Anyway, in spite of the literally grave and unnecessary consequences to the shift that this special interest group has caused, they're just too tough so we need instead to just inch past whatever tiny, incremental reform they'll let us enact."
Well, no. The NRA isn't a force of nature. They're an extremely well connected and financed special interest group, one which could be fought. In part by repudiating them on the local, state, and federal levels when it's time to vote and in another way by bluntly rejecting the lies that they have worked so hard and with such success to make people believe.
Makes your family safer? Nope. The world is so dangerous you need one? Nope. Protects against tyranny? Nope. Other things such as cars are just as dangerous? A big old nope. Right to bear arms? The current judicial interpretation on that is also a new phenomenon. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? Yeah, those cops in Dallas all had guns, and even with hours to prepare it was a bomb strapped to a robot that eventually stopped the 'bad guy with a gun'. So a big old nope on that too.
An example: when discussing Hawaii you asked about urban centers, poverty, and drugs. My question is this: why does a solution to problems such as poverty and drugs include more weapons? Nowhere on Earth has trouble with addictive substances been solved through force. All of the examples we have of successful programs to deal with drugs treat it as an illness.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
You just spent this entire thread arguing for federal-level conceal carry permits valid throughout the entire US (and then slightly modified to the contiguous US) and talking about the necessities of guns and conceal carry. Just a few hours ago you just said this:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I support a citizen who lives up to the rather strict restrictions & vigorous training & discipline required to meet my suggested oversight to be licenced to do so
Have you changed your mind since then? Because otherwise you most are definitely *are* advocating for concealed carry and lax gun control laws.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because you just freaking said you support citizens conceal carrying and reaffirmed that you support your original plan of a federal level concealed carry permit. Do I really need to quote your own posts to you over and over? Here, I'll do it again!
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I support a citizen who lives up to the rather strict restrictions & vigorous training & discipline required to meet my suggested oversight to be licenced to do so
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So you are saying that the plans I discussed, are, in your eyes, lax gun laws?
Yes, absolutely.
quote:Yes, I still like my idea.
Then you are part of the gun problem in this country, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Before this you had, perhaps, the excuse of ignorance to continue holding on to such dangerous nonsense. You no longer have that luxury.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
A perfect example of why open carry is a bad idea.
Had they been concealed carrying instead, and running away as they did, then the cops would not been delayed.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, DB, my options are, change my views to match yours or else I'm wrong & should feel ashamed...this seems like intellectual bigotry to me.
There's more than one road to Denver, but to get to the same place from different starting points, one must follow different roads.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So, DB, my options are, change my views to match yours or else I'm wrong & should feel ashamed...this seems like intellectual bigotry to me.
There's more than one road to Denver, but to get to the same place from different starting points, one must follow different roads.
Yes, though you shouldn't feel ashamed for not having the same views as me. You should feel ashamed because, even though you know it's wrong, even though you've seen that data and acknowledged there's no real upside, you would rather see thousands of men, women and, horrifyingly all to often, little children needlessly killed every year rather than give up your pathetic power fantasy of fighting off rapists and bears and Chinese and rioting "young black fellas" and God knows what else like the steely-eyed White American action hero you so desperately want to be. That's despicable.
Also, "intellectual bigotry" isn't a thing. Not all ideas are created equal. There aren't two equally justifiable sides to every issue, or even most issues. To paraphrase Asimov, your lazy, entitled ignorance is not just as good as my knowledge. A discredited idea based on lies and delusions, an idea that needs to be defended by willfully and brazenly denying facts, is an idea that deserves to be ridiculed.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
I still see value in armed citizens, and I'm not alone, and all statistics need context & an appropriate application.
You are cool w cops w guns, who go thru less training than I'm suggesting, and what is a cop other than an armed, well trained citizen, sworn to uphold the law.
To carry under the MOP, is the soul of the 2nd amendment, citizens trained to defend themselves and their communities.
I feel zero shame for finding a middle ground between disarmament and non regulation, rights based nra bs.
You should feel shame for allowing your apparent closed mindedness to promt you to try and shame people who differ but who are clearly not ignorant nor stupid. But you won't. Bc I'm the bad guy, right DB?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:While numbers vary from source to source — the Washington Post cites 975, while the Guardian puts the tally at 1,125 — the website killedbypolice.net found that police have killed 1,186 people in 2015 (the U.S. government currently does not track how many people are killed in police encounters.)
posted
Our society has an excess of firearms, compared to any other nation in the developed world. It is basically certain that this has something to do with another excess of ours compared to our peers, deaths by firearm both intentional and accidental.
The reason we have so many firearms is no mystery-it's because a shift in laws and public perceptions about society, fostered by gun rights groups, has led to a major shift in both over the past 40 odd years. Because of this, it's unthinkable at present to disarm police.
What this amounts to is gun rights advocates working to make our society so dangerous that police are armed like militaries in other places, and then when criticized for their gun rights policies saying, "Well look at police! They carry and do good for society, how about that!"
It's a sort of laughable blackmail or protection racket, not unlike what we hear elsewhere-and from you-about what kinds of gun control legislation might actually be passed. You've even admitted as much. 'The biggest group on my side of things will make sure what you're asking for is totally impossible, so really you should just accept tiny, incremental change and be grateful for it.' 'A status quo created by the biggest group on my side has led to the necessity of armed police. But look at police, they all carry and it's generally alright, isn't it?'
Intellectual bigotry is a silly term, and one you cooked up basically to be able to call Dogbreath a bigot.
And as for ignorant and stupid, well. I can't speak to stupid, but on this issue you've shown yourself ignorant on basic aspects of it many times in this discussion. Animal attacks, the dangers of firearms versus other modern tools, the question of disarmed societies leading to 'holocausts', the shifting judicial perception of the 2nd Amendmant, and the ways in which concealed carry shifts the perceptions of those who actually do carry.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Always classy Tom
In spite of ample personal experience, I continue to be impressed by your willingness to be such a hypocrite where so many people can see it.
I'll say it more simply: men who throw tantrums and call other people sons of whores, pieces of shit, express wishes that their parents had killed them when they were children, torture animals, and make oblique threats of violence are really in no position to criticize someone else for not being classy.
That's based just on what you've said to me, mind. A number of other posters have their own examples based on personal experience with you why you're a terrible judge of classiness. But listen, by all means continue to attempt to assert a moral authority on the question of how to speak to other posters and the classiness thereof and I will with pleasure remind you how full of shit you are.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll be more explicit, then: does it make you feel better to know that other people share your baseless, mushy, and yet strongly-held opinion, and that these people are more likely to carry weapons? Personally I find that terrifying. I mean, you've been demonstrably, factually wrong about pretty much every asserted claim you've tried to put forward in this conversation, but still continue to cling to your opinion without displaying any awareness that every presented justification for it has been torn away.
But, no, you're not alone in your opinion. In related news, a lot of people eat Vegemite.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not trying to deflect you Tom...you don't trust cops...and I've never seen your action plan for success...if given the mandate of the people how would you solve societies woes here in the here USoA?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your 'action plan' has no chance of success, either. The people on your side of the argument-that government should have to prove why an individual shouldn't have the right to a concealed weapon, rather than that that individual should have to prove why they should-they would attack with very effective political force every single provision of your 'action plan'.
But you don't want to talk about them, and have basically accepted their status quo. And, by the way, as Tom observed, your 'you too!' defense for being shown factually wrong on just about every major factual claim you've made doesn't work. Of course you're welcome at any time to reference a claim you've made where facts can come into question and been proven right. But you won't do that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm not trying to deflect you Tom...you don't trust cops...and I've never seen your action plan for success...if given the mandate of the people how would you solve societies woes here in the here USoA?
Why do pro-gun folks always insist that all of society's woes before they will consider addressing the gun woe?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think there is a fast solution. I think that the gun show and personal sales loops need to be closed. I think that sentencing for illegal possession needs to be stricter. (If politicians are worried about more black men being incarcerated, they can reduce the sentencing for non-violent drug possession.) But, mostly, I think there needs to be a cultural shift so that people like you stop buying into the action hero fantasy and are less likely to be duped into thinking they need guns. There is no reason that can't happen.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Better to control who has/carries them than to try and confiscate, on multiple levels.
I'm for oversight, I'm for gun control.
Because of this thread I believe I will not turn in those forms for concealed carry. In any given emergency, I would be too busy getting my family to safety to need or have time to use a gun.
The best equipment for my needs are a decent pair of sneakers.
That doesn't mean I've changed my mind about liking/thinking it's important to have the option open to me and those like me (if my situation changes) and I encounter a legitimate need for instant lethal ability.
Such as death threats...we all kno my mouth at times is bigger than my brain.
Just for the record, that trait is limited to words, I have never and would never physically assault anyone.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just for the record, that trait is limited to words, I have never and would never physically assault anyone.
But because your mouth is bigger than your brain, you believe that you might say something that will piss someone off enough that they'll actually want to kill you? For which reason you'd want to have a gun at hand?
I'm a pretty mouthy guy, myself, but I've never once had the thought, "Gee, I'd better make sure I have a gun before I insult this guy, for my own safety."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly? Make gun ownership as reviled as smoking. It's only through social pressure that we can solve the problem.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
