Open carry does not pass the “vibe check”
“Don’t kill the chill”
“Aloha Motherfucker”
it’s official: according to Hawaii, guns have no chill
They’re tools designed specifically for killing, that’s kind of the point
They are also damn helpful for defending life. A Smith and Wesson puts the daintiest of women on an equal field with the burliest of asailants.
Wow, he even managed to roll some sexism into that one
How is that sexist? I agree it sounds sexist, but is the content actually sexist?
It’s not, @SpaceNoodle did a dumb take in an effort to pile on the guy
God brought us different, but Colt made us equal, blah-blah-blah.
The difference between trained criminal who started and dictate the situation and an unprepared civilian is just too big. Not to say about how seeing a gun or a sudden movement would trigger an instant attack. You overestimate reflexes of a regular person and their ability to use firearms. Self-defence gun in a bag is more of a risk for an owner and others rather than an affective detterent.
Guns should be. Under the lock. People who casually carry them around just in case aren’t a solution but a problem themselves.
Wrong. They were originally designed to open beer bottles.
It was always that way, the problem was that they wouldn’t give out permits to anyone.
That’s didn’t feel like a problem. No permits, no guns.
That only applies to law abiding citizens. To be fair though this is Hawaii we’re talking about so I imagine it’s much harder to obtain a gun illegally there.
Considering the easiest way to get a gun “illegally” is to buy one in the bordering state with the most lax gun laws and then smuggle it back into your state, yeah, getting one in Hawaii is probably more difficult than getting one in Mexico.
It blows my mind that people who correctly identify the reasons the war on drugs is a failure seem to expect the same policies and logic to work on guns.
Because gun laws have worked in other places. Canada, Australia, The UK, etc don’t have this problem.
One of the best things the govt here in aus did in my lifetime, was tighten gun laws and buy back as many guns as they could. While we’re by no means free of gun violence and homicides, we very rarely have incidents like mass/school shootings.
I would be cautious of attributing the falling rates of firearms related crimes to the 1996 buyback [source]. It can be argued that the rates were already dropping prior to the 1996 buyback. This can also be further shown in other countries around the world that didn’t enact such laws. For example, all of western Europe has shown declines in homocide rates since the 90s [source]:
This matches up with Australia [source]:
And, it matches up with the UK [source]:
The same goes for the USA, and Canada.
we very rarely have incidents like mass/school shootings.
For the sake of clarity, here is a list of all the mass shootings that have happened in Australia – from that list, I count 24 since the firearms buyback in the wake of the Tasmania mass shooting.
The majority of guns crimes in Canada are committed with guns that were smuggled in from tithe US, where it is (relatively speaking) trivially easy to obtain guns.
America’s lax attitude towards weapons directly leads to Canada’s gun death problem.
America’s lax attitude towards weapons directly leads to Canada’s gun death problem.
The CBSA should be handling that, though; it’s the CBSA’s job to catch people engaging in illegal border activties, e.g. firearms smuggling (I am assuming that you are insinuating that it is the USA’s job to fix our problem).
They do catch a lot, but no border control in any non-authoritarian country can catch 100%
Now only the police and criminals will have guns, and law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of both.
They could like, get a permit
True, and I’m cool with that but people take issue with things like that because it puts a financial barrier around the ability to defend themselves. Which doesn’t really hold weight when the gun itself is a financial barrier lol
Genuine question: Why don’t 2A people also complain about driver’s licenses then? I really don’t understand. It’s the same barrier (if not even worse).
The argument may be that driving isn’t in the constitution. You don’t need a permit to travel, just to drive a car on public roads. I like my guns but I’m fine with permitting if you are carrying in public.
Well as long as the SCOTUS is being text only your guns aren’t in it either. It should be guns that exists in 1791 and only if you are in a well-regulated militia. Which I am fine with. We should start a militia, that is well regulated, and open to adults to join where they get 1791 guns to do whatever it is militias are supposed to do.
should be guns that exists in 1791 and only if you are in a well-regulated militia.
You are a member of the well regulated militia envisioned by the constitution. Everyone is.
If you’re talking about a government-organized entity, you are not talking about the militia. You are talking about an “Army” or a “Navy”.
Congress has the power to determine what part of the militia can be called forth, and the circumstances under which they can be. Under that authority, they enacted 10 USC § 246 which basically says they intend to call the National Guard first, and if necessary, able bodied male citizens ages 17 to 45.
They don’t define the constitutional meaning of “Militia” when they create the two classes mentioned in this law. They could change the requirement from “citizen” to “person subject to US law” or “able bodied” to “sound minded”, or “male” to “person”, or “17-45” to “16-60”.
The largest group they could theoretically draw is the entirety of “We The People”, and that is what the Constitution means when it refers to the Militia in Article I Section 8 clauses 15 and 16, as well as the 2nd Amendment.
When called to serve, as the National Guard is called today and the unorganized militia was called in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, and many, many other wars, individuals are not called forth to the militia. They are called forth from the militia, to serve in “armies” or the “Navy”.
The only regulation most of us ever see is an obligation to register for Selective Service. If you don’t think that the militia you are a part of is sufficiently regulated, I want to know what additional regulations you feel you need imposed upon you.
You don’t get to make those additional regulations conditions of gun ownership, as that would violate the 2nd amendment. But you can impose additional training requirements on yourself and the rest of We The People. You could obligate every high school student in the nation to take a class on safe gun handling and the laws governing use of force, for example.
You are a member of the well regulated militia envisioned by the constitution. Everyone is.
I see. So in that case according to the 13th amendment I should be compensated for my service.
I can’t imagine how sad you life must be to waste your time trolling on lemmy. But I hope the angry replies you get help you with your attention issues.
It’s not a waste of time to stand up for the truth and not a waste of time to stand up for the rights and principles you believe in.
My dude, your post history is public. Anyone can go there and see you’re just a troll that says controversial shit to get a rise out of people. You can keep up the act if you want, but no one is buying it.
Just go play roblox or something instead. It’s a better use of your time kid.
Labeling everything you don’t agree with as controversial and trolling is just a lame attempt at limiting what can be considered acceptable discourse.
Well thats going to get shut down
I’m not sure why it would. Almost every state requires some manner of concealed carry permit, and it’s not uncommon for there to be some manner of registration for some weapons, as long as the permitting and registration processes are “reasonable” and not designed to infringe on your rights.
The problem is Hawaii is not shall-issue as the vast majority of states are. One can be denied such merely because the official feels like it, despite fully qualifying and jumping every hoop.
Is the issue that he was denied needlessly, or that he didn’t even try to register or get a carry license?
Also, your link describes Hawaii as a shall-issue state per a previous supreme Court ruling.
There’s Shall Issue and there’s “Shall Issue”. Where I live (Bay area) it’s 18 months wait and about $2,000 in fees including a state appointed psychiatrist who asks questions all of which have obvious correct answers. I think you need a coworker (specifically a coworker) to write a reference letter too. Also there’s a separate law saying you cannot carry in most places, basically rendering the permit useless.
I’m not sure what Hawaii was doing but basically all the blue states have some flavor of this, where in the past your kids just had to go to the same school at the sheriff’s or you had to be an executive at a company or a celebrity and you got to carry anywhere you liked. At least now the same rules apply to everyone?
Okay?
So you’re not sure what Hawaii’s rules on carry permits are, but you’re sure they’re bad, and that excuses not registering a weapon purchased out of state.
For the record, a cursory search says it’s pretty straightforward to get a permit. Like, take a safety course, fill out a form and provide copies of a photo of yourself and get fingerprinted.
And yeah, they do have restrictions on where you can carry, which sounds like a protection of the rights of the rest of the people to me. If people don’t want to be around guns, they should be able to say you can’t bring one into their home or store without explicit permission, at the least.
Its shall issue. Just because you do all that, you can still be denied.
