birdlike 0 #151 September 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteyou really think the US should be measuring itself against 3rd world countries? If gun control supposedly works, why should it not work in third-world countries? basic things like rule of law, basic import/export /border controls, prevalence of bribery and corruption, desperation of the populace, low value of human life. These are all things that exist in our inner cities. You've cited nothing unique to third-world nations. Perhaps this is why in our inner cities, gun control is about as effective as it is in those third-world countries... Ya think?!Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #152 September 7, 2008 QuoteWell, I am told by a usually reliable source who IS a Texan and a gun-o-phile that Texas's screening process for approving a CCW permit does an effective job in screening for mental illness, which the NCIS most certainly does not. Assuming he is correct (and I have no way of checking), then we could use that process as a model. You have no way of checking? You couldn't just ASK him, "Say, you claim that Texas does a nice thorough job of vetting the mental health of CCW applicants. What, may I ask, DO they do to vet the applicants?" See, here you come, telling us, with an appeal to authority, that someone you claim is "usually reliable," that he knows some unspecified trick that Texas uses that would satisfy you that the loonies aren't going to get a gun license. (I assume you want that applied to the sale of an actual gun.) So you are essentially asking us to trust a third-hand source who didn't even give you any details. Are you able to see why we might be skeptical? QuoteAnd please note that I'm not asking for more restrictions or a ban - I'm just asking that the process for implementing the current law be made more effective. That's not an unreasonable thing to want. We'd be hypocrites if we said we didn't want the law enforced. But you haven't shown us why we should support the mandatory surrender of our sensitive medical/mental health records to the same government you don't want listening to terrorists on the phone.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #153 September 7, 2008 Quote ....You've cited nothing unique to third-world nations. Perhaps this is why in our inner cities, gun control is about as effective as it is in those third-world countries... Ya think?! Jeez - you need examples?? You really know nothing about third-world countries. That just shows how illiterate you are. Scary, such a nescience. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #154 September 7, 2008 Have a nice day ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #155 September 7, 2008 Quote Do I think I and my family would be safer if I had a gun - NO (and I have had firearms training although the last time I fired a rifle (M16) was in 1992). If I really wanted a gun for home defense, I'd get a shotgun. And if you listened to the "experts" on home defense, you would know that they typically advocate against using a shotgun for home defense. It is unwieldy to keep at the ready when rounding corners, presenting significant weapon-retention difficulties if a confrontation enters a struggle (i.e. someone can grab the barrel or forend and take you off-target); it is unlikely to be kept nearby in a ready state in case of a home invasion; the concept that "you really don't even have to aim it" is just so much bullshit; handling the shotgun may present difficulties to small or weaker members of the household if they need to use it.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #156 September 7, 2008 Quote Have a nice day You're mighty proud of that "I-won't-listen-to-anyone's-points" attitude. You might want to think about how it appears to others besides me when they see me ask you reasonable questions and you plug your ears and say, "Have a nice day" as cynically and sarcastically as you do.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #157 September 7, 2008 Quote Quote ....You've cited nothing unique to third-world nations. Perhaps this is why in our inner cities, gun control is about as effective as it is in those third-world countries... Ya think?! Jeez - you need examples?? You really know nothing about third-world countries. That just shows how illiterate you are. Scary, such a nescience. So, how many warnings do they allow you on the personal attacks? I wasn't even addressing you. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #158 September 7, 2008 Quote Quote Quote ....You've cited nothing unique to third-world nations. Perhaps this is why in our inner cities, gun control is about as effective as it is in those third-world countries... Ya think?! Jeez - you need examples?? You really know nothing about third-world countries. That just shows how illiterate you are. Scary, such a nescience. So, how many warnings do they allow you on the personal attacks? I wasn't even addressing you. May I remind you that in an internet forum, it's rarely a discussion between 2 ppl? It's an open forum, so you just have to expect replies from every participant/visitor. A PA? Dear, that's just warmest greetings from a sh*t hole. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #159 September 7, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote ....You've cited nothing unique to third-world nations. Perhaps this is why in our inner cities, gun control is about as effective as it is in those third-world countries... Ya think?! Jeez - you need examples?? You really know nothing about third-world countries. That just shows how illiterate you are. Scary, such a nescience. So, how many warnings do they allow you on the personal attacks? I wasn't even addressing you. May I remind you that in an internet forum, it's rarely a discussion between 2 ppl? It's an open forum, so you just have to expect replies from every participant/visitor. A PA? Dear, that's just warmest greetings from a sh*t hole. Calling someone "illiterate" is not a PA, huh? OK. Well, have a very very nice day. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #160 September 7, 2008 Quote Quote Have a nice day You're mighty proud of that "I-won't-listen-to-anyone's-points" attitude. You might want to think about how it appears to others besides me when they see me ask you reasonable questions and you plug your ears and say, "Have a nice day" as cynically and sarcastically as you do. I am not obliged to respond to anyone. I find your debating style offensive and choose not to be drawn in to debate with you any more. Have a nice day.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #161 September 7, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Have a nice day You're mighty proud of that "I-won't-listen-to-anyone's-points" attitude. You might want to think about how it appears to others besides me when they see me ask you reasonable questions and you plug your ears and say, "Have a nice day" as cynically and sarcastically as you do. I am not obliged to respond to anyone. I find your debating style offensive and choose not to be drawn in to debate with you any more. Have a nice day. It's never been a debate: you've never presented anything that even remotely resembles a rebuttal. You'd have to have been taking part, in good faith, before it could be called a debate, yo.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #162 September 7, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Have a nice day You're mighty proud of that "I-won't-listen-to-anyone's-points" attitude. You might want to think about how it appears to others besides me when they see me ask you reasonable questions and you plug your ears and say, "Have a nice day" as cynically and sarcastically as you do. I am not obliged to respond to anyone. I find your debating style offensive and choose not to be drawn in to debate with you any more. Have a nice day. It's never been a debate: you've never presented anything that even remotely resembles a rebuttal. You'd have to have been taking part, in good faith, before it could be called a debate, yo. Have a nice day... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #163 September 7, 2008 QuoteVery good, Randall! Smiley face for you Condescending attitude aside, we were talking about OWNERSHIP, not the right to carry. But I assume that your approval of the vetting process to carry in TX means you think that CHL holders in TX are qualified to carry? There is no FEDERAL laws on carry since some states do not allow it."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #164 September 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteVery good, Randall! Smiley face for you Condescending attitude aside, we were talking about OWNERSHIP, not the right to carry. Indeed we are. I simply gave Texas CCW approval as an example of what I believe to be a significantly more thorough process to evaluate what is the same requirement - no felons, no one with a history of significant mental illness. The effectiveness of a rule depends on how well it is enforced. One can do a good job, or one can do a poor job. Outcomes indicate that right now the NICS seems to be doing a pretty poor job. Quote But I assume that your approval of the vetting process to carry in TX means you think that CHL holders in TX are qualified to carry? Based on reported crime rates for CHL holders in TX, that appears to be the case. (I have not verified those numbers). Quote There is no FEDERAL laws on carry since some states do not allow it. THAT was exactly my point.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #165 September 7, 2008 Quote So, how many warnings do they allow you on the personal attacks? billvon decides that.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #166 September 7, 2008 Quote I am not obliged to respond to anyone. There are times where I find myself honestly pitying your students.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #167 September 7, 2008 QuoteQuote I am not obliged to respond to anyone. There are times where I find myself honestly pitying your students. Context!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #168 September 8, 2008 QuoteIndeed we are. I simply gave Texas CCW approval as an example of what I believe to be a significantly more thorough process to evaluate what is the same requirement - no felons, no one with a history of significant mental illness. Which the current NICS does the SAME thing. Fact is, the background check is the SAME. http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/index.htm You keep trying to claim that the TX CHL program is fine...But the back ground check is the SAME as the NICS. They check the SAME things and have the SAME criteria for elimination. QuoteThe effectiveness of a rule depends on how well it is enforced. One can do a good job, or one can do a poor job. Outcomes indicate that right now the NICS seems to be doing a pretty poor job. And how would YOU make the current system better? Please notice that the TX bit you seem to approve of is the SAME as the NICS check. Remember, you complain about the intrusions into people's personal freedoms all the time...So what level of intrusion should be allowed in your mind? QuoteTHAT was exactly my point. Yes, and my point is that since you AGREE that CHL holders seem to be less likely to commit a crime, then maybe CHL should be allowed across the US."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 897 #169 September 8, 2008 Sometimes, and only just, I do enjoy your twisted sense of humor. It does add an enjoyable break to the tripe that flows through this forum at times. Have a nice day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #170 September 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteIndeed we are. I simply gave Texas CCW approval as an example of what I believe to be a significantly more thorough process to evaluate what is the same requirement - no felons, no one with a history of significant mental illness. Which the current NICS does the SAME thing. Fact is, the background check is the SAME. http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/index.htm You keep trying to claim that the TX CHL program is fine...But the back ground check is the SAME as the NICS. They check the SAME things and have the SAME criteria for elimination. QuoteThe effectiveness of a rule depends on how well it is enforced. One can do a good job, or one can do a poor job. Outcomes indicate that right now the NICS seems to be doing a pretty poor job. And how would YOU make the current system better? Please notice that the TX bit you seem to approve of is the SAME as the NICS check. Why, then, does the Texas CHL check take "up to 60 days" and NICS is instant. Why does TX state that they have to check with several agencies? Why do they SEPARATELY state that they check NICS AND for mental illness? (How much mental health info does NICS contain anyway?) Why do they take fingerprints? They state they check for felony convictions and some misdemeanor, including charges that resulted in probation or deferred adjudication, pending criminal charges, chemical or alcohol dependency, certain types of psychological diagnoses, protective or restraining orders, or defaults on taxes, governmental fees, student loans or child support - many of which are NOT in NICS. Just because they check for the same things doesn't mean they do it in the same way.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 897 #171 September 8, 2008 Florida states that it take "up to 90 days" to process, does that time make it better? Requires fingerprints ran against all criminal databases, criminal / felony background checks, mental issues (which I believe are only based on any public records OR admissions), and any domestic violence incidents....and yet people still slip through occasionally ... possible to fix that? There will ALWAYS be exceptions to the rules...always.Laws generally only keep honest people honest. The "others" do not care about laws nor the repercussions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #172 September 8, 2008 QuoteHas it occurred to you that the mandated check can be done thoroughly - or not? No, I don't suppose it has. I wonder why Texas takes up to 60 days to complete the check for the CCW? Key words: "up to". That's the maximum time that the State is allowed to process an application for a CHL. The purpose of that is to keep the state from dragging its feet and denying citizens the license that they deserve. It doesn't take that long to do the background check portion of the application. That 60-days includes time to process the fingerprint card, the photos, the training certificate, the money, do the background check, print and laminate the license, etc. There's a lot of stuff that goes on. And in most cases, the applications are processed in far less time than that. It's disingenuous of you (again) to try and lead people to believe that it takes Texas 60 days to do a background check, and that this means it's more thorough than the FBI background checks. But hey, this is your magic solution to gun violence that you avoided telling everyone about for so long? It amounts to nothing at all. Like the tale by Hans Christian Andersen, it appears that the emperor has no clothes. But you parade around the forum naked anyway, chin up, because you're too proud to admit that you don't really have a viable solution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yarpos 4 #173 September 8, 2008 " -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- you really think the US should be measuring itself against 3rd world countries? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If gun control supposedly works, why should it not work in third-world countries? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- basic things like rule of law, basic import/export /border controls, prevalence of bribery and corruption, desperation of the populace, low value of human life. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These are all things that exist in our inner cities. You've cited nothing unique to third-world nations. Perhaps this is why in our inner cities, gun control is about as effective as it is in those third-world countries... Ya think?!" ****************************** Actually no. I was talking about societies/cultures and not being selective about taking sections that suit my argument. The point came from an initial comment about why someone excluded 3rd world stats when comparing US to other countries. If you beleive that the US in analagous to the 3rd world thats fine, I thought there may have been more pride over there, and when I have visited the US I didnt feel greatly at risk.... BTW do you travel outside the US much?regards, Steve the older I get...the better I was Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #174 September 8, 2008 QuoteRemember, you complain about the intrusions into people's personal freedoms all the time...So what level of intrusion should be allowed in your mind? He doesn't care about that -- in this case, it's only gun owners.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #175 September 8, 2008 QuoteQuotePlease notice that the TX bit you seem to approve of is the SAME as the NICS check. Why, then, does the Texas CHL check take "up to 60 days" and NICS is instant. Might have to do with the fact that they are giving themselves time to receive your paperwork, process it, have someone make the call to do the background check, create the license card, stuff it into the envelope with associated forms and letters, and get it mailed; and who knows how many people on staff are there to handle those tasks for how many hundreds, or thousands, of applicants? Might also have to do with the fact that it RARELY EVER TAKES THE FULL 60 DAYS. What proof do you have that even though they state that it will take "up to 60 days" that it usuall, or ever, does? QuoteWhy does TX state that they have to check with several agencies? I imagine they are probably checking the NATIONAL records and probably also the STATE records, which would of course be kept by different agencies. QuoteWhy do they SEPARATELY state that they check NICS AND for mental illness? (How much mental health info does NICS contain anyway?) Not enough to satisfy you, anyway. I wonder, if we gave the same information that you want the government to have about anyone who wants to buy a gun to the Department of Homeland Security, how much of an uproar your balls would get into. QuoteWhy do they take fingerprints? They state they check for felony convictions and some misdemeanor, including charges that resulted in probation or deferred adjudication. Do you know for a fact that a charge that received deferred adjudication makes one ineligible for the concealed carry license? In Florida, it does not. (This has been the subject of some debate here recently, actually.) Quote- many of which are NOT in NICS. Do you profess to have knowledge of what IS in NICS? How can you state what is NOT in NICS without knowing what IS in it? I am not certain but I think it was the FBI that they called when I bought my last gun in Florida here. It is the person on the other end of the line who is doing whatever checking they do. For all I know, that could include checking the elements you think are missing.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
