birdlike 0 #176 September 8, 2008 Quote Quote Has 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. You gotta love how Kallend just automatically assumes that the entire 60 days is spent doing this hellaciously thorough background check. Quote 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. NO SHIT. I've been calling him that forever, but all he wants to do is wish me a good day. What a swell guy! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,114 #177 September 8, 2008 It appears that TX typically denies about 400 CHL apps per year - those are apps from people who THINK they qualify, had professional instruction, passed the range test, were fingerprinted and paid their money. TX also suspends some 500 CHLs per year, and revokes more than 400 (statistical data from TX DPS). So the evidence suggests TX IS rather more thorough about its CHL than the instant check required for purchase, and certainly is more thorough when it comes to mental illness and checking up after the fact in case suspension or revocation is warranted. None of which is particularly relevant to the problem that Cho illustrated - that the system to identify inappropriate purchases by loonies is ineffective and needs to be strengthened. If you don't think the TX CHL model is adequate, I'm sure other processes could be designed that are more rigorous but might be less convenient. Or maybe you just think the occasional massacre is a small price to pay for your convenience.... 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 #178 September 8, 2008 Quote It appears that TX typically denies about 400 CHL apps per year - those are apps from people who THINK they qualify, had professional instruction, passed the range test, were fingerprinted and paid their money. TX also suspends some 500 CHLs per year, and revokes more than 400 (statistical data from TX DPS). How is it that you can know that the 400 denials had all their ducks in a row? How can you know that some of them were not because of a failure to include certification of instruction, or failure to include the fingerprint card? Just curious. Quote So the evidence suggests TX IS rather more thorough about its CHL than the instant check required for purchase, and certainly is more thorough when it comes to mental illness and checking up after the fact in case suspension or revocation is warranted. Wait, HOW does what you just wrote present any evidence whatsoever about mental illness checking? What you presented doesn't say a word about the breakdown of the denials, suspensions or revocations vis a vis cause. You didn't even offer these stats (funny how they are perfectly rounded right at the hundred mark) in comparison to those of any other state!! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #179 September 8, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Can YOU not think of a single way in which it could be improved? Even though I'm still early into this thread, it looks like you're being asked to do this, since you are advocating it. What single way would you suggest to improve it? Well, the NICS check is perfunctory at best, so almost anything to improve its thoroughness would be an improvement. Can you imagine a security clearance being given to someone with such a weak background check? Then the private sale loophole could be closed. Straw purchases are illegal, but nothing is done to detect them. Finally, there is essentially no check at all on mental illness, as is apparent when you see all the shootings where "history of mental problems" is listed for the perp. Thank you for asking politely. kallnd, I know you have posted this before but I still have to ask, (we can take a single point of your post) How do you propose getting mental into into a screening process? I mean, you have railed against the Patriot Act for invasions of privacy, how do you square that against the mental screenings part of your position? I am not against public eval records or the like being used but, what about those (who you think should not have guns ) who have no public record that provide mental details? Well, 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. And 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. And for additional good measure, I'd make the penalty for assisting in a straw purchase the same as the penalty for any crime committed with that gun. Finally - I don't expect perfection, some will slip through. I sure think we can do better than we're doing right now. Throwing up your hands and wailing "nothing can be done" is most definitely NOT the American way. And THANK YOU for being polite too! First off I will return the thank you! Second I would want to see the how the screening gets its info. I see CCW as A bit different than just a purchase but, I am not opposed to a check that may find some of the nuts before purchase. Second, I dont see the stawman purchase as a big deal. Although I do agree stiff penalties should occur in situtations like that, the laws for that a stiff already. It would be interesting to see if there are any stats on this too. I am dead against registration however. Once cleared the search and approval records should be destroyed. At least we have a place to start from. Marc"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #180 September 8, 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. Throwing PA's comes easy for you doent itPlease refer to billvons arrogance and elitist thread........"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #181 September 8, 2008 QuoteI'm sure other processes could be designed that are more rigorous but might be less convenient. Or maybe you just think the occasional massacre is a small price to pay for your convenience. You really just don't get it. Here's the basic problem with your approach to gun violence. You're trying to stop gun violence by regulating the sale of guns at legal points of sale. First of all, criminals don't have to use legal points of sale to get their guns. They can steal them, smuggle them, make them, or buy them on the black market. Second, guns don't make someone a criminal - they are already a criminal. So denying them a gun does nothing to stop the criminal - it leaves them free to continue committing crimes, with other tools, or with a gun acquired illegally. So all your fancy schmancy gun regulations do absolutely nothing to stop gun crime, and they do everything to impede the rights of the law-abiding. Criminals will just ignore whatever laws you enact, and continue doing what they do. If you want to stop gun crime, you should be attacking the criminals, not guns. Doh! When you catch them, lock them up for a long, long time. Don't be a bleeding heart that lets them out early so they can once again prey on the innocent. And there are numerous other things that need to be done to change the culture, so that youth aren't pushed into a life of crime to begin with - just search for one of my past "culture" speeches in the archives (you seem to like that method of debate.) Gun crime isn't caused by guns. It's caused by criminals. Would you tighten the sale of alcohol by requiring mental health evaluations in order to try and reduce drunk driving accidents? Or do you just put more police on the streets to catch people when they do it, and then punish them severely? I choose the latter. That method punishes only the guilty, and doesn't infringe upon responsible drinkers. People who like a glass of wine with dinner, shouldn't have to prove that they're not alcoholic drunk drivers. My guns don't hurt anyone, and I refuse to be the scapegoat for the illegal actions of criminals. Your response is to infringe upon freedoms and to treat everyone as if they are a criminal, until proven innocent. That's not a model for an ideal American society, whereby we should instead be considered trustworthy and innocent, until we do something to prove ourselves otherwise. Freedom isn't free. An occasional massacre may happen because of our freedoms. But if the alternative is to not be free, then I prefer the occasional massacre over living under tyranny. How much freedom are you willing to give up to try and keep mentally ill criminals from shooting people? Would you turn the entire country into one big mental hospital run by Nurse Cratchit's? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,114 #182 September 8, 2008 No, John apparently it's you that doesn't understand: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, DC v. Heller, 2008 "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, DC v. Heller, 2008... 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
Butters 0 #183 September 8, 2008 Quote"All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse." Benjamin Franklin Quote"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #184 September 8, 2008 QuoteNo, John apparently it's you that doesn't understand... Your quotes have nothing to do with what I said. I didn't claim that gun rights were unlimited, nor did I say that felons and nuts should have them. This is just you parading around like a naked emperor again, pretending to have something important to say, when in fact you've got nothing. And of course, you ignored all the points I made. Have a nice day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #186 September 8, 2008 Quote Or maybe you just think the occasional massacre is a small price to pay for your convenience. I believe this was the argument made by supporters of the Patriot Act against sniveling civil rights advocates. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,114 #187 September 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteNo, John apparently it's you that doesn't understand... Your quotes have nothing to do with what I said. I didn't claim that gun rights were unlimited, nor did I say that felons and nuts should have them. . But you object to having any kind of efficient process to prevent felons and nuts from getting them. www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLR,GGLR:2006-43,GGLR:en&q=%2bshooting+%2b%22history+of+mental%22+ Do you consider it a major imposition to have to supply fingerprints to get a CHL in Texas?... 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
kallend 2,114 #188 September 8, 2008 Butters and kelpdiver: Do you consider it a major imposition to have to supply fingerprints to get a CHL in Texas?... 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
kelpdiver 2 #189 September 8, 2008 QuoteButters and kelpdiver: Do you consider it a major imposition to have to supply fingerprints to get a CHL in Texas? yes. Just as I consider it inappropriate for DMV to require thumbprints (or more) for a priviledge not guaranteed by the constitution, or by the SEC (might be a different agency) to require full prints from me to work for a company like Charles Schwab. Some day, you might find a way to resolve your hypocrisy wrt government snooping as it exists with anti terrorism and gun control measures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RALFFERS 0 #190 September 8, 2008 I live right in the middle of 1 of the 2 clusters. Something to feel warm & fuzzy about... Dialogue/commentary between Divot, Twardo & myself - "from your first Oshkosh when the three of us were riding to or from one of Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #191 September 9, 2008 QuoteWhy, then, does the Texas CHL check take "up to 60 days" and NICS is instant. Why does the BATF&E take two mths to sign a form? Why when registering to vote does it take 60 days to get the form back? Why does getting a copy of a pilots license take ~60 days??? QuoteJust because they check for the same things doesn't mean they do it in the same way. Yet you have claimed time and time again that you really don't have a clue how they do it in TX...Now you claim to know all about it....Which is it John? QuoteOr maybe you just think the occasional massacre is a small price to pay for your convenience. And you never answered this question....so I will ask it again: 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?"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 868 #192 September 9, 2008 Had to supply 2 sets of them here in Florida. 5 card and digital versions, including palm and edge prints. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,114 #193 September 9, 2008 QuoteQuoteButters and kelpdiver: Do you consider it a major imposition to have to supply fingerprints to get a CHL in Texas? yes. Just as I consider it inappropriate for DMV to require thumbprints (or more) for a priviledge not guaranteed by the constitution, or by the SEC (might be a different agency) to require full prints from me to work for a company like Charles Schwab. Some day, you might find a way to resolve your hypocrisy wrt government snooping as it exists with anti terrorism and gun control measures. Apparently we have very different and irreconcilable opinions about the relative cost/benefit ratios of (a) the government going on warrantless fishing expeditions with anyone's phone calls, and (b) checking on people who wish to purchase guns to ensure they comply with the legal restrictions on this "not unlimited" right. Have a pleasant evening.... 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
kelpdiver 2 #194 September 9, 2008 Quote Apparently we have very different and irreconcilable opinions about the relative cost/benefit ratios of (a) the government going on warrantless fishing expeditions with anyone's phone calls, and (b) checking on people who wish to purchase guns to ensure they comply with the legal restrictions on this "not unlimited" right. yep. I believe in the founding principle of innocent until proven guilty. And you believe in profiling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #195 September 9, 2008 Quote If you want to stop gun crime, you should be attacking the criminals, not guns. Doh! When you catch them, lock them up for a long, long time. Don't be a bleeding heart that lets them out early so they can once again prey on the innocent. But John...! They deserve another chance to be "productive members of society" after making a "mistake" and "going down the wrong path"!! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #196 September 9, 2008 QuoteNo, John apparently it's you that doesn't understand: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, DC v. Heller, 2008 "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, DC v. Heller, 2008 Did ANYONE here EVER disagree and claim that we think the mentally ill ARE entitled to own guns? No. This is not about a disagreement between those who want the insane to be prevented from getting guns and those who want the insane to be entitled to get them. This is about disagreement over YOUR support for DRACONIAN CONTROLS in an effort to prevent the insane from acquiring guns -- controls that will fail despite best efforts anyway (because of a huge number of factors, including the black market, straw sales, etc. -- essentially, people willing to operate outside the law). Once again, your response is disingenuous and ignores the actual facts being discussed, and the actual positions articulated by your detractors.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #197 September 9, 2008 Quote Yet you have claimed time and time again that you really don't have a clue how they do it in TX...Now you claim to know all about it....Which is it John? The difference is that he has since found a source that is "usually reliable" -- but whose identity he won't divulge (of course) -- who has apparently brought him up to speed. Quote 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? Again, it's GUN OWNERS. Who said kallend gave a shit about gun owners?! If it were liberal professors having to get licensed and fingerprinted in order to publish essays, he'd be all over it! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #198 September 9, 2008 Quote Apparently we have very different and irreconcilable opinions about the relative cost/benefit ratios of (a) the government going on warrantless fishing expeditions with anyone's phone calls, and (b) checking on people who wish to purchase guns to ensure they comply with the legal restrictions on this "not unlimited" right. Have a pleasant evening. You seem to be of the "if it saves just one life" persuasion. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #199 September 9, 2008 Quotethis "not unlimited" right. The erosion of our rights has made them "not unlimited" and will eventually make them "very limited" ... What do you think about ... Quote"All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse." Benjamin Franklin Quote"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #200 September 9, 2008 Quote Quote this "not unlimited" right. The erosion of our rights has made them "not unlimited" and will eventually make them "very limited" ... What do you think about ... Quote "All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse." Benjamin Franklin Quote "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin You point out, in yet another way, a point many of us have asked the good Dr. about. We need to remember that for many liberals, they want/need the constitution to be that living breathing document so they can bend it (when they need to) to support their ideology. (kallend, this is not aimed directly at you) This is the hypocrisy that is sooooooooooo agrivating. Invasions to privacy are good when buying guns is considered but, it is bad if US security is the topic. (I know this is a VERY BROAD generalization but it is only done to help make a point) And only the educated highly self important lib knows when it it OK to follow the constitution or bend it for the betterment of the masses"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
