"Thank you for your order. You should expect delivery in about 2 years."

I remember a number of years ago talking to a guy who worked at a local hardware store.  He was Hispanic, worked all day, and then went to evening classes at the local community college.  I was pretty impressed with him.  I asked him if he was here legally, and he said, yes, he was, and so were his parents, but his uncle was not.  I asked him why his uncle wasn't, and he said after waiting two years on his paperwork to be processed, he finally just gave up and waded the river to get here for a job.  

I've heard since that a 2+ year wait is not unusual.  My understanding is that both the Democrats and Republicans say they would welcome legal immigrants, but they had to go through the proper channels and jump through the proper hoops first.  Fair enough.  

So here's my question:  I googled "Samsung TV's" and it found 1,410,000,000 responses in .53 seconds. I can buy a gun and it takes the FBI about 15 minutes to do a background check on me to see if I qualify.  I can go through a fairly exhaustive Texas Dept of Public Safety background check in order to legally carry a firearm in about two months.  In this age of the internet, massively powerful computers, and nano-fast search engines, why should it take TWO YEARS to get a background check on some guy from Mexico?  And I checked....yes, they have computerized record keeping in Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and elsewhere in Central America, too.

I also want strong borders.  I want to know who we're letting in.  I want to know they aren't felons, aren't currently wanted for a crime, etc.  But if we drag our feet for a ridiculous TWO YEARS and still can't complete a background check, why should we be shocked if they just sneak in?   It seems to me we could control our borders much better if we had the cooperation of a proud, secure, legal immigrant population.  

Or is there some other more sinister ulterior motive that explains why we throw up all these roadblocks?

S

What to do?

I have a serious question for you, please.  I promise I'm not trying to bait anyone, but just looking for some opinions and options:

Gun control advocates seem to be settling on an agenda of making background checks mandatory on ALL gun sales, banning the future sale of "assault rifles", and finding a way to identify and treat those with dangerous mental issues.  They say this would be a very good start to reducing gun violence, and that over the years and decades ahead we might move away from our current gun-centric society.

Taking this vision at face value, what are we going to do to protect our schools and churches and shopping malls, etc, RIGHT NOW?  

What if next Wednesday a mentally deranged person walked into a middle school in a normally peaceful Indiana community and started firing.  There is one School Resource (police) Officer on duty during school hours to protect 1,500 students spread out over a 3-building campus.  What could be done RIGHT THEN to stop another massacre?  Would it take another person with a gun to stop the shooter or are there other options?

Your thoughts and suggestions, please.

S

The Status Quo Lives!....with EDIT

Did anyone but me watch the Townhall Meeting last night where Prez O'Bama politely sparred with pro-gun advocates?  As expected, when the dust settled, the status quo was still intact.  I can't for the life of me understand why the pro-gun side still believes the Federales are intent on coming for their guns (it's a physical impossibility), and why the anti-gun advocates believe that the pro-gun side will someday just say, "Oh, OK, we'll do it your way."  Square peg, round hole.

Full disclosure:  I have guns.  I enjoy shooting them.  I have a Concealed Handgun License.  I will not carry openly.  I am not a member of the NRA.  I'm a political skeptic.  I don't trust either side.  I (arguably) have a fair amount of gray matter between my ears.

On O'Bama's proposal to require background checks on all gun purchases, I don't see a problem with it.  If I were a federally licensed gun dealer, I'd be all for it in order to level the playing field.  Am I worried about having my name on a federal database identifying me as a gun owner?  Ha! I suspect my name is on a whole lot of private and government databases already.  What's one more?
 
If the feds someday come to my house to confiscate my guns, I'll just say "no".  I'll have a legion of Pro Bono lawyers line up to represent me (and enhance their reputation), and I'll win.  And when I do, I'll never have to buy another restaurant meal or beer ever again.  I'll be a folk hero.  Gun makers will fawn all over me, and will happily give me their products just to see me photographed holding one.   And the feds know it.  It's a DOA idea if there ever was one.

Will more background checks keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them?  Highly doubtful.  Will the NRA-types ever be willing to give it a try?  Lololololol!

So can we do anything to curb gun violence, something that both sides might buy into?  I think so.  It's common knowledge that convicted felons have, by existing law, forfeited many of their civil rights, including the right to own a gun.  It's also common knowledge that many convicted felons continue to own guns, and continue to use them.  So lets round 'em up and lock 'em away!

Oops....one little problem.  It costs LOTS of money to incarcerate a person.  I suspect we could get hundreds of thousands of felons in possession of guns off our streets if we would just put a concerted effort into going after them.  BUT WE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO AGREE TO PAY THE PRICE TO BUILD MORE PRISON CELLS, AND HIRE MORE PRISON GUARDS, and probably pay more welfare to the families left behind by their now-jailed breadwinners.

So, can we afford it?  No...and yes.  The original numbers to do all this would be staggering, and the Tea Party would no doubt piss and moan about it because all they know how to say is "cut taxes".  But then once some non-partisan think tanks examined it, I think they would find that since the perps would likely wind up back in jail at some time in the future anyway, and the cost of legal proceedings and public defenders being what they are, yeah, we probably could afford it.  It fact, it would likely be a good investment of taxpayer money. 

I'd love to see the NRA try and oppose such a strategy, try to oppose putting bad guys back behind bars.  The most hemophilic of the bleeding heart left might bemoan yet more people being locked up vs rehabbed, but I think they could be drowned out by the public applauding the lower gun violence numbers.

So why don't we think more outside the box to find things that could be agreed to by all sides?  Have we become that unimaginative?  *shaking head*

S

EDIT:  The news is reporting a Philadelphia police officer was ambushed in his car by an assailant claiming to be an ISIS sympathizer.  But beyond that, he also had a lengthy criminal record.  This is EXACTLY the type of gun violence that could be prevented if felons in possession of guns could be locked up.

Guns just went to the top of this year's Christmas "want list"

Another mass-casualty shooting, this time in Southern California.  One of the shooters worked with many of those he killed, so "workplace violence", right?  Umm, maybe.  But he was also of the Muslim faith / political persuasion, had recently traveled to Saudi Arabia to pick up his bride (the second shooter), and started growing a beard upon his return, so "Islamic terrorism", right?  Umm, maybe.

There are lots of unanswered questions, but regardless, the call for more gun control will intensify once again.  The thing most apparent to me is that, even if the "gun controllers" get the new laws they want, they will still be disappointed.

Those who buy guns legally (with background checks) will still do so.  (FYI, the guns the Cali shooters used were all purchased legally.)  Those who buy guns without background checks will still do so.  Those are the guns that will be used in most crimes, making the owners of those guns criminals.  They're already criminals, so to them, what's the big deal breaking one more law?

Let's assume you could require background checks on all gun sales from this point forward, whether from a gun dealer or from an individual, and make it stick (which you can't).  There are already somewhere between 200 and 300 MILLION guns floating around out there right now.  Who owns those?  Have they been background checked?  This is reality, folks.

If the gun controllers think they will see any appreciable difference by requiring universal background checks in 6 months, or even 6 years, they are simply being delusional.  It will likely take many decades for enough guns to be sold with checks to new, properly vetted owners to see any difference at all. 

The reality is this:  If there was ever an issue that will cause otherwise fine, upstanding citizens to resort to "civil disobedience", restricting their Second Amendment rights to "keep and bear arms" is it.  In their minds, whether you agree or not, the Bill of Rights to our Constitution says it's legal to own guns, and as the Supreme Court has agreed, they wouldn't be breaking any law if they resisted.  You can argue until you're blue about the definition of "well armed militia", they won't care.

If you make new laws that in effect outlaw certain types of guns, you've just opened up a whole new field for organized crime to capitalize on.  It didn't work with alcohol back in the 1920's and 30's, and it won't work with guns today.  Too many people already have them, and too many others want them.

So IMHO even if the gun controllers do get their wish, the effect on the number of future mass shootings will be virtually non-existent.  If they want to try, go ahead.  They will just be pissing into the wind.  Don't expect any miracle results. 

Please don't shoot the messenger.

S

Gun talk

So far autumn, my glorious autumn*, hasn't disappointed.  For the past 3 days the early morning temps have been in the mid-50's, with the high barely touching 80.  Blue skies, slight breeze, and low humidity, too....true Chamber of Commerce weather.

I love autumn.  Spring is nice, but it reminds me of Sunday afternoon:  It's very pleasant, but you know next up is Monday morning.  Yuck!  But autumn, autumn is like Friday afternoon.  You know the full weekend lies ahead.  :)

* We even named one of our companies "Autumn Investments".  Now that's hard core right there!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lets talk guns:  I'm baffled by all the paranoia about licensed concealed firearms.  The big push for concealed carry in my state (Texas) came after a mass shooting in a Luby's cafeteria in Kileen, TX in 1991.  A deranged man crashed his truck into the cafeteria during lunchtime, then walked table to table, shooting 50 people, killing 23.  It was pointed out that just one properly trained and armed person might have been able to neutralize the shooter and save many of those victims.

The public's knee-jerk reaction to concealed carry was there would be "blood in the streets".  As we now know, that did NOT prove to be the case.  The behavior of concealed handgun license holders (CHL) has been statistically MUCH better than the population as a whole.

And I really don't understand why businesses would post signs on their doors saying they prohibit CHL holders from bringing their firearms inside.  By doing so they are specifically taking responsibility for the safety of their patrons.  Deny a CHL holder the ability to protect himself, he's yours.

A CHL holder has undergone extensive classroom training as well as gun safety and must pass a live shooting test.  He has submitted him/herself to being fingerprinted and photographed, and he has undergone a lengthy (roughly 4-6 week) background check.  

Think about it....if you are a business owner, who would you want standing across the counter from you?  That properly trained and vetted CHL holder, or some guy off the street you know absolutely nothing about?

IMO, we need to quit wasting our time and energy trying to keep guns away from us all.  They're here now, and they aren't going away.  I would like to see enough citizens properly licensed to carry that bad guys would have to think twice about who to rob, mug, or rape.  

We need to support those who are willing to undergo the scrutiny and training, and concentrate on identifying and getting help to those among us who are mentally ill.  And slamming those who are walking around illegally armed. They are the real problem.

S

What Would Dirty Harry Do?

Let's talk guns.  Everyone else is, so why not me, too?

First and foremost, I believe every law-abiding American citizen has the right to own a gun.  A hunter should be able to buy a rifle or a shotgun, and an individual should have the right to defend him/herself.

Maybe I'm missing something, but for the life of me I can't see why anyone needs a gun with a 20 or 30 or 50 round magazine.  If it takes a hunter 50 shots to kill a deer I think he should consider becoming a vegetarian.  And if someone invades my house I think I can put him down with the contents of a 10-round magazine, even allowing for the adrenaline rush that will probably hamper my aim.

I'm good with a prohibition of high capacity magazines.

The big stink regarding "gun control" seems to be the idea of universal background checks.  This is where lines are drawn in the sand.  Again, I don't get it.

I've bought numerous guns in my lifetime and in every instance I've submitted myself to a background check.  I had nothing to hide....it was not an issue.  It was done while I waited and took no more than 10 minutes.  

I've heard of instances where a person was temporarily denied permission to buy a gun because his name was similar to someone who was ineligible.  It took a little effort on their part to prove the issue was with someone else and not them, and they eventually got their firearm.

I can see why a bad guy wouldn't want to submit to a check which is the whole idea!  I'm good with universal background checks.

I think what it boils down to is some fear once the government builds their database on who has bought guns, government agents will come knocking demanding they be surrendered.  Haha!  That's laughable!

There are already 300,000,000+/- guns out there owned by....who knows?  Whose door are they going to knock on?  And I think you'd have a tough time recruiting agents to go door-to-door in Texas or Alabama or Arizona or most other states confiscating guns.  Their ranks would be thinned rapidly within the first couple of blocks, if you get my drift.

In short, I don't have a problem with banning high-capacity magazines or universal background checks.  Pass the law.  IMO it can't hurt.  But if we think this effort is going to make us appreciably safer, we're dreaming.  

Bad guys will always have guns.  That genie is NOT going back in the bottle.  They'll buy them from other bad guys, who in turn will steal them from legitimate gun owners.

Our efforts should be on getting guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them in the first place....felons, the mentally unstable, those who cut me off on the freeway and are ultra-touchy about a little horn honking, etc.  Good luck figuring out how to do that.

S