The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://www.texaschlforum.com/
I agree. Even worse is when a teen rapist gets a lighter sentence than Jeff Skilling.03Lightningrocks wrote:There is a huge difference in "violent" and "non-violent" crime. It is wrong that a "non-violent" crime garners the same penalty as a "violent crime" when it comes to the loss of ones constitutional rights.
srothstein wrote:I will be the first to admit that we have many problems with our criminal justice system. I have seen laws I do not agree with and unjust sentences for my whole career. I personally do not agree with anyone losing any rights after they have completed their sentence. Either we trust them or we should keep them in jail (or under community supervision).
But, I will also be the first to say that this is the best criminal justice system I have seen implemented in the world yet. One of the best parts is that we can discuss the flaws and try to improve it.
Skimming through the thread and the result of your above research seems to have been glossed over. If I'm reading this right, your research seems to support the generally accepted age of 21 for eligibility for a CHL among - other things?srothstein wrote:I have been doing some research that is related to this type of subject for a school paper. It is now well accepted medically that the part of the brain that controls judgment does not fully develop until the early twenties. It is also well known that most people stop committing crimes as they pass through their twenties and into their thirties.
From this, I have developed a theory I am working on that some juvenile delinquency is not caused by a desire to commit crime, especially not to injure people. There is a certain element of thrill seeking in committing what the juvenile sees as a victimless crime. This is not to say the crime itself is victimless, but it may be seen that way by the juvenile, like shoplifting.
If enough real research is done and could prove me right (I have not yet figured out what is needed in this respect), it could indicate a need to reform some of our juvenile justice laws. For example, many more crimes should be forgiven if there is still a clean record after enough years and some age have passed.
Of course, I also do not support permanent bans on anything for many convictions, even for adults and real victims. If the person has gone straight and is safe to be in society, there is no need for further punishment.
For medical reasons, it could certainly be argued that way. Actually, it could be argued that the age for almost all full citizenship rights should be raised to 25. And while it may not be directly gun related, it certainly argues that the drinking age should be higher since alcohol directly affects judgment anyway.Oldgringo wrote:Skimming through the thread and the result of your above research seems to have been glossed over. If I'm reading this right, your research seems to support the generally accepted aged of 21 for eligibility for a CHL among - other things?srothstein wrote:I have been doing some research that is related to this type of subject for a school paper. It is now well accepted medically that the part of the brain that controls judgment does not fully develop until the early twenties. It is also well known that most people stop committing crimes as they pass through their twenties and into their thirties.
From this, I have developed a theory I am working on that some juvenile delinquency is not caused by a desire to commit crime, especially not to injure people. There is a certain element of thrill seeking in committing what the juvenile sees as a victimless crime. This is not to say the crime itself is victimless, but it may be seen that way by the juvenile, like shoplifting.
If enough real research is done and could prove me right (I have not yet figured out what is needed in this respect), it could indicate a need to reform some of our juvenile justice laws. For example, many more crimes should be forgiven if there is still a clean record after enough years and some age have passed.
Of course, I also do not support permanent bans on anything for many convictions, even for adults and real victims. If the person has gone straight and is safe to be in society, there is no need for further punishment.
Hoosier Daddy wrote:I have made many mistakes. I guess the difference is, as an adult, I'm mature enough to deal with the consequences of my mistakes. There have been many discussions about traffic stops in this forum, and invariably someone says you shouldn't speed if you don't want to get a ticket. I have to admit that's a fair statement. I think it's as fair, or maybe more fair, to make a similar statement when we're talking about assault or B&E instead of driving 110% of the number on a sign.Gambit wrote:Jeez. I hope you hardliners never make mistakes.
Well said!The question posed in the last paragraph of Steve's response above is a tough one. My response is simply that the actions of people of any age have consequences and if that was not learned in the home, shame on the parents and too bad for you.speedsix wrote:...you guys are changin' my mind...my heart is sympathetic to the younguns...but my mind knows gradin' on the curve hurts everyone takin' the test...
Based on the theory that the brain is under developed in regards to judgement until the early 20s then that suggests that juveniles that murder their parents, other children or adults are in some ways impaired as well. You cannot use impairment with one type of crime and not another. They both require judgement. So are you saying leniency should be granted in these cases as well?I have been doing some research that is related to this type of subject for a school paper. It is now well accepted medically that the part of the brain that controls judgment does not fully develop until the early twenties. It is also well known that most people stop committing crimes as they pass through their twenties and into their thirties.
From this, I have developed a theory I am working on that some juvenile delinquency is not caused by a desire to commit crime, especially not to injure people. There is a certain element of thrill seeking in committing what the juvenile sees as a victimless crime. This is not to say the crime itself is victimless, but it may be seen that way by the juvenile, like shoplifting.
This implies a negative connetation to doing the right thing. Everyone makes mistakes but not every mistake breaks the law. It's about gains. Before engaging in an unlawful action, law abiding citizens determine that the potential consequences of engaging in said action has a greater significance on themselves or someone else more so than the momentary feeling of accomplishment violating the law. The need for acceptance is not necessary. For those that break the law, the need for acceptance is greater.Some folks are "goody two shoes" and never do anything wrong
speedsix wrote:...the way we were raised produced young people who valued and respected life, others' rights, and what was right and wrong...we'd been shown good examples either at home, school, or in the community...and the majority of adults we were around were responsible and moral...that environment didn't produce angels, (speaking for myself) but at least we knew what the rules are and that life was better if we followed them...today, I'd guess about half the youth get NONE OF THE ABOVE...and make choices with no foundation or true north to rely on...and that's sad...tragic...and often deadly...
There it is, that is the bottom line. It either begins at home or it doesn't.A good home life helps, but it isn't everything. Nature does play a factor, not just nurture. I've known some outstanding people who have come from lousy home situations, and some real scum come out of upper middle class nuclear families in good neighborhoods.Oldgringo wrote:
Some states have less stringent requirements than Texas. I have wondered if a person might run into problems when they used a weapon in self defense carrying a non-resident permit, but would not be illegible to have a chl under Texas laws.jiannichan wrote:After reading some of the responses in this thread and seeing some people ineligible to get a CHL in Texas but is able to get an out of state license to carry, are the charges/convictions not serious enough to prohibit them from owning or purchasing a firearm for them to carry with said out of state licenses? Just curious...