Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[wdh1974]

Im proud to announce i've just spent $1000 on a rock river arms ar15 including MBUS sights and a nikon scope, so far this rifle is rated at 1 MOA and im getting excellent groups out to 300 yards, i hope to compete in a few weeks on the 600 ya course by then maybe i can have some decent hand loads worked up. BTW, i bought a brick of the green tip armor piercing ammo, so thats 500 rounds there, for a grand total of 3750 rounds in a mix of .223/5.56

It's obvious guns will never be taken away from Americans, i laugh when liberals try so hard.

Now, someone explain to me why booze isnt banned? How many die, how many rapes, and over all how much violence happens in the name of drunks? Oh i know, its the drunks, not the responsible drinkers that make alcohol look bad right? Oh, kinda like with guns! But, people love to party, they lose to be drunk, the masses all agree, booze is good, thus it remains un-spoken of and un-touched, the level of hypocrisy in this country is stunning.

The amount of deaths related to acohol is many many times great than guns, yet why are guns under attack? The reason is two fold.

Firstly, you take emotional y sensitive people and stir them up, you tie this to various campaign talking points along with welfare and various rights, and you have the foundations for a political party you can twist and control easily, thus keeping them voting for you, keeping them blind and ignorant and keeping your party in power.

Second, its simple government fear, over the years, world governments that disarm their people have killed a estimated grand total of 260 MILLION citizens, NOT combatants, not in war, but through suppression and genocide. The american government hates guns, because they as stated in the constitution are a wall against tyranny.

I mean, if you hate the constitution so much, just leave, china N.Korea and france would love to have you.

I will now be called a wack job or banned, not sure which, opinions of non liberals have to be given very softly here.

[Dystemper]

WDH let me now how that Ar runs, thought of getting one for my wife. My Next will a a AR10 by Patriot Ordinance Firearms. I agree with what you said

[Stormdash]

Shot a Steyr L9A1 today, I liked it about as much as I thought, but not as much as my VP9. I'm currently really fascinated by Rock Island's proprietary cartridge, 22 TCM, and maybe getting one of the hi capacity 22TCM/9mm combo 1911s they make. Congrats on that AR, though, wdh. I'm too handgun fixated to own a rifle yet, but it's on my radar.

[PhaelixWW]

Yeah, you didn´t read it at all, why even bother.

I read it just fine. It's not my problem if you don't understand how my response addresses what you said.

You literally don´t understand that i´m talking about a complete overhaul of the system in use because of the screw ups that can happen...

You keep saying "complete overhaul" like it's some magical panacea. No possible system will be fuck-up proof.

Common sense tells me that if you haven't received an answer from the FBI, you don't get to purchase the gun.

And common sense tells me that if there's no limit forcing the FBI to find their answer quickly and efficiently, then the responses will just get slower, and some people will be on delay forever. Shit, this is basically what happened in California, which is why they had to pass AB-500. Considering the number of false positives that I've observed, I'm not so happy about the idea of people being judged as if they're guilty based on nothing more than a lack of information.

And some retailers have already figured this out. Walmart, for example, will not sell firearms unless they get an answer from the FBI.

And yet, I think you'd agree that as long as those people can go down the road to an independently owned store and find a shop-owner less likely to turn down a sale, then this is largely meaningless.

[Mayhem]

I read it just fine. It's not my problem if you don't understand how my response addresses what you said.

So you deliberately asked a question i already answered with when i came up with the idea? Interesting.

You keep saying "complete overhaul" like it's some magical panacea. No possible system will be fuck-up proof.

You keep saying fuck-up proof as if i have ever said that. Reduce human error. Do you understand the word reduce? Or do i have to start quoting the dictionary for every other word now?

[Noradin]

Luxembourg's population is under 600k.

Using their crime stats in a "per 100k" comparison with countries that have populations in the hundreds of millions is hilarious.

The smaller the total numbers to bigger the relative error and the easier to find an example that fits your claim, afterwards you use the "per 100k" trick to turn it into absolute numbers and disguise the error it contains.

[TZucchini]

And common sense tells me that if there's no limit forcing the FBI to find their answer quickly and efficiently, then the responses will just get slower, and some people will be on delay forever.

Yes. The FBI should be getting this done quickly, and there should be something in place that forces them to complete the process. But that something shouldn't be "you have three days to investigate, otherwise we're giving the firearm to Dylan Roof."

And yet, I think you'd agree that as long as those people can go down the road to an independently owned store and find a shop-owner less likely to turn down a sale, then this is largely meaningless.

Well of course. Which is why it shouldn't be possible for anyone to do it. It's much easier for Walmart to deny a sale than a small independently owned store. Walmart's doing that to avoid bad PR. Because if we had found out Roof got his gun from Walmart, without an answer from the FBI, people would be pissed. And rightfully so.

[TZucchini]

In doing more research about 'default proceed', I came across this study from the FBI. According to them:

A purchaser whose NICS check takes more than 24 hours to complete is almost 20 times more likely to be a prohibited person than the average gun buyer.

In fact, in 2012, "the NICS Section referred 3,722 firearm retrieval actions to the ATF."

Also, "FBI and Justice officials indicated that NICS could be improved by extending the maximum time allowed for conducting background checks to minimize the number of default-proceed transactions.

So it seems to be glaringly obvious here. We have a major problem/loophole in the current background check system, and it needs to be fixed.

[PhaelixWW]

So you deliberately asked a question i already answered with when i came up with the idea? Interesting.

They're called rhetorical questions. And you didn't answer them, anyway. You said "give every non-felon an ID" like it was as simple as that. How do you determine if they're eligible when they turn 18 in order to give them a card? (That's another rhetorical question.) You run a background check on them, just like you would currently, the only difference is when it gets run.

You keep saying fuck-up proof as if i have ever said that. Reduce human error. Do you understand the word reduce? Or do i have to start quoting the dictionary for every other word now?

And I doubt your ability to meaningfully reduce human error with a "complete overhaul". That's what I've been saying. Maybe you should consult your own dictionary if you're having trouble comprehending that.

Yes. The FBI should be getting this done quickly, and there should be something in place that forces them to complete the process. But that something shouldn't be "you have three days to investigate, otherwise we're giving the firearm to Dylan Roof."

The error that led to the shooter getting his firearm had nothing to do with the time limit. If it had, then the FBI would have eventually sent a retrieval request. Like I said, there were 65 days between when he received his firearm and the shooting.

The error was a stupid one, and some work should be done to try and straighten out that particular error, but even the FBI stated that it had more to do with SC's screwy jurisdictions than anything else. From an article on the subject:

The Columbia police report included information that Roof admitted to drug possession, which would have triggered an immediate denial by the FBI NICS review process, according to bureau guidelines. But that information was never seen by the reviewer because the FBI's database did not include Columbia police contacts in its list of agency contacts for Lexington County purchase reviews.

Yeah, that sounds like an FBI fuck-up, nothing more. Not having the right phone number at all? Good lord.

In doing more research about 'default proceed', I came across this study from the FBI. According to them: "A purchaser whose NICS check takes more than 24 hours to complete is almost 20 times more likely to be a prohibited person than the average gun buyer. "

Wow, that's like a justification for profiling and stereotyping. "People of race A are 20 times more likely to be convicted of a crime than people of race B. Let's treat everyone of race A like they're guilty of something". Horrible justification.

Also, let's look at the math. Only 1% of "average gun buyers" are denied for being a prohibited person. So 20 times that still means that only 20% of the people who are delayed more than 24 hours are actually prohibited. Shit yeah, seems like a great reason to disenfranchise the remaining non-prohibited 80%, huh?

In fact, in 2012, "the NICS Section referred 3,722 firearm retrieval actions to the ATF."

Oh, wow. 3722 retrieval actions. Out of 19592303 transactions. A whopping 0.019%. Shit, call out the cavalry, declare martial law! /sarcasm

Seriously though, PRE, it's a good thing you didn't call this a major problem.

So it seems to be glaringly obvious here. We have a major problem/loophole in the current background check system, and it needs to be fixed.

Oh, shit, you did!

And is it just me, or does this quote from PRE read like "Fuck due process! It's a loophole!"

Also, "FBI and Justice officials indicated that NICS could be improved by extending the maximum time allowed for conducting background checks to minimize the number of default-proceed transactions.

Wonderful, PRE. Those are obviously not biased evaluations, right? Ask anybody if their job could be improved by giving them more time to do it, and you'll invariably receive a "yes" response.

On top of that, the report you linked was from the very first year the NICS was in existence. So I sure as shit hope they've improved their efficiency in the 15 years since. And obviously, they have. Because that report indicates that during the first year, there were 8.8 million checks run. Extrapolating for December of that year gives us about 10 million checks run in the first 13 months, during which time there were 3353 retrieval actions recommended.

So it looks like between 1999 and 2012, they lowered the rate of recommendations from 0.034% to 0.019%. That's nearly half! Congratulations, FBI!

Also, from the report you linked:

The report also noted the following:

"...[I]n a number of these cases, the individual may not be prohibited under Federal law. ... In some cases, the person is prohibited under State law, and thus NICS correctly denied the transaction. In other cases, the computerized records check accurately revealed that an individual was convicted of a felony; however, the database does not reveal that the individual subsequently received a restoration of civil rights under State law. Thus, many of these situations are unavoidable, given the fact that no computerized database will contain all the information necessary in order to make the complex determination as to whether an individual has Federal firearms disabilities."

Treasury’s comments are consistent with what we found during our work at ATF field offices. The following example from Colorado illustrates why some delayed denials do not result in the firearm being retrieved or the purchaser being prosecuted: For a Colorado firearm-purchase transaction, the NICS background check showed a criminal record with a third-degree misdemeanor assault in Colorado. The NICS examiner contacted the county court to determine if the assault involved domestic violence. The examiner was then told the purchaser also had an outstanding warrant for failure to comply with a court-ordered community service sentence. The transaction was denied (after more than 3 business days) on the basis of the outstanding warrant. After receiving the case, the ATF Denver field agent reviewed the NICS case history report and the associated criminal records. The agent then contacted the local court to confirm facts about the misdemeanor assault, which was not related to domestic violence, and, thus, was not a federal disqualifier. The agent further determined, after review of the outstanding warrant, that the purchaser was not a fugitive as defined for NICS purposes, because there was no evidence he had left the state to avoid prosecution or testimony in a court proceeding. Therefore, the ATF agent determined the purchaser was not legally prohibited from purchasing a firearm.

[Mayhem]

They're called rhetorical questions. And you didn't answer them, anyway. You said "give every non-felon an ID" like it was as simple as that. How do you determine if they're eligible when they turn 18 in order to give them a card? (That's another rhetorical question.) You run a background check on them, just like you would currently, the only difference is when it gets run.

The other difference is, much more time to run that background check.

And I doubt your ability to meaningfully reduce human error with a "complete overhaul". That's what I've been saying. Maybe you should consult your own dictionary if you're having trouble comprehending that.

You doubt that reducing the number of databases to search through would reduce human error? Na i´m good, just don´t answer to stuff i never said, saves time you know?

[wdh1974]

WDH let me now how that Ar runs, thought of getting one for my wife. My Next will a a AR10 by Patriot Ordinance Firearms. I agree with what you said

It will be here monday, i just ordered magpul pro long range sights with KNS front post pack for target shooting. So far people are loving PSA.

Ar 10 are nice man, are you going for a long range setup,given it's .308 its prime for it.

[PhaelixWW]

The other difference is, much more time to run that background check.

And much, much more out of date when it comes time to actually buy a firearm. And time generally isn't much of a factor in running the background check, especially for 18-year-olds.

You doubt that reducing the number of databases to search through would reduce human error?

/sigh

This is why it's difficult to explain this to someone who's not familiar with information systems. The human error isn't generally with the search; the search itself is automated. The human error is usually in the data in the database. It doesn't matter if that information is spread out in 10 different databases or merged into one, if the data are incorrect, then the data are incorrect.

Na i´m good, just don´t answer to stuff i never said, saves time you know?

I honestly have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

[Mayhem]

This is why it's difficult to explain this to someone who's not familiar with information systems. The human error isn't generally with the search; the search itself is automated. The human error is usually in the data in the database. It doesn't matter if that information is spread out in 10 different databases or merged into one, if the data are incorrect, then the data are incorrect.

Are you purposefully ignoring everything i wrote and just answer stuff as if there was no prior information given?

This "you don´t know what you´re talking about" is really cute though. This is like talking to someone with alzheimers.

[PhaelixWW]

Are you purposefully ignoring everything i wrote and just answer stuff as if there was no prior information given?

You keep acting like you've already addressed my statements, but you haven't. Maybe, instead of just saying that you have, you could quote yourself or something, because otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Mayhem]

You keep acting like you've already addressed my statements, but you haven't. Maybe, instead of just saying that you have, you could quote yourself or something, because otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about.

I´m getting really tired of this... so i´ll give it one last try. If you have 1 database instead of 10 the system then can make checks while you enter information that otherwise users have to look for themselves. It´s an enormous difference if you have 1 database instead of 10 unless of course you have a system that includes all databases while entering information and while searching for information, but this doesn´t seem to be the case.

[TZucchini]

Wow, that's like a justification for profiling and stereotyping. "People of race A are 20 times more likely to be convicted of a crime than people of race B. Let's treat everyone of race A like they're guilty of something". Horrible justification.

First of all, there is an enormous difference between profiling based on race, and profiling based on background check status. One is illegal, the other isn't. If I want to hire someone, I can perform a background check. If they don't pass, I don't have to hire them. That's completely legal. I cannot, however, discriminate based on race/gender/sexuality etc. for the most part. Profiling is a valuable tool, used within law enforcement every single day.

But here's the real question. If we're allowing individuals that are 20 times more likely to be prohibited to purchase firearms without an "all clear" from the FBI, then why are we even implementing background checks in the first place?

Secondly, stop playing the victim card. No one is being treated like their guilty of something. If you want to purchase a firearm through an FFL, there's a specific process you must go through. I suppose everyone is "treated like the'ye guilty of something", by the mere fact that a background check must even occur.

Oh, wow. 3722 retrieval actions. Out of 19592303 transactions. A whopping 0.019%. Shit, call out the cavalry, declare martial law! /sarcasm

And here's where we break things down into really reallllllly small numbers and pretend like they're not a problem. I guess you're OK with 3,700 firearms being given to prohibited persons in a single year, because it's a small number. Cool.

Also, no one's declaring martial law. I'm simply asking that default proceeds be eliminated.

[Tinykong]

Profiling is a valuable tool, used within law enforcement every single day.

Tell that to all the people pulled over for "driving while black."

[TZucchini]

I'm not sure why you guys keep bringing race into this.

[Tinykong]

I'm not sure why you guys keep bringing race into this.

"Profiling" in the law enforcement community really means racial profiling.

[TZucchini]

"Profiling" in the law enforcement community really means racial profiling.

That's a ridiculous opinion with no logical backing whatsoever.

It's like you've never heard of forensic or offender profiling.