Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

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

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

Plenty of news articles back in 2014 used the term in this fashion when the Justice Department implemented new "profiling" rules that prohibited racial/ethnic profiling. They didn't say "racial profiling" they just said "profiling." If you use that term, related to law enforcement, that's what people will think of.

[TZucchini]

Plenty of news articles back in 2014 used the term in this fashion when the Justice Department implemented new "profiling" rules that prohibited racial/ethnic profiling. They didn't say "racial profiling" they just said "profiling." If you use that term, related to law enforcement, that's what people will think of.

I don't even know what you're arguing against, Tiny. The Justice Department using the term profiling, in the context of a prohibition on racial profiling, doesn't support the idea that "Profiling" in the law enforcement community really means racial profiling."

[Tinykong]

I don't even know what you're arguing against, Tiny. The Justice Department using the term profiling, in the context of a prohibition on racial profiling, doesn't support the idea that "Profiling" in the law enforcement community really means racial profiling."

I'm not arguing against anything.

I merely posted that when you said

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

you should tell that to people who have been racially profiled, since I bet they would disagree with you. You wanted to know why race was brought up, and I brought it up because most people, when they hear the term "profiling" related to law enforcement, take it to mean racial profiling.

[TZucchini]

you should tell that to people who have been racially profiled, since I bet they would disagree with you.

I said that specifically in the context of non-racial/gender/sexuality profiling. How was that not obvious?

I brought it up because most people, when they hear the term "profiling" related to law enforcement, take it to mean racial profiling.

I'm not sure how that's relevant at all. "Profiling is a valuable tool, used within law enforcement every single day." That's a fact.

[Tinykong]

I'm not sure how that's relevant at all. "Profiling is a valuable tool, used within law enforcement every single day." That's a fact.

And, again, if you said this to most people, they would think you were a bigot who condoned racial profiling.

[Mayhem]

Is tiny discribing himself now?

[TZucchini]

And, again, if you said this to most people, they would think you were a bigot who condoned racial profiling.

Unless it were said in the same exact context in which I initially said it. Then anyone with half a brain would realize I wasn't referencing racial profiling.

I mean shit, all you had to do was read the sentence directly before that: " I cannot, however, discriminate based on race/gender/sexuality etc. for the most part."

Critical thinking skills.

[Tinykong]

Then anyone with half a brain would realize I wasn't referencing racial profiling.

It's as if you missed the entire point of the post.

[TZucchini]

It's as if you missed the entire point of the post.

If there was a point to be made, I most definitely missed it.

[PhaelixWW]

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.

Nope, you still don't get it.

The checks are instant. What takes time is researching the errors and inconsistencies. Even researching just the errors for prospective firearms purchasers is rather labor intensive; they'd never, ever attempt to check every single error across all databases. Also, since one of the things being compared is the information entered at the time of the background check, some errors and inconsistencies would exist regardless of any prior screening. On top of that, they'd never merge all databases together, because they wouldn't want to give all that information to any random person accessing "the database". The DMV shouldn't have access to your criminal record, your doctor shouldn't have access to your DMV record, etc. So even your "one database" would already be a merging of smaller databases, with all the inherent potential for error that that brings.

But I'm guessing, based on your past statements, that you won't understand any of this, so I expect you to come back with, "but one database is definitely better!"

You're not the only one getting tired of this, by the way.

First of all, there is an enormous difference between profiling based on race, and profiling based on background check status.

You're profiling based on the lack of a background check status. Not the same thing.

If I want to hire someone, I can perform a background check. If they don't pass, I don't have to hire them.

And if the background check for that person stays in permanent limbo even though the person has nothing that should fail them in their history, then they could sue the background check agency for gross negligence. I've actually had this happen to me. I had to wait 5 weeks to start a job simply because the background check agency was too lazy to get someone to go check county records to get the last piece of information needed to finish my clearance.

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?

Because those people are still 4 times more likely to not be prohibited than prohibited.

No one is being treated like their guilty of something.

Bullshit. If you're considered to not have passed a background check even though you haven't failed the background check, then that's exactly like treating you like you're guilty without proof of guilt.

I guess you're OK with 3,700 firearms being given to prohibited persons in a single year, because it's a small number.

But they're not all prohibited; that was the point of the passage that I quoted from your source. According to your source, almost a third of the reviewed cases yielded no proof of prohibition. Even though 3353 cases had been initially referred during the first 13 months, only 442 cases of actual retrieval had occurred during the first 10 months.

Edit:
And, incidentally, there were only 2511 retrieval actions recommended in 2014, even though there were about 10% more NICS checks compared to 2012. So we're down to 0.012% from 0.019%. That's a nearly 40% decrease in 2 years. Progress!

I'm simply asking that default proceeds be eliminated.

As soon as you can guarantee that there are no falsely positive background check results.

[Mayhem]

The checks are instant. What takes time is researching the errors and inconsistencies.

That´s what i´m talking about.

Even researching just the errors for prospective firearms purchasers is rather labor intensive; they'd never, ever attempt to check every single error across all databases. Also, since one of the things being compared is the information entered at the time of the background check, some errors and inconsistencies would exist regardless of any prior screening. On top of that, they'd never merge all databases together, because they wouldn't want to give all that information to any random person accessing "the database". The DMV shouldn't have access to your criminal record, your doctor shouldn't have access to your DMV record, etc. So even your "one database" would already be a merging of smaller databases, with all the inherent potential for error that that brings.

But I'm guessing, based on your past statements, that you won't understand any of this, so I expect you to come back with, "but one database is definitely better!"

You're not the only one getting tired of this, by the way.

You do know what user rights are, don´t you? Without permission they can´t access information they aren´t allowed to access (but the program still can do the checks, you know, server-side)

[PhaelixWW]

You do know what user rights are, don´t you? Without permission they can´t access information they aren´t allowed to access (but the program still can do the checks, you know, server-side)

What part of "the check is instant" are you not getting? Who cares if the check is done before because the check doesn't take any time at the time of the purchase, either. The only reason you'd care about checking for errors early would be to try and correct those errors early. But instead of simply trying to research the errors found during 20 million NICS checks a year, you'd rather try to error-check and collate who-knows-how-many billions of database entries? Consistently? Without leading to even more screw-ups? That's absolutely batshit crazy, and anybody who knows anything about information systems is busy throwing up in their mouth at the idea.

And on top of that, you'd still have to deal with any errors or inconsistencies that popped up when the person's information was actually entered into the NICS, so you might not even save much time at the time of purchase, either.

And furthermore, if each agency (DMV, doctor, etc.) only has limited access to enter/change information in your master database, then what's the functional difference between that and each agency having its own database that gets checked by the background check agency?

[Mayhem]

What part of "the check is instant" are you not getting? Who cares if the check is done before because the check doesn't take any time at the time of the purchase, either. The only reason you'd care about checking for errors early would be to try and correct those errors early. But instead of simply trying to research the errors found during 20 million NICS checks a year, you'd rather try to error-check and collate who-knows-how-many billions of database entries? Consistently? Without leading to even more screw-ups? That's absolutely batshit crazy, and anybody who knows anything about information systems is busy throwing up in their mouth at the idea.

You don´t work too much with databases do you? That seems to be a huge number, i know, but it´s nothing, because those 'billion' entries aren´t done every second everytime all day long.

And on top of that, you'd still have to deal with any errors or inconsistencies that popped up when the person's information was actually entered into the NICS, so you might not even save much time at the time of purchase, either.

I guess i need to draw it for you so you can understand it.

And furthermore, if each agency (DMV, doctor, etc.) only has limited access to enter/change information in your master database, then what's the functional difference between that and each agency having its own database that gets checked by the background check agency?

The difference that theres a check of the information already in the database and the new information entered, because if they single each other out one of them probably is wrong.

[PhaelixWW]

You don´t work too much with databases do you? That seems to be a huge number, i know, but it´s nothing, because those 'billion' entries aren´t done every second everytime all day long.

It's like you're intentionally not understanding this concept. It's not the many billions of search comparisons that are the issue, (as I said, those are effectively instant), it's the orders-of-magnitude more errors that require human investigation that are the issue.

I guess i need to draw it for you so you can understand it.

What massive condescension considering the fact that you're not actually saying anything.

The difference that theres a check of the information already in the database and the new information entered, because if they single each other out one of them probably is wrong.

You're making the massively wrong assumption that your "one" database will know that two entries are the same person. Hell, much of the human research revolves around untangling whether or not two entries are the same person or different people. In order to not cause additional errors or omissions, the database would have to simply accept all data without question and then forward any discrepancies on to human analysts.

[Mayhem]

It's like you're intentionally not understanding this concept. It's not the many billions of search comparisons that are the issue, (as I said, those are effectively instant), it's the orders-of-magnitude more errors that require human investigation that are the issue.

What more errors, what the hell are you now talking about?!

What massive condescension considering the fact that you're not actually saying anything.

Well that´s true because you don´t understand what i´m saying.

You're making the massively wrong assumption that your "one" database will know that two entries are the same person. Hell, much of the human research revolves around untangling whether or not two entries are the same person or different people. In order to not cause additional errors or omissions, the database would have to simply accept all data without question and then forward any discrepancies on to human analysts.

Hello alzheimers, that´s where the Gunownership ID comes in handy.

[PhaelixWW]

What more errors, what the hell are you now talking about?!

Gee, I dunno. You want to expand searches from just the people who are trying to buy a gun to everybody over the age of 18. You don't think that's going to turn up more errors to reconcile?

Well that´s true because you don´t understand what i´m saying.

Tough to understand what you're saying when you're not saying anything. But feel free to "draw it for me so I can understand it."

Hello alzheimers, that´s where the Gunownership ID comes in handy.

Herp derp, you're not going to show your hypothetical "Gunownership ID" to the doctor, to the DMV, to every single agency that might enter some information about you into a database that needs to be searched. Like I said, you're making a massively wrong assumption here.

Sure, your system would work great, as long as... 1) everybody had a universal ID... 2) they had to show it every time they did just about anything... 3) nobody ever screwed up entering in information... 4) nobody was ever able to forge an ID or steal someone's identity...

What you're advocating is a pipe dream. It's simply not feasible. Frankly, it's about as far removed from reality as the Easter Bunny. The fact that you consistently fail to grasp this concept has me worried about your basic reasoning skills.

[Mayhem]

Herp derp, you're not going to show your hypothetical "Gunownership ID" to the doctor, to the DMV, to every single agency that might enter some information about you into a database that needs to be searched. Like I said, you're making a massively wrong assumption here.

Sure, your system would work great, as long as... 1) everybody had a universal ID... 2) they had to show it every time they did just about anything... 3) nobody ever screwed up entering in information... 4) nobody was ever able to forge an ID or steal someone's identity...

What you're advocating is a pipe dream. It's simply not feasible. Frankly, it's about as far removed from reality as the Easter Bunny. The fact that you consistently fail to grasp this concept has me worried about your basic reasoning skills.

If information has to be entered about you that would need to be searched through when a background check is done on you, you have to show proof for your identity or else the information entered could never be linked to you, and therefor would be useless.

Stealing someone´s identity... but i´m the one removed from reality.

- - - Updated - - -

Gee, I dunno. You want to expand searches from just the people who are trying to buy a gun to everybody over the age of 18. You don't think that's going to turn up more errors to reconcile?

You lost me... what human investigation? What searches of everybody over the age of 18? What are you imagining here?

[Allybeboba]

What I would like to know is how is there almost 4 million votes and only 1.7 million views.

/cheers

[Tinykong]

What I would like to know is how is there almost 4 million votes and only 1.7 million views.

/cheers

There are only ~3700 votes.

[PhaelixWW]

Stealing someone´s identity... but i´m the one removed from reality.

Are you fucking kidding? 16.6 million US people were victims of identity theft in 2012, according to the DOJ.

Yes, it appears you have a very loose association with reality.

You lost me... what human investigation? What searches of everybody over the age of 18? What are you imagining here?

Jesus...

The human investigation of errors and inconsistencies found by the automated searches.

The searches that happen when they try to figure out if the person turning 18 can be given a "Gunownership" ID and whether everyone over 18 can keep their "Gunownership" ID's.