Author Topic: In other news (Read 3605 times)

john9001 · « **Reply #60 on:** April 09, 2005, 01:57:51 PM »

""Manufacturing processes, use, and abuse leave surface characteristics within the firearm that cannot be exactly reproduced in other firearms. ""

""Firearms do not normally change much over time.""

make up your mind, use changes the markings or they don't change.

Toad · « **Reply #61 on:** April 09, 2005, 03:04:36 PM »

Ballistic fingerprinting is a joke.

New York is spending $4 million per year on ballistic fingerprinting. Maryland has spent a total of $2.6 million. Both Maryland and New York have said that in the over four years that the systems have been in effect neither has solved a single crime.

Wow. Impressive. No results from nearly $20 million invested. Wonder how many cops you can hire for $20 million?

Further... it's probably NEVER going to work.

Quote

A recent study by the State of California points to further practical difficulties with ballistic fingerprinting. The study tested 790 pistols firing a total of 2,000 rounds.

When the cartridges used with a particular gun came from the same manufacturer, computer matching failed 38 percent of the time.

When the cartridges came from different manufacturers, the failure rate rose to 62 percent. And this study does not even begin to address problems caused by wear, so the real-world failure rate can be expected to be much higher.

Hmm.. switch brands of ammo and get a 62% chance they can't match it.

Give it up Raider. It was another idea that simply didn't work.

Here's one that has always worked. Jail the criminals that use firearms in their crimes. Jail them for 20 years, no parole. Pretty much guarantees you that person won't use firearms in a crime for 20 years. Additionally, the others with an IQ higher than 80 will probably figure out they're better off without the guns.

Precedent? Yep. Operation Ceasefire, Operation Disarm.. cooperative efforts between the locals and the Feds to get felony firearms users in prison for a long time. It works.

Ballistic fingerprinting? Nice try; doesn't work.

Raider179 · « **Reply #62 on:** April 09, 2005, 04:17:12 PM »

Yeah you guys are right our gun laws are just so tough.

http://161.203.16.4/d20t9/143619.pdf

What GAO Found:

During the period GAO reviewed--February 3 through June 30, 2004--a total of 44 firearm-related background checks handled by the FBI and applicable state agencies resulted in valid matches with terrorist watch list records. Of this total, 35 transactions were allowed to proceed because the background checks found no prohibiting information, such as felony convictions, illegal immigrant status, or other disqualifying factors.

Great so even people on the terrorist watch list can by firearms. There is one law That definitely needs to be changed.

storch · « **Reply #63 on:** April 09, 2005, 04:27:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
Yeah you guys are right our gun laws are just so tough.

http://161.203.16.4/d20t9/143619.pdf

What GAO Found:

During the period GAO reviewed--February 3 through June 30, 2004--a total of 44 firearm-related background checks handled by the FBI and applicable state agencies resulted in valid matches with terrorist watch list records. Of this total, 35 transactions were allowed to proceed because the background checks found no prohibiting information, such as felony convictions, illegal immigrant status, or other disqualifying factors.

Great so even people on the terrorist watch list can by firearms. There is one law That definitely needs to be changed.

I had my credit run recently and found a bunch of errors on it. it turns out someone with a similar name's entries had been reported on my tab. you aren't really this stupid are you? tell me you are a troll.

Nashwan · « **Reply #64 on:** April 09, 2005, 04:41:32 PM »

Quote

Yes Storch it's true. I lived in Arizona and they do have an open carry. There's nothing like strolling into a McDonalds and see a few holsters with firearms. I think it deters alot of crime.

According to the FBI, Arizona has a much higher murder rate than the US average (7.9 per 100,000 compared to 5.7 for the US as a whole)

The rates of violent crime, rape, and burglary are all above average too, with the robbery rate marginally below average.

Toad · « **Reply #65 on:** April 09, 2005, 04:51:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
Great so even people on the terrorist watch list can by firearms. There is one law That definitely needs to be changed.

Do you think another "assault weapons ban" would help?

I think the point is really that there is no gun law that can't be circumvented.

Nashwan, what would those rates be without concealed carry? Would they go up or down? That would be my question.

Further, when one takes CC states as a group and compares them to non-CC states, where would the groups sit with respect to the average?

There are always going to be states that are higher than the average and states that are lower than the average. That's what "average" is all about.

Raider179 · « **Reply #66 on:** April 09, 2005, 05:05:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Do you think another "assault weapons ban" would help?

I think the point is really that there is no gun law that can't be circumvented.

No but I think not letting people we suspect of being terrorists buy guns would be a good idea.

Your right about that circumvention.

SKJohn · « **Reply #67 on:** April 09, 2005, 05:13:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
kinda proves my point.

Another billy bad bellybutton with a gun that cant wait to use it.

You're defintely wrong on that one Raider. I hope and pray that I never have to use it! But, having been on the wrong end of an armed robbery/assault before, I have decided that IF there is a next time, I'll be able to defend myself and loved ones if need be. Have you ever been in a situation where whether you lived or died was totally up to some idiot with a knife or other weapon while you stood there defenseless waiting to see what he decided to do? I have, and I've made the decision that if it happens again, I'll be able to have some say in the matter.

I'd bet that 99% of CCW holders feel the same as I do: it's like a fire extinguisher. Hope you never need it, but if you do, you'll need it badly and right away. No time to wait for the police to get there AFTER you've been assaulted. All they do is take a report and make sure you get to the hospital.

Toad · « **Reply #68 on:** April 09, 2005, 05:33:22 PM »

Ok, let's look at this GAO report. As you know, there is a background check law.

Quote

During the period GAO reviewed--February 3 through June 30, 2004--a total of 44 firearm-related background checks handled by the FBI and applicable state agencies resulted in valid matches with terrorist watch list records.

EXCELLENT! The system we have in place ID'd 44 potential purchasers as being on the terrorist watch list.

You have to be happy with that, eh Raider?

Quote

Of this total, 35 transactions were allowed to proceed because the background checks found no prohibiting information, such as felony convictions, illegal immigrant status, or other disqualifying factors

What???? 35 transactions allowed to proceed because the potential purchasers WERE NOT GUILTY of any of the things THE LAW SAYS WOULD PREVENT A PURCHASE.

Apparently, being "on the terrorist watch list" is not a disqualifier for purchase.

So, where is the problem? Is it all that difficult to rememdy?

I think the problem is probably that the terrorist watch list is a newer thing that was not included when the law passed.

It is easily remedied by Congress.

The problem, of course, is WITH THE TERRORIST WATCH LIST. There are more than enough examples of that. You don't know how you get on the list, you may not be on the list but someone with the same name as you have is on the list and "they" can't tell you apart.

The problem, Raider, is that the terrorist watch list is a faulty thing in and of itself.

Fix that, add it to the list of prohibiting things and the problem goes away.

First, you have to fix the terrorist watch list. That's where the real problem lies.

john9001 · « **Reply #69 on:** April 09, 2005, 05:41:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nashwan
According to the FBI, Arizona has a much higher murder rate than the US average (7.9 per 100,000 compared to 5.7 for the US as a whole)

The rates of violent crime, rape, and burglary are all above average too, with the robbery rate marginally below average.

arizona+"undocumented people"=high crime....or am i being a bigot?

Raider179 · « **Reply #70 on:** April 09, 2005, 05:44:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Ok, let's look at this GAO report. As you know, there is a background check law.

EXCELLENT! The system we have in place ID'd 44 potential purchasers as being on the terrorist watch list.

You have to be happy with that, eh Raider?

What???? 35 transactions allowed to proceed because the potential purchasers WERE NOT GUILTY of any of the things THE LAW SAYS WOULD PREVENT A PURCHASE.

Apparently, being "on the terrorist watch list" is not a disqualifier for purchase.

So, where is the problem? Is it all that difficult to rememdy?

I think the problem is probably that the terrorist watch list is a newer thing that was not included when the law passed.

It is easily remedied by Congress.

The problem, of course, is WITH THE TERRORIST WATCH LIST. There are more than enough examples of that. You don't know how you get on the list, you may not be on the list but someone with the same name as you have is on the list and "they" can't tell you apart.

The problem, Raider, is that the terrorist watch list is a faulty thing in and of itself.

Fix that, add it to the list of prohibiting things and the problem goes away.

First, you have to fix the terrorist watch list. That's where the real problem lies.

We won't let them fly on planes but they can go buy guns? Like I said earlier this is a law that needs to be changed.

Toad · « **Reply #71 on:** April 09, 2005, 05:56:13 PM »

You miss the point.

You want to use the current terrorist watch list?

OK, you, Jack Raider, want to fly from LA to DC. Unfortunately for you, you have been banned from flying because "Jack Raider" is on the terrorist watch list.

Now, you don't know that YOU are the "Jack Raider" in question. The authorities don't either. They just know you have the same name.

They cannot tell you if YOU are the "Jack Raider" they are interested in because they themselves don't know.

They will not/cannot tell you how you got on the list.

They cannot tell you how to get off the list.

Sound fair to you? No more flying for you, no appeal.

And you want to use this same list for other things?

Really?

You seem like a guy sympathetic to the ACLU. Know what they say about the terrorist watch list?

Quote

Internal documents obtained by the ACLU through Freedom of Information Act requests reveal much confusion and lack of leadership in the management of watch lists.

In one e-mail, an FBI agent, apparently reacting to a TSA official’s rationale for the lists, wrote that “Unfortunately, eggheaded thinking like this muddies the waters to the point where the no-fly list and selectee lists become virtually worthless (garbage in, garbage out).”

But you're OK with that right?

Toad · « **Reply #72 on:** April 09, 2005, 06:00:49 PM »

BTW, Raider... on that GAO report, do they happen to mention if the guys that got the guns actually WERE the persons on the watch list?

Does it definitively state that "Jack Raider" was positively identified as a person deliberately put on the terrorist watch list but still got a gun?

Or could it be that a Jack Raider got a gun but he wasn't the "Jack Raider" they named as a terrorist ?

In other words, could there possibly have been a case of mistaken identity due to same names?

I bet they don't discuss that at all, do they? Yet we know it has happened probably THOUSANDS of times at airports using that same list.

Raider179 · « **Reply #73 on:** April 09, 2005, 06:23:55 PM »

point taken and agreed!

Toad · « **Reply #74 on:** April 09, 2005, 06:25:38 PM »

Thanks!

Author Topic: In other news (Read 3605 times)

storch