Senate rejects Universal Background Checks

[ivwshane]

dude, you didn't even respond correctly to the post you were initially responding to with the accuracy bullshit.

Here is an analogy of your fucking side of the argument. A net is built to catch fish. I am arguing how good that net is at catching fish by counting the amount it actually catches. You are trying to argue by the amount it does not catch. You are fucking INSANE!

Yes and this is how stupid you two are:

When talking about accuracy you guys don't include the number that was accurately not denied.

Lol dumb and dumber over here.

 

[HumblePie]

If the new forum rules didn't shorten the signature lengths, the pwnage ivwshane just did to himself would be sig worthy.

Either he's incredibly retarded at this point, or intentionally trolling. I'm voting on the second.

 

[corwin]

Yes and this is how stupid you two are:

When talking about accuracy you guys don't include the number that was accurately not denied.

Lol dumb and dumber over here.

So you fail at math as well as life...got it

 

[Londo_Jowo]

^ LMAO!!!!! Major pwnage!!!!!

 

[HumblePie]

Yes and this is how stupid you two are:

When talking about accuracy you guys don't include the number that was accurately not denied.

Lol dumb and dumber over here.

Idiot, the original discussion wasn't about how accurately the NICS system lets law abiding citizens make legal purchases. It's about how accurately it STOPS criminals from making illegal purchases. Again it's not about how much the fishing net does NOT catch.

That was the whole discussion. You tried to assert it was very accurate at catching criminals because it denied hundred fiftyish thousand. Which was wrong it only denied 76Kish in 2010. And then the same link you tried to post to bolster your argument instead completely disproved it!

 

[ivwshane]

So you fail at math as well as life...got it

Lol using your logic, out of six million checks the checks were wrong 94% of the time. You guys are idiots.

 

[HumblePie]

Lol using your logic, out of six million checks the checks were wrong 94% of the time. You guys are idiots.

You are seriously trolling aren't you? ha ha, look at the troll.

 

[corwin]

Lol using your logic, out of six million checks the checks were wrong 94% of the time. You guys are idiots.

Wow, I'll give you one respect point for sticking to your guns on this, I couldn't pull off a troll for this long...

 

[corwin]

Yes and this is how stupid you two are:

When talking about accuracy you guys don't include the number that was accurately not denied.

Lol dumb and dumber over here.

:awe:

 

[Fern]

Anybody who is sincere about the issue already knows the background system is not accurate. It is deeply flawed, it produces too many approvals for people who should be denied. E.g., the CO killer passed even though his psychiatrist reported him as being unstable to the state. He should not have been allowed to purchase.

The problem is poor reporting by states to the federal level where the checks are done. If the system isn't fixed you can check everybody you want, but it'll be to no avail because it ain't stopping inappropriate people from purchasing in the first place.

Fern

 

[corwin]

Anybody who is sincere about the issue already knows the background system is not accurate. It is deeply flawed, it produces too many approvals for people who should be denied. E.g., the CO killer passed even though his psychiatrist reported him as being unstable to the state. He should not have been allowed to purchase.

The problem is poor reporting by states to the federal level where the checks are done. If the system isn't fixed you can check everybody you want, but it'll be to no avail because it ain't stopping inappropriate people from purchasing in the first place.

Fern

And the VAST majority of the denials are inaccurate as well...something some people can't seem to figure out:\

 

[HumblePie]

And the VAST majority of the denials are inaccurate as well...something some people can't seem to figure out:\

Not to mention of those 6+ million approvals, there were an unmeasurable amount of firearms sold to significant others, family, or just friends of criminals looking to obtain a gun. This is what is referred to as a straw purchase. The ATF and FBI has no idea how many of those slip by every year. They just know it does.

Any expanded background check wouldn't do a damn thing to fix that either. Actually nothing would. We already have laws in place that make it illegal to knowingly do a straw purchase.

 

[Fern]

And the VAST majority of the denials are inaccurate as well...something some people can't seem to figure out:\

Yeah, I got that part.

I was just 'closing the loop'. It's a crappy system because:

1. It reject people who are legal.

and

2. It authorizes people who aren't.

Can there be more fail?

Fern

 

[HumblePie]

Yeah, I got that part.

I was just 'closing the loop'. It's a crappy system because:

1. It reject people who are legal.

and

2. It authorizes people who aren't.

Can there be more fail?

Fern

No no no.... it's 98.8% accurate.... don't you know this?

 

[BladeVenom]

Just put if a person is allowed to buy a firearm on their driver's license or state identification. Then it would be easy to check if a person is allowed to buy a firearm in a private transaction.

 

[HumblePie]

Just put if a person is allowed to buy a firearm on their driver's license or state identification. Then it would be easy to check if a person is allowed to buy a firearm in a private transaction.

Then people would be required to pay for a state ID or DL.... a bit of an infringement.

 

[Fern]

Senate rejects Universal Background Checks

Who cares? It wasn't gonna pass the House anyway.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

98% accurate where? According to the data there:



Nearly 94% of the denials were overturned, cancelled or were not referred to be investigated for some reason, only a little over 6% of the denials were valid

Well fuck me it gets even worse...



Even 27% of the ones they went after were cleared

That does look bad. As to ivwshane's comment, it's two different ways of looking at the same data. Ivwshane's comment was that the system is 98% accurate - that is, 98% of the time the system makes the correct choice one way or the other. Piasabird's comment was that when the system denies someone, 90% of the time it does so incorrectly. Both can be accurate statements as they do not necessarily conflict, but are merely emphasizing different variables.

 

[werepossum]

Anybody who is sincere about the issue already knows the background system is not accurate. It is deeply flawed, it produces too many approvals for people who should be denied. E.g., the CO killer passed even though his psychiatrist reported him as being unstable to the state. He should not have been allowed to purchase.

The problem is poor reporting by states to the federal level where the checks are done. If the system isn't fixed you can check everybody you want, but it'll be to no avail because it ain't stopping inappropriate people from purchasing in the first place.

Fern

Excellent point.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Anybody who is sincere about the issue already knows the background system is not accurate. It is deeply flawed, it produces too many approvals for people who should be denied. E.g., the CO killer passed even though his psychiatrist reported him as being unstable to the state. He should not have been allowed to purchase.

The problem is poor reporting by states to the federal level where the checks are done. If the system isn't fixed you can check everybody you want, but it'll be to no avail because it ain't stopping inappropriate people from purchasing in the first place.

Fern

Except checks are also done within the state level a lot of the time. If we wanted background checks to include a blacklist of unstable people I'd vote for it. The bill that was in however really offered no great advantages.

 

[nehalem256]

Just put if a person is allowed to buy a firearm on their driver's license or state identification. Then it would be easy to check if a person is allowed to buy a firearm in a private transaction.

And what if the person becomes mentally ill after they get their driver's license?

Then people would be required to pay for a state ID or DL.... a bit of an infringement.

Haha. Well maybe we can combine the voter ID and gun-buyer ID bills together?

I also seem to recall a thread about liberal complaining about North Carolina branding DL's issue to illegal immigrants. How much more when you DL essentially brands you as a felon or mentally ill?

 

[RampantAndroid]

98% accurate where? According to the data there:



Nearly 94% of the denials were overturned, cancelled or were not referred to be investigated for some reason, only a little over 6% of the denials were valid

Well fuck me it gets even worse...



Even 27% of the ones they went after were cleared

Does this include the approval being a "hold"? Because those aren't denials, but they do delay things until things are looked into.

 

[spacejamz]

That makes perfect sense. Let's just get rid of all laws because criminals obviously won't obey them. Let's have absolutely no rules upon society. And since there's no laws, lets get rid of law enforcement. And since there's no law enforcement, there's no consequences for bad actions! You've solved the problem, bravo!

My quote SPECIFICALLY stated 'Why would a criminal obey NEW laws'...

Why are they going to follow any new legislation when they dont follow EXISTING ones...sheesh...

 

[spidey07]

Does this include the approval being a "hold"? Because those aren't denials, but they do delay things until things are looked into.

I've been put on delay before. Normally they aren't ever investigated. By law the FFL has to release the weapon to you after X number of business days. 5 I believe after a hold/delay.

A delay response is very much different from a deny. Not the same thing at all.

Ever since getting my CCDW all that nonsense has gone away. I don't have to have a background check run on me for ANY firearm I purchase through a FFL. It's nice. No background check, just gimme my weapon.

 

[ivwshane]

My quote SPECIFICALLY stated 'Why would a criminal obey NEW laws'...

Why are they going to follow any new legislation when they dont follow EXISTING ones...sheesh...

If criminals don't follow laws, then one could assume they won't be buying guns from anyone or person who requires a background check, right? Now if we require all "normal" avenues for gun purchases (including private sales), wouldn't that reduce the number of places where these criminals could buy guns? Sure they could get them on the black market but I'm sure you realize there isn't an actual black market one can go to, you would actually need to know people and that alone makes it more difficult and that's the point. Background checks make it harder for criminals to get guns, it doesn't make it harder (except for a tinie tiny amount of people) for law abiding citizens to get guns.