I don't believe in throwing the bath out with the bathwater.


I am not against that but good luck selling that. I think many gun buyers will not be happy to go from an FFL doing the background check quickly to the time and hassle of having a police department do all the checks.

Well there are federal laws on who can own firearms but setting that aside, the NICS doesn't set the standards if I understand correctly, they just serve as a way to share information among agencies.

The fact is the Constitution, and the Second Amendment in particular, limits what the federal government may do re: arms.  It's a constitutional conflict for the federal government to make laws and do background checks that keep anyone from owning guns.  I wish I had the authority to make rules limiting what other people can own and reserve the right to own it all for myself.  Nobody can have an SUV or other vehicle of similar size except me -- you know, for my safety.


What prohibited groups should be removed?

Why would you not throw out the bath with the bathwater.  It's unavoidable!      (I know what you meant)

The FBI operates NICS.  The rules of who can own firearms are supposed to be set in statutes by congress.  The FBI makes the determination on whether or not a transfer request is approved regardless of the information on NICS.  Many times information in NICS is contradictory.  The FBI has the job of reconciling it. Like one data source reported you have a medical marijuana card, and another says the card was never renewed after its expiration.  If the discrepancy can't be adjudicated in 3 days, the request must be summarily approved.  So, no, it's not the way you "understand" it.

i guess you've never had any courses in systems analysis and design, Quantitative Analysis, or product R&D.  There's a concept called "The Sunk Cost Fallacy."  In layman's terms, "Don't throw good money after bad."  There is a cost in keeping a bad NICS system in operation if it's too broken to fix.  There's also another concept called "Opportunity Cost."  For every million dollars spent on maintaining, updating and using a bad NICS system, you've prevented that million from benefitting a different project -- perhaps a better, more effective system to replace NICS.  Perhaps it could have gone toward better background checks at the state level.  Federal dollars are used to fund state's needs a lot!

The Sunk Cost Fallacy was demonstrated quite well in wargaming we did in the Air Force officer's training.  Say you spent 3 years and $300M developing a new defense system.  During testing, you find that the prototype does not meet requirements.  So you are faced with pouring more money into the project to get it working because most people hate canceling a 3-year/$300M effort with nothing to show for it.  But, instead of trying to fix a bad program, you can redirect that time and money into a new project that has a good chance of actually satisfying the requirements. 

Sometimes starting from scratch is the only way to abandon a poorly designed or implemented project.  NICS might have been good enough when first implemented, but with more and more government focus on background checks for ALL sales, not just FFL-involved, and with more states trying to increase the amount of information they now enter into it, trying to make NICS keep up with it has proven futile.  This is a major reason the feds have already planned to abandon NICS someday.  RAPBACK is part of that.  The system is called Next Generation Identification (NGI).
https://le.fbi.gov/science-and-lab/biometrics-and-fingerprints/biometrics/next-generation-identification-ngi

Imagine if all the money dumped into keeping NICS running had been used to complete the NGI project sooner.  Then this discussion would already be moot.

Why would you not throw out the bath with the bathwater.  It's unavoidable!      (I know what you meant)

Touche!

The FBI operates NICS.  The rules of who can own firearms are supposed to be set in statutes by congress.  The FBI makes the determination on whether or not a transfer request is approved regardless of the information on NICS.  Many times information in NICS is contradictory.  The FBI has the job of reconciling it. Like one data source reported you have a medical marijuana card, and another says the card was never renewed after its expiration.  If the discrepancy can't be adjudicated in 3 days, the request must be summarily approved.  So, no, it's not the way you "understand" it.

What you said does not contradict what I said here, the NICS does not set a standard. The law sets the standard and the FBI applies it.

i guess you've never had any courses in systems analysis and design, Quantitative Analysis, or product R&D.  There's a concept called "The Sunk Cost Fallacy."  In layman's terms, "Don't throw good money after bad."  There is a cost in keeping a bad NICS system in operation if it's too broken to fix.  There's also another concept called "Opportunity Cost."  For every million dollars spent on maintaining, updating and using a bad NICS system, you've prevented that million from benefitting a different project -- perhaps a better, more effective system to replace NICS.  Perhaps it could have gone toward better background checks at the state level.  Federal dollars are used to fund state's needs a lot!

The reason I would argue that this angle doesn't apply is that unless it is going to be abandoned entirely then all it does is move the burden to other agencies who may have to start from scratch. It wouldn't be hard for us here in Hawaii but for other states and agencies it is a pretty big change they have to adapt to. I would wager that if it was scrapped and sent out to state agencies you would have a less reliable system. At a state level I think maybe they could improve it but in terms of sharing across state lines I think it would suffer. I think a system could be designed from scratch and replace the NICS but I think it would still need to be at a federal level to function as necessary.

Touche!


What you said does not contradict what I said here, the NICS does not set a standard. The law sets the standard and the FBI applies it.


The reason I would argue that this angle doesn't apply is that unless it is going to be abandoned entirely then all it does is move the burden to other agencies who may have to start from scratch. It wouldn't be hard for us here in Hawaii but for other states and agencies it is a pretty big change they have to adapt to. I would wager that if it was scrapped and sent out to state agencies you would have a less reliable system. At a state level I think maybe they could improve it but in terms of sharing across state lines I think it would suffer. I think a system could be designed from scratch and replace the NICS but I think it would still need to be at a federal level to function as necessary.

As a career systems engineer and systems analyst, all I have to say is you just don't get it.

Systems designed in the 1990s are archaic by today's technological standards.  What has gone before, Kamala, is to be considered a prototype -- a fielded prototype, but that's even better.  I worked on projects employing a method once called rapid prototyping.  About 80% of requirements were implemented before deployment.  During use, that "80% solution" performed the job as well as it was able.  Work-arounds, high priority patches and procedural changes kept the system functional enough, but resources were already focused on the next iteration.  Better hardware, better software choices, and the most important thing: better defined requirements.  That method shortened the time from start to fielding to about 30% of previous development projects.  if you want to make it perfect before fielding, you're spending time on testing and corrections.  in the meantime, the users are stuck with whatever they had before and are probably trying to find their own solutions with off-the-shelf products.  That represents a redundancy that also creates a cost.

Nobody will be "starting from scratch".  There is a working prototype called NICS which will be the starting point for developing a better solution.

Anyone who decides to ignore the current system's capabilities and shortcomings by "starting from scratch' is an idiot.

As a career systems engineer and systems analyst, all I have to say is you just don't get it.

Systems designed in the 1990s are archaic by today's technological standards.  What has gone before, Kamala, is to be considered a prototype -- a fielded prototype, but that's even better.  I worked on projects employing a method once called rapid prototyping.  About 80% of requirements were implemented before deployment.  During use, that "80% solution" performed the job as well as it was able.  Work-arounds, high priority patches and procedural changes kept the system functional enough, but resources were already focused on the next iteration.  Better hardware, better software choices, and the most important thing: better defined requirements.  That method shortened the time from start to fielding to about 30% of previous development projects.  if you want to make it perfect before fielding, you're spending time on testing and corrections.  in the meantime, the users are stuck with whatever they had before and are probably trying to find their own solutions with off-the-shelf products.  That represents a redundancy that also creates a cost.

Nobody will be "starting from scratch".  There is a working prototype called NICS which will be the starting point for developing a better solution.

Anyone who decides to ignore the current system's capabilities and shortcomings by "starting from scratch' is an idiot.

That sounds a lot like what I was suggesting, to fix the problems of NICS, not toss it out completely. 

That sounds a lot like what I was suggesting, to fix the problems of NICS, not toss it out completely. 

Have u ever thought that sometimes its  easier to redo something than keep trying to fix it?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

That sounds a lot like what I was suggesting, to fix the problems of NICS, not toss it out completely. 

Show me where i said, "fix the problems of NICS, not toss it out completely".

"There is a working prototype called NICS which will be the starting point for developing a better solution," doesn't mean keep NICS.  Try reading it again.

"A better solution" would not be NICS, but a NICS replacement at the state level.