"The Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, or IAFIS,
is a national fingerprint and criminal history system that responds to
requests 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to help our local, state, and
federal partners—and our own investigators—solve and prevent crime and
catch criminals and terrorists. IAFIS provides automated fingerprint
search capabilities, latent search capability, electronic image storage,
and electronic exchange of fingerprints and responses.

What is included in IAFIS: Not only fingerprints, but corresponding
criminal histories; mug shots; scars and tattoo photos; physical
characteristics like height, weight, and hair and eye color; and
aliases. The system also includes civil fingerprints, mostly of
individuals who have served or are serving in the U.S. military or have
been or are employed by the federal government. The fingerprints and
criminal history information are submitted voluntarily by state, local,
and federal law enforcement agencies.

How big it is: IAFIS is the largest criminal fingerprint database in the
world, housing the fingerprints and criminal histories for more than 70
million subjects in the criminal master file, along with more than 34
million civil prints. Included in our criminal database are fingerprints
from 73,000 known and suspected terrorists processed by the U.S. or by
international law enforcement agencies who work with us."

IAFIS was launched in 1999. It's replacement, NGI became fully
operational in 2014.

Wow. Over a 100 million fingerprints and records on file and instantly
available to federal, state and local law enforcement. So much for the
argument that maintaining a gun registry with chain of custody records
is not technically feasible.

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:01:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So much for the
argument that maintaining a gun registry with chain of custody records
is not technically feasible.

===

Let's say for the sake of reasonable discussion that such a system
could be created, debugged and implemented for 1 billion dollars.
That's a lot of money but very little can be created by the federal
government for less than that.

By your estimation, how many crimes would be prevented or solved with
such a system? My own estimate is maybe a couple of hundred at best,
perhaps much less. That puts the cost/benefit ratio at maybe 5 to 10
million per incident, and quite possibly a lot more since it would
perpetuate yet another bureauracracy.

All that to try and get a handle on drug dealers and rap musicians
killing each other?

On 1/8/2016 8:30 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:01:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So much for the
argument that maintaining a gun registry with chain of custody records
is not technically feasible.

===

Let's say for the sake of reasonable discussion that such a system
could be created, debugged and implemented for 1 billion dollars.
That's a lot of money but very little can be created by the federal
government for less than that.

By your estimation, how many crimes would be prevented or solved with
such a system? My own estimate is maybe a couple of hundred at best,
perhaps much less. That puts the cost/benefit ratio at maybe 5 to 10
million per incident, and quite possibly a lot more since it would
perpetuate yet another bureauracracy.

All that to try and get a handle on drug dealers and rap musicians
killing each other?



First, the system already exists. A new one doesn't need to be
developed. If the IAFIS and now the improved NGI system can handle
not only fingerprint files but also images, criminal records, etc., it
certainly should be able to accept a background check event and a record
of sale or transfer of a firearm.

The part I think would be beneficial but causes the most angst among
people who distrust government is the record of sale/transfer thing that
creates a chain of custody. I know you disagree with the concept
and I respect that but from a logic point of view, having those records
and being able to trace a gun back to the owner who did *not* report the
sale/transfer or report it as stolen would go a long way towards
thoughtless transfers. It and a universal background check is about all
you can do and they have absolutely *no* affect on anyone's ability or
right to own or bear arms. Things change over the years and sometimes
when an issue takes on a different color some modifications as to how it
is dealt with may become necessary for the general public good. Again,
these would have *no* negative affect on anyone other than taking five
minutes to fill out a simple form and
record it. I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.

On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.


I don't disagree with that but what makes you think they are "out to
confiscate your guns"? If it ever happened and with the government's
track record, they would screw that up just like they screw just about
everything else up. Pretty hard to go out and "pick up" 350 million
firearms across the country. :-)

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:24:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.


I don't disagree with that but what makes you think they are "out to
confiscate your guns"? If it ever happened and with the government's
track record, they would screw that up just like they screw just about
everything else up. Pretty hard to go out and "pick up" 350 million
firearms across the country. :-)

===

It would be very difficult. What would be easy however is to turn a
lot of people into criminals just like prohibition and the war on
drugs. Prohibition came about because of a concerted effort by a lot
of well intentioned but misguided individuals, same with the war on
drugs. Both had (have) unintended consequences far beyond what was
originally envisioned. I firmy believe that increased gun legislation
would end up the same way. Greg makes some good points about
registration leading to taxation.

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:24:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.


I don't disagree with that but what makes you think they are "out to
confiscate your guns"? If it ever happened and with the government's
track record, they would screw that up just like they screw just about
everything else up. Pretty hard to go out and "pick up" 350 million
firearms across the country. :-)

I think it will only be taxes

On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.

You aren't alone.

On 1/8/2016 1:25 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.

You aren't alone.


Voters determine who leads the government.

On 1/8/2016 9:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 8:30 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:01:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So much for the
argument that maintaining a gun registry with chain of custody records
is not technically feasible.

===

Let's say for the sake of reasonable discussion that such a system
could be created, debugged and implemented for 1 billion dollars.
That's a lot of money but very little can be created by the federal
government for less than that.

By your estimation, how many crimes would be prevented or solved with
such a system? My own estimate is maybe a couple of hundred at best,
perhaps much less. That puts the cost/benefit ratio at maybe 5 to 10
million per incident, and quite possibly a lot more since it would
perpetuate yet another bureauracracy.

All that to try and get a handle on drug dealers and rap musicians
killing each other?



First, the system already exists. A new one doesn't need to be
developed. If the IAFIS and now the improved NGI system can handle
not only fingerprint files but also images, criminal records, etc., it
certainly should be able to accept a background check event and a record
of sale or transfer of a firearm.

The part I think would be beneficial but causes the most angst among
people who distrust government is the record of sale/transfer thing that
creates a chain of custody. I know you disagree with the concept
and I respect that but from a logic point of view, having those records
and being able to trace a gun back to the owner who did *not* report the
sale/transfer or report it as stolen would go a long way towards
thoughtless transfers. It and a universal background check is about all
you can do and they have absolutely *no* affect on anyone's ability or
right to own or bear arms. Things change over the years and sometimes
when an issue takes on a different color some modifications as to how it
is dealt with may become necessary for the general public good. Again,
these would have *no* negative affect on anyone other than taking five
minutes to fill out a simple form and
record it. I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.
The chain of custody exists. The federal government requires the dealers
to maintain the umpteen thousand records of sales, subject to audit by
the federal government. Make sense?