Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: TSA bragged about gun seizure success rate ahead of new failure report

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153

    TSA bragged about gun seizure success rate ahead of new failure report

    More than 2,000 guns — an average of six a day — were discovered by TSA screeners in 2014, the agency said in a post declaring the seizures “a great year.” But the failure rate in the new classified report suggests that the rate of those that got through could be much higher.
    [ ... ]
    “The American people deserve a full explanation for how TSA could miss weapons and explosives 95 percent of the time,” he said.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ailure-report/

    Anyone capable of simple math? 2,000 guns in 2014 is 5% of what number of guns in that year? 2000/0.05=40,000
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    More fun with numbers

    How about some more fun with numbers?

    There are about 800 Million airline passengers per year in this nation. We might take a conservative estimate that 5% of the US adult population now has permits to carry or otherwise legally carries on a regular basis. That works out to 800,000,000 * .05 = 40,000,000 annual airline passengers likely to be carrying a gun on a regular basis.

    40,000 guns carried onto planes each year out of 40,000,000 passengers with permits works out to 1 out of every 1,000 passengers who likely has a gun making the mistake of forgetting he has that gun as he walks through a TSA security checkpoint.

    Of course, the better TSA claims to do at intercepting guns, the better the numbers look for law-abiding gun owners. If TSA's success rate on guns is closer to 50%, that means only 4,000 guns were carried through security (with 2,000 being detected) and that means that only about 1 out of every 10,000 gun carrying passengers made a mistake.

    I wonder how these numbers compare to passengers forgetting bottled water, toiletries over the TSA size limits, pocket knives, etc. If I recall, 9/11 didn't involve any guns at all, but only relatively small--and then perfectly legal/permissible--knives/box-openers. Imagine if everyone who forgot a small knife or pair of scissors was treated like the small number of persons who get caught with a gun.

    Furthermore, don't recall any news about anyone trying to hijack a plane with a gun recently. So unless TSA magically managed to only detect those guns that were being carried on with ill intent, while missing the guns carried on without any malicious motives, we might observe that somewhere between 2,000 and 38,000 guns were carried in the cabins of commercial airliners by private citizens and none of these guns were used to any ill effect, none of the guns went nuts and shot up the airplane by themselves, nothing bad happened.

    Finally, from personal experience, the poor performance of TSA to detect weapons is not surprising. Several years back I lost a small knife. Then, a couple of years I go I was traveling weekly for several months. On about my 20th flight (10th round-trip), TSA saw something in my carry on backpack. They scanned it a second time, took stuff out, then x-rayed it a third time. They finally found my lost knife in the bottom of one of the inside pockets. I decided that if I hadn't used the knife in the previous couple of years, it probably wasn't worth it to pay to mail it home to myself so I just surrendered it. Now, admittedly the knife was very small. But TSA missed it some 19 times before they found it on the 20th time.

    TSA, like the IRS, BATFE, and some other multi-letter agencies are the epitome of government power run amok and infringing our liberties while not even making a half-way decent delivery on the promise of increased safety.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Tempe, Arizona
    Posts
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    How about some more fun with numbers?

    TSA, like the IRS, BATFE, and some other multi-letter agencies are the epitome of government power run amok and infringing our liberties while not even making a half-way decent delivery on the promise of increased safety.

    Charles
    Interesting calculations that I have wondered about. Of course we need to be rid of the TSA. We can already have airports request private screeners instead of the government unionized employees, through the screening partnership program.

    We are starting on this in AZ. See realairlinesecurity.org .

  4. #4
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,872
    where or where do you get your stats piper? 2008 stats really? according to http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.AIR.PSGR total passengers carried by US airlines both domestic and international is 742M for 2013.

    why do you CONSISTENTLY refuse to provide valid data or cites??

    Rough Order Magnitude, with several states not requiring conceal carry permits (MT) or not reporting their stats (NY, etc.), 11.1M individuals have CC permits.

    http://crimepreventionresearchcenter...ted-States.pdf

    shame you insist to continually mislead the august readers of this forum.

    sigh...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  5. #5
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    where or where do you get your stats piper? 2008 stats really? according to http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.AIR.PSGR total passengers carried by US airlines both domestic and international is 742M for 2013.

    why do you CONSISTENTLY refuse to provide valid data or cites??

    Rough Order Magnitude, with several states not requiring conceal carry permits (MT) or not reporting their stats (NY, etc.), 11.1M individuals have CC permits.

    http://crimepreventionresearchcenter...ted-States.pdf

    shame you insist to continually mislead the august readers of this forum.

    sigh...

    ipse
    He provided a cite-

    http://www.numberof.net/number-of-ai...gers-per-year/

    Um.....for the point of his example, the number he quoted is close enough to your "valid" number of 742 million that the example is still a valid one.

    For his example of folks here in the us carrying guns, his stated number of 5% was stated clearly as an estimate.

    What exactly is the point your trying to argue?
    Last edited by J_dazzle23; 06-07-2015 at 12:36 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,872
    Quote Originally Posted by J_dazzle23 View Post
    He provided a cite-

    http://www.numberof.net/number-of-ai...gers-per-year/

    Um.....for the point of his example, the number he quoted is close enough to your "valid" number of 742 million that the example is still a valid one.

    For his example of folks here in the us carrying guns, his stated number of 5% was stated clearly as an estimate.

    What exactly is the point your trying to argue?
    you are right J...close enough ~ from 08, a cite from some obscure website called 'number of' last checked 5 years ago. additionally, the 743M USA flyers i cited are from DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL travelers. now, simple logic, last time an international destination allowed handguns, let see...UK or Europe ~ NO! Africa ~ nope! Asia...don't think so. so forth...lets discuss closeness to now to his quoted 800M...

    considering readers take these figures at face value and do not critically think nor do not do their own research, considering he has consistently provided bogus data to our members, and finally considering the site is publicly posted where the public then propagate his incredible misquote of these bogus data as authoritative...

    yes J you are right...guess these figures are close enough...

    majority of folk out here provide consistent data to aid our membership in gleaning knowledge but not piper...

    that is the point of my discussion!!

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  7. #7
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    you are right J...close enough ~ from 08, a cite from some obscure website called 'number of' last checked 5 years ago. additionally, the 743M USA flyers i cited are from DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL travelers. now, simple logic, last time an international destination allowed handguns, let see...UK or Europe ~ NO! Africa ~ nope! Asia...don't think so. so forth...lets discuss closeness to now to his quoted 800M...

    considering readers take these figures at face value and do not critically think nor do not do their own research, considering he has consistently provided bogus data to our members, and finally considering the site is publicly posted where the public then propagate his incredible misquote of these bogus data as authoritative...

    yes J you are right...guess these figures are close enough...

    majority of folk out here provide consistent data to aid our membership in gleaning knowledge but not piper...

    that is the point of my discussion!!

    ipse
    Hell, cut the number in half to 400 million if you want. The point he makes still holds water.

    I'm a huge fan of raw data. I read empirical research for both my job and education daily. But there is a wide variety of relevance. By changing the numbers of people that fly, the point he makes stands regardless.

  8. #8
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,872
    Quote Originally Posted by J_dazzle23 View Post
    Hell, cut the number in half to 400 million if you want. The point he makes still holds water.

    I'm a huge fan of raw data. I read empirical research for both my job and education daily. But there is a wide variety of relevance. By changing the numbers of people that fly, the point he makes stands regardless.
    and please articulate that point for me J, with whatever data you believe is relative.

    since you deal with empirical research data...which by the way, is your data peer reviewed or do you just take the garbage someone just present at face value?

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  9. #9
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    and please articulate that point for me J, with whatever data you believe is relative.

    since you deal with empirical research data...which by the way, is your data peer reviewed or do you just take the garbage someone just present at face value?

    ipse
    Please articulate what point is wrong, that Charles made.

    His point was that the TSA makes mistakes, in volume, and do NOT keep people "weapon free" on flights as they would like us all to believe.

    Do you argue that point, or are you just here to cherry pick stats in his post?

    By the way, flight statistics aren't typically part of a "peer review" process.

    Yes, my PERSONAL data that I collect in my field SCHOLASTICALLY will be peer reviewed before it is published, thanks much.
    Last edited by J_dazzle23; 06-07-2015 at 08:44 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,872
    Quote Originally Posted by J_dazzle23 View Post
    Please articulate what point is wrong, that Charles made.

    His point was that the TSA makes mistakes, in volume, and do NOT keep people "weapon free" on flights as they would like us all to believe.

    Do you argue that point, or are you just here to cherry pick stats in his post?

    By the way, flight statistics aren't typically part of a "peer review" process.

    Yes, my PERSONAL data that I collect in my field SCHOLASTICALLY will be peer reviewed before it is published, thanks much.
    J, then why on earth would you or should you or other members accept bogus & invalidated data when a member makes their point. you are cognizant the use of this type of data takes their point to a 'subjectively' stated 'point' where if the data were even semi viable and reproducible and then it enhances the point the member was making to objective and worthwhile.

    and from the government bureau they are peer reviewed prior to release to assure some sort of oversight to ensure correct data is released. not so from the member's cite.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  11. #11
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    J, then why on earth would you or should you or other members accept bogus & invalidated data when a member makes their point. you are cognizant the use of this type of data takes their point to a 'subjectively' stated 'point' where if the data were even semi viable and reproducible and then it enhances the point the member was making to objective and worthwhile.

    and from the government bureau they are peer reviewed prior to release to assure some sort of oversight to ensure correct data is released. not so from the member's cite.

    ipse
    Correct data is always preferable to data that is not necessarily correct, whether old, poor confidence intervals, biased collection, etc.

    Of course, the more accurate data is, the more substantial the backing is for a claim.

    In this case, the claim is such a hands down given, that subjectivity is spread far and wide.

    I think everyone here could find a different source of data concerning this topic and come to the exact same conclusion: planes are not really "weapon free zones" that the TSA would like us to believe.

    I don't need to accept the data to accept the point he is trying to make- because the conclusion is option A or option B. If both his AND your data both support the same of the two conclusions.....it's less important to me.
    Last edited by J_dazzle23; 06-07-2015 at 10:34 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    We agree TSA sucks Ass!
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member Shovelhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    NO VA, ,
    Posts
    355
    And there are cases where TSA missed firearms carried on planes that were found when the passenger transfered flights at other airports.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/10...-london-bound/
    Assault Weapon (N) “Any firearm whose design disturbs the sleep of progressive politicians.”.

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by J_dazzle23 View Post
    Correct data is always preferable to data that is not necessarily correct, whether old, poor confidence intervals, biased collection, etc.

    Of course, the more accurate data is, the more substantial the backing is for a claim.

    In this case, the claim is such a hands down given, that subjectivity is spread far and wide.

    I think everyone here could find a different source of data concerning this topic and come to the exact same conclusion: planes are not really "weapon free zones" that the TSA would like us to believe.

    I don't need to accept the data to accept the point he is trying to make- because the conclusion is option A or option B. If both his AND your data both support the same of the two conclusions.....it's less important to me.
    J_dazzle,

    Thank you for making the point very clearly.

    If someone wishes to provide better data than what I found in my 10 second google search, great. If it materially alters the point I was making, I will, of course, have to alter my views.

    But when someone claims I haven't provided a citation and then wants to just pick nits over something that doesn't materially change my point in the least, and does so with personal attacks, I have to wonder whether there is any value in responding to them at all.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    J, then why on earth would you or should you or other members accept bogus & invalidated data when a member makes their point. you are cognizant the use of this type of data takes their point to a 'subjectively' stated 'point' where if the data were even semi viable and reproducible and then it enhances the point the member was making to objective and worthwhile.

    and from the government bureau they are peer reviewed prior to release to assure some sort of oversight to ensure correct data is released. not so from the member's cite.

    ipse
    Are you really whining about this? Why don't you take your current data and do the math if it bothers you so much.

  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterNSteinmetz View Post
    Interesting calculations that I have wondered about. Of course we need to be rid of the TSA. We can already have airports request private screeners instead of the government unionized employees, through the screening partnership program.

    We are starting on this in AZ. See realairlinesecurity.org .
    Certainly, getting rid of TSA is a good start. But as I understand--and please correct me if I'm wrong--even private screeners have to screen to TSA requirements. In other words, no liquids over a certain size (excepting certain medical needs), no pocket knives, etc. TSA incompetence is a big problem. Asinine rules are also a real problem.

    Of course, the big question my estimate is not how many people fly, but how many actually carry a gun on a regular basis. This is a tough one since I'm not aware of any good numbers on that one. And personal experience can really bias us. I expect many here have self-selected into social groups where carrying guns is far more common than among the general population.

    But to get an idea of where I pulled the 5% from:
    In Utah, about 10% of our eligible population has a permit to carry. (Tennessee has about 500k permits valid with a total population of about 6.5 million so probably about 10% there as well; as of a couple of years ago, Florida seems to have had about 6% of their population with permits.) Permit-free carry is relatively rare here because of our laws regarding loaded guns in public. (The legal and social dynamics are different in other States.) How many with permits actually carry? 50% is probably a high estimate but 5% makes a round number. But even if the number who regularly carry a gun is only 0.5% of the population rather than 5.0%, we are still at a 1 in 100 event for otherwise law-abiding gun owners making an innocent mistake and forgetting about their gun as they get to airport security.

    Anyone, obviously I'm not making a hard statistical case for how many carry, but merely trying to get some rough, order-of-magnitude or back-of-the-envelope numbers to think about the issue.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 06-08-2015 at 08:05 PM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153

    UPDATE! DHS looks for leaker of report on airport-checkpoint failures

    "The inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security said Tuesday that he is investigating the leak of classified information from an undercover operation in which investigators were able to slip through airport security with weapons and phony bombs more than 95 percent of the time.

    “We have started an investigation to determine where the leak was,” Inspector General John Roth told the Senate Homeland Security Committee."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...032_story.html
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  18. #18

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    So they are more upset that the public found out what the public's servants were doing rather than what the servants were actually doing?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    Yep. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •