There is no logical reason for mandating a background check because it's in the interests of the law-abiding gun owner to voluntarily run the check. The "criminals" aren't going to run them anyway so mandating them is rather stupid as it doesn't accomplish anything. Funding? Not an issue. With 4.5 million checks being run annually how about a $1 fee to pay for the computer and the internet connection? A Cray super-computer can be purchased or leased for far less than $4.5 million per year. I'd pay $1 to run the background check. I don't see any law-abiding gun owner objecting to a $1 fee to ensure that the person they're selling a firearm to isn't prohibited from owning one. I'd rather pay the $1 than sell a gun to a person that's a violent criminal. If we don't want private individuals to pay then how about using the FFL license fees to pay for it? They're already paying a fee to the federal government to have their licence so let's put that money to good use. If they paid $3 per check, that they could charge their customers for, then the problem of funding is also solved. The firearm has literally nothing to do with whether a person is prohibited from owning a firearm. Of course all of this is ignoring the fact that the "gun control nuts" are advocating much higher spending than what I've proposed.
Right now an FFL transfer fee can be as high as a couple of hundred dollars depending on the State, most are around 30 to 50 dollars per transfer. I wouldn't expect that to go down.
If it is the sound alone - why not by a sound recorder and put it on your bedside table? That way you do not even have to get out of bed!!
This is not something I would even try to dispute but I would question the basis for these fees. What's the money being used for? I haven't purchased a firearm from an FFL in many years but I did recently have a rifle I owned shipped from Arizona to Washington and this has to be done between FFL's. Excluding the shipping fees from the FFL in Arizona I was subjected to a background check in Washington when I went to pick up my rifle and it was $20 as I recall. I don't know if that fee went to the FFL, the state government, or the federal government. I never asked. As I mentioned it only took a couple of minutes and I don't know how the FFL did the check. Someone mentioned that they had to call the FBI and that could have been the case but that is a stupid and cost ineffective way to verify that I wasn't prohibited from owning firearms. This is, after all, the 21st Century and we should embrace the technologies that reduce costs. What I suspect is that state legislatures are using the fees for social engineering purposes as opposed to paying for the expenses related to determining that the person can own the firearm. Why, for example, would the State impose any charge when the background check is from the FBI? That makes no sense to me. Submitting information to the FBI by the State to identify those prohibited from owning or possessing firearms us a normal function of law enforcement that is budgeted under the State's law enforcement expendature authorizations so it doesn't cost the State any additional expenses for the background check. I do have a problem with government using fees for profiteering on the issue of gun control. Fees covering government expenses can be justified but just using the issue to generate revenues and/or discourage firearm ownership (i.e. social engineering) is invalid in my opinion.
The sound might discourage them but the shotgun can stop them if the sound doesn't discourage them. I don't plan on getting out of bed which is why my shotgun is concealed beside my bed and my phone is on the nightstand. The mistake they would make is showing up at my bedroom door because if they do, and don't have their hands raised in surrender, I'm going to shoot to kill them... FROM MY BED.
The fee goes to the dealer for time spent. NICs is a tollfree phone call to a free service. However many states do not use NICS, but an approved state agency. Some of those agencies charge and some states don't.
Apparently we're a little out-of-date as the FBI has initiated the E-Check system online. http://fbinicsystem.com/background-check-nics-echeck/fbi-nics-e-check-online.html Once again the problem is that the access is limited to FFL's so a private citizen can't run a background check for the private sale of firearms. The "gun control nuts" don't have a case related to background checks for the private sales of firearms when the system doesn't allow us the access. I question how a State can provide an adequate background check on individuals because it's doubtful that their database has any information on individuals from other States. How can one State give "full faith and credit" to the decisions of the Courts in other States that prohibit individuals from owning and possessing firearms when they don't have a database that contains this information? Speaking of "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution I really must register a complaint related to CCW's that are a State Record obtained by the individual but they are not being honored across State lines. If I have a CCW issued by the State of Washington (and I do) then every other State should give full faith and credit related to it and I should be able to carry a concealed weapons anywhere in the United States.
But if it is so scary they will not come near you but take off straight away. My other question is "Why a LETHAL response?" Personally I am not nice enough to only kill someone I would rather the old idea of "Salt Petre" because apparently it stung like crazy
Sometimes a lethal response is all you have left. In any situation when using a firearm for self defense, lethal force is a last resort. If someone is not deterred by the fact you have a gun, then they mean you harm. Other non lethal means can work sometimes, but I witnessed first hand how they can fail. I saw an average size man in his twenties get hit with two stun guns and still hospitalize two campus security officers. This particular man was under the influence of cocaine. The effects of meth and painkillers, which are far more common make you more resistant to pain. Even not being on drugs, someone who is running on pure adrenaline can take more pain than these non lethal options, especially one that does not immediately incapacitate them. If they see or hear the gun, and still want to proceed to try and harm you, then a lethal response is the only real safe way to go, given the likelyhood of what I explained above.
Sometimes - yes but that is not every time and by arming yourselves like this you are making it first option and not last. If that combination of drugs is so bad and believe me we have the same drugs here - then why are not more people killed here. If fact FEWER are killed here
The lethality of the situation depends on the actions of the aggressor, the very first option is to deter.
The sound of chambering a round in a shot gun is certainly "scary" to me but to others it might not be. There are really stupid people out there that simply don't recognize danger when they hear it. I'm not going to assume that someone will always interprete the sound of a round being chambered as being threatening enough to drive them away. Some people are downright crazy and don't have rational fears. I'm taking no chances with my life. There are no non-lethal responses that can ensure that a person committing an act of aggression will be stopped. Tasers, for example, don't necessarily stop a determined person. When a person appears in my bedroom doorway they're only a few feet from my bed. I don't have the time to use mulitple non-lethal means to attempt to stop the person. If the first fails then I die and I'm not willing to take that chance. When someone invents a non-lethal weapon that will stop 100% of the people 100% of the time then let me know and I'll look into it. So far that weapon doesn't exist.
The killing of a person invading one's home is justifiable homicide but the FBI statistics related to using a firearm in self-defense where the person killed while committing a felony (required for the use of lethal force) shows that this only rarely happens in America. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-14-justifiable_n.htm Only 254 killings by private citizens that included both defending oneself from all felonies and not just buglaries in the US in one year. At the sametime we can also note that the number of murders committed by burglars is also very low. According to the FBI statistics in 2009 there were only 110 murders committed by burglars in the US but then burglary is normally not a violent crime and usually committed when no one is at home. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.pdf At the sametime we had over 75,000 rapes in the US in 2009 and while not broken down by where the rape occurred many rapes are related to home invasions and assault and battery is also common related to home invasions. As I've repeatedly noted the odds against having to defend myself related to a home invasion are very slim but I'm not going to willingly be one of 110 murder victims or one of those that is beaten up or allow my wife to be raped by a burgler. For less than $400 I was able to provide an effective defense so that I'm not likely to be a victim during a home invasion. I'll do all that is reasonably possible to avoid having to shoot anyone but if pressed to the point that I have no other alternative then I will not hesitate. Of course we can relate to other countries. So how many Australians were murdered by a burglar because they chose not to be prepared to defend themself from an attack? To willingly be a victim is simply not in my vocabulary.
I love how the ausie girl thinks she has any say. Stay in austraila dear if you think the USA is so terrible. Its not a matter of need at all. Its a right. IF someone does not need to justify the privelage of buying a car that goes 120mph Why do i need to justify Buying an ar-15 Which statistically is the safest civilian firearm on the market. No the AWB was just a foothold they really do want all guns gone. They have said it before. Im not saying they want a police state or any crazy conspiracies like that. But they to the core of their being believe noone but a cop or military personel or private security needs a gun.
Shooting someone with rock salt is lethal force in the United States. If you just point a firearm at someone without pulling the trigger without provocation, that is assault with a deadly weapon. For me personally, weapons don't come out unless I am in fear of my life. If I am in fear of my life, I don't dick around with rock salt hoping to scare the guy or make him think twice. He made a choice to do whatever made me in fear of my life and then the choice has been made for me already. His actions after the weapon come out do not matter unless it is to stop what he is doing and going prone on the ground quicker than gravity will allow him.
You would be an for all intensive purposes a defenseless Australian without a gun and your family would be a helpless family without a gun if a spook or a couple or three spooks (animals run in packs) holding firearms happened to pick your house to do a home invasion. The outcome would be in all likelihood be the same even if you are special forces the Rock batman or whatever, I don't care if you are a knife thrower or have a fire extinguisher full or bear CS gas, you and your family would be helpless without a firearm and knowing how to use it. In other words the American unlike the Australian does not bring only wishful thinking and a pen knife to a gun fight, and we will never wimp out (I am being nice) for uncle sam as he takes our firearms like certain UK citizens did for their king and or queen etc. reva
And there is an even better saying that goes - Don't enter an arse kicking competition with a porcupine Given the right circumstances the knife would win and the gun lose
