Couple uses guns to protect daughter

[msop04]

w/o guns to defend themselves and their daughter I wonder how this would have played out.....
what would those w/o a gun do in this situation?
would a baseball bat have been effective?
pepper spray?
calling LE has a delay time at which time the perpetrators would be inside the house with more captives.
or is it just ok to have one's daughter used as a shield by bad men to get inside your house to do more bad things?

don't like guns, don't have one....
but things like this don't just happen "to other people"....they happen to us!
i don't advocate living in fear.
i advocate preparedness....just like one is prepared for earthquakes and tornados.

+1
This exactly!

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="redwood66|1402608020|

Bad people do bad things and a gun ban will not stop it and may likely make it worse.[/quote]



Yup!..not like the criminals gonna turn in their guns voluntarily.

 

[SB621]

A wonderful article that pretty much sums up how I feel. I'm glad in this case the family were able to protect themselves but there are so many red flags to me.

http://gawker.com/its-really-hard-to-be-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-1588660306/+tcraggs22

 

[movie zombie]

I'm not being cheeky here but... Isn't 'protect' a pseudonym for 'kill' or at least 'deeply maim'?
Or do you just plan on waving the thing around?
The way I see it good people have become complicit in gun culture. Being a potential murderer giving a degree of control??
Over here, killing a bad guy wouldn't be applauded. It would be murder.
Being prepared to murder a bad guy ... Is kinda scary.

so, over there it is better to die a martyr than to protect yourself?! if you're attacked and about to be raped it is the natural order of things?! no resistance?! just submit?! wow. each to their own once again but personally anyone trying to harm me is going to get maimed.......

oh, and btw: "waving the thing around" is considered brandishing and at least in California is illegal.

 

[TooPatient]

I'm not being cheeky here but... Isn't 'protect' a pseudonym for 'kill' or at least 'deeply maim'?
Or do you just plan on waving the thing around?
The way I see it good people have become complicit in gun culture. Being a potential murderer giving a degree of control??
Over here, killing a bad guy wouldn't be applauded. It would be murder.
Being prepared to murder a bad guy ... Is kinda scary.

so, over there it is better to die a martyr than to protect yourself?! if you're attacked and about to be raped it is the natural order of things?! no resistance?! just submit?! wow. each to their own once again but personally anyone trying to harm me is going to get maimed.......

oh, and btw: "waving the thing around" is considered brandishing and at least in California is illegal.

Same in Washington.

You don't even have to be "waving the thing around" to be charged with brandishing.

While we're at it, aiming a gun at a person and not shooting can actually get you charged with attempted murder. Seriously.

There is EVERY reason for (trained, knowledgeable) gun owners to not pull out a gun except when they ARE going to use it. You also be able to explain clearly why you had NO choice but to do so, especially out of your home.

 

[LaraOnline]

I'm not being cheeky here but... Isn't 'protect' a pseudonym for 'kill' or at least 'deeply maim'?
Or do you just plan on waving the thing around?
The way I see it good people have become complicit in gun culture. Being a potential murderer giving a degree of control??
Over here, killing a bad guy wouldn't be applauded. It would be murder.
Being prepared to murder a bad guy ... Is kinda scary.

so, over there it is better to die a martyr than to protect yourself?! if you're attacked and about to be raped it is the natural order of things?! no resistance?! just submit?! wow. each to their own once again but personally anyone trying to harm me is going to get maimed.......

oh, and btw: "waving the thing around" is considered brandishing and at least in California is illegal.

Well therein lies a cultural difference maybe, because I don't automatically assume that any assailant will have a gun. They are actually rare over here. So it is unlikely that I will actually ever have a gun in my face. It *could* happen I guess. (shrug) He might be a lot less likely to shoot me with it if he *knows* I am very unlikely to have one myself.

Should I ever be grabbed etc (which would be the more common scenario) I can't ever see myself getting it together to pull a gun out of my handbag and quickly blowing that person up right in the face.

Submissive? Nope. But visualising myself as a murderer, going out and buying a murder-tool and keeping it in my house or carrying it about 'just in case' I need to murder? I might as well fly to Mars, because a murderer I am not.

 

[nkarma]

I have seen in many discussions on guns, that we should not ban them because criminals flout the law and will get guns and kill people anyway. Packrat & a few others have stated it in this thread specifically.

Can someone explain to me why we have laws then? Every law is broken by someone, why not make drugs, murder, rape, burglary, fraud, sexual abuse, all of it legal since the criminals "are going to commit crimes anyway." Should we start advocating for no laws at all? I am not being cheeky here at all.

As far as whether people are living in fear, my definition of fear is having to carry a weapon around to protect yourself. The large increase in gun sales has to show that others feel the same. But I am glad the gun owners on this thread don't feel that way, they feel prepared for violence. Me personally carrying a gun would make me feel much less safe, but I can see how it makes others feel safe. The two incidents I have experienced with gun violence were in middle class suburbs. And I think everyone on this thread agrees that gun violence has penetrated every area of the country from rural to urban, rich to poor, and everywhere else in between.

I live in a place where guns are illegal and of course there are criminals and violent crime, but it is significantly less by a factor of 10. That fear that I always had in the back of mind of getting hurt or shot is mostly gone. I can walk around my neighborhood and even the "bad" ones in a large metropolitan city with my wits about me and be safe. My quality of life without that threat to myself and my husband is significantly better. If living in fear and seeing your fellow countrymen die is the definition of "freedom," then we will have to rewrite the dictionary like we did to redefine "mission accomplished."

 

[redwood66]

We have laws for safety and because the majority of the people obey them.

 

[Circe]

Like Ginger, I'm mostly staying out of this, because I've been on this merry-go-round before, and it's never a fun ride.

BUT - given the philosophical asides concerning the intent behind the 2nd Amendment - just one thing that I feel is worth pointing out:

Nobody - seriously, NOBODY who is a private citizen, and I'd have some strong arguments against anyone outside of the army being in possession - needs any kind of automatic weapon. I read about cops buying up surplus military equipment and my blood runs cold, since all I can think of is MOVE in 1985. The cops firebombed a city block full of civilians, for the love of Mike, almost 30 years ago. Just imagine the drone strikes of tomorrow. Anybody who thinks they're going to be able to practice any kind of political resistance TODAY with their personal arsenals is living in a Michael Bay movie: realistically, the only people we're going up against are other civilians. And the reason they have guns is because the same gun laws that let US have them let THEM have them (fill in your own values for "us" and "them"). It's a vicious circle.

I don't know if something like Australia or Ireland's approach would work ... but, man, I wish we would try. Sadly, I doubt that's ever going to happen: instead, I think that we're basically going to practice our mass-shooting form of population control until we get to the kind of global circumstances where the worldwide (hell, at that point, possibly interstellar) equivalent of the EU is refusing to let us in unless we act civilized. (I'm actually not sure which part I find more SF: interstellar trade federation, or the idea of Americans disarming.) But 'till then, like a lot of people, I'm just going to have to keep my fingers perpetually crossed that tomorrow isn't the day some loon with an axe to grind - or, more properly, arsenal of guns to fire - isn't going to be walking through MY classroom door to commit a massacre. Yay civilization!

 

[yssie]

Like Ginger, I'm mostly staying out of this, because I've been on this merry-go-round before, and it's never a fun ride.

BUT - given the philosophical asides concerning the intent behind the 2nd Amendment - just one thing that I feel is worth pointing out:

Nobody - seriously, NOBODY who is a private citizen, and I'd have some strong arguments against anyone outside of the army being in possession - needs any kind of automatic weapon. I read about cops buying up surplus military equipment and my blood runs cold, since all I can think of is MOVE in 1985. The cops firebombed a city block full of civilians, for the love of Mike, almost 30 years ago. Just imagine the drone strikes of tomorrow. Anybody who thinks they're going to be able to practice any kind of political resistance TODAY with their personal arsenals is living in a Michael Bay movie: realistically, the only people we're going up against are other civilians. And the reason they have guns is because the same gun laws that let US have them let THEM have them (fill in your own values for "us" and "them"). It's a vicious circle.

I don't know if something like Australia or Ireland's approach would work ... but, man, I wish we would try. Sadly, I doubt that's ever going to happen: instead, I think that we're basically going to practice our mass-shooting form of population control until we get to the kind of global circumstances where the worldwide (hell, at that point, possibly interstellar) equivalent of the EU is refusing to let us in unless we act civilized. (I'm actually not sure which part I find more SF: interstellar trade federation, or the idea of Americans disarming.) But 'till then, like a lot of people, I'm just going to have to keep my fingers perpetually crossed that tomorrow isn't the day some loon with an axe to grind - or, more properly, arsenal of guns to fire - isn't going to be walking through MY classroom door to commit a massacre. Yay civilization!

A-freaking-men.
OMG.

 

[LaraOnline]

To add to the general hilarity of this thread, here's what I found in my newsfeed this morning:

http://www.news.com.au/technology/o...ations-nra-store/story-fnjwmwrh-1226953354164

 

[packrat]

No civilian has automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are totally different than semi automatic, and yes we do need to make the distinction on this. Automatic weapons as far as *I* know, are military. If you're walking around w/an automatic weapon, you are a criminal. When you pull the trigger once, a semi automatic fires once. When you pull the trigger on an automatic weapon once, that sucker is going to bambambambambam until every round is gone or until you release the trigger.

Yep, I point it out over and over again that the people who can get a hold of illegal things are, in fact criminals. Criminals, do, in fact, do illegal things. JD isn't out arresting Gramma Shirley for driving 25 in a 25. He is, however, out trying to get dirt to arrest the ****wads who are bringing Ecstasy and mushrooms to town now that they've been cracking down on the pot.

Laws are to tell people what's right and wrong b/c they're too damn dumb to know. Oh, sooo I shouldn't drive 90 down a residential street and mow down the kids crossing the sidewalk to get to school? Well shoot, ya mean I *can't* beat the shit out of my wife and put her in the hospital b/c she didn't put the dishes away? Well shit. God forbid anyone have *any* restrictions on their fricken lives. Good GAWD. But I'm FREEEEEEEEEEEE! Lordluvaduck.

I do get mad at times and say feck it, let people be stupid and kill each other and get all ****ed up on drugs and throw their lives away. BUT. Let them live in the sewer then b/c they can't take care of themselves b/c they CHOSE to **** themselves up. You wan't to kill someone? Great, then let someone kill you. ****. What is the point in following the rules when it's so easy to NOT follow the rules, and nobody gives a shit anyway? Kill people? Well maybe we can rehabilitate you and you can just be in prison. Molest little kids? Well, maybe you didn't get that kitty you wanted when you were little. There should be ONE LAW and that law should be BE ****ING NICE AND IF YOU CAN'T DO THE WORLD A FAVOR AND JUMP OFF A CLIFF.

 

[TooPatient]

No civilian has automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are totally different than semi automatic, and yes we do need to make the distinction on this. Automatic weapons as far as *I* know, are military. If you're walking around w/an automatic weapon, you are a criminal. When you pull the trigger once, a semi automatic fires once. When you pull the trigger on an automatic weapon once, that sucker is going to bambambambambam until every round is gone or until you release the trigger.

Yep, I point it out over and over again that the people who can get a hold of illegal things are, in fact criminals. Criminals, do, in fact, do illegal things. JD isn't out arresting Gramma Shirley for driving 25 in a 25. He is, however, out trying to get dirt to arrest the ****wads who are bringing Ecstasy and mushrooms to town now that they've been cracking down on the pot.

Laws are to tell people what's right and wrong b/c they're too damn dumb to know. Oh, sooo I shouldn't drive 90 down a residential street and mow down the kids crossing the sidewalk to get to school? Well shoot, ya mean I *can't* beat the shit out of my wife and put her in the hospital b/c she didn't put the dishes away? Well shit. God forbid anyone have *any* restrictions on their fricken lives. Good GAWD. But I'm FREEEEEEEEEEEE! Lordluvaduck.

I do get mad at times and say feck it, let people be stupid and kill each other and get all ****ed up on drugs and throw their lives away. BUT. Let them live in the sewer then b/c they can't take care of themselves b/c they CHOSE to [censored] themselves up. You wan't to kill someone? Great, then let someone kill you. [censored]. What is the point in following the rules when it's so easy to NOT follow the rules, and nobody gives a shit anyway? Kill people? Well maybe we can rehabilitate you and you can just be in prison. Molest little kids? Well, maybe you didn't get that kitty you wanted when you were little. There should be ONE LAW and that law should be BE ****ING NICE AND IF YOU CAN'T DO THE WORLD A FAVOR AND JUMP OFF A CLIFF.

I can't bold, but I love this. (especially the last sentence!)

One of the first things I ever learned in school was something my grandma had already taught me -- Treat others the way you want to be treated.

If you can't behave in society, then society should be able to respond in a reasonable fashion. Up to and including killing you to protect themselves.

I'm not willing to be raped or stabbed or chopped to bits with an axe or beaten to death with a hammer or strangled or one of the hundreds of other cruel ways criminals murder people even if they don't have a gun. Even if you take the guns away, these criminals will still find a way to inflict suffering/death... but us law abiding people would have even less of a chance.

 

[redwood66]

One of the biggest pain in the ass inmates in my career was a 20 somthing scumbag who robbed an 80+ year old lady and then beat her to death with a shovel. What a load of shit about how people will behave if we take guns away and then all the world will be rosy. Wake up people.

 

[partgypsy]

If the weapon is not a gun, a regular person does have a fighting chance. I used to live in a rough neighborhood, and one night I was mugged (knife to my throat). Because I reacted (i had a self-defense course), I was able to beat him off and get away. If it was a gun, well obviously I wouldn't have even a chance of getting away. The fact that I experienced this, does that make me want to go out and get a gun? No. It makes me wish that guns in our society were not so easily available. If you makes guns easily available, it makes people of all kinds more easily likely to get guns. Yes law abiding people, but also people with anger problems, people with mental issues, people with beefs with their girlfriend or family members, people with suicidal ideation, and yes criminals. In all but a very rare handful of situations, does having someone with a gun, improve the situation.

The argument that if you make gun laws more restrictive, "bad guys" will still get ahold of guns, is like arguing that since mammograms are not 100% effective at detecting breast cancer, well let's just stop doing breast cancer screenings.

 

[movie zombie]

.....Submissive? Nope. But visualising myself as a murderer, going out and buying a murder-tool and keeping it in my house or carrying it about 'just in case' I need to murder? I might as well fly to Mars, because a murderer I am not.

so, Lara, in your mind a legal law abiding gun owner by your definition is a murder despite not having killed anyone?
that is one great big cultural difference!

The Dalai Lama said, "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."

good enough for me.

 

[partgypsy]

.....Submissive? Nope. But visualising myself as a murderer, going out and buying a murder-tool and keeping it in my house or carrying it about 'just in case' I need to murder? I might as well fly to Mars, because a murderer I am not.

so, Lara, in your mind a legal law abiding gun owner by your definition is a murder despite not having killed anyone?
that is one great big cultural difference!

The Dalai Lama said, "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."

good enough for me.

And he also said but also at a non-vital part of the body, like a leg, just to stop them. How good is your shot?

Here's my quote. "If you are a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail." There are many many ways to defend yourself and or reduce the probability of being attacked. Having and using a gun is only one.

 

[aljdewey]

I can see that analogy (mammograms) working even more powerfully in the reverse: Let's make it harder and more restrictive for all 307,000,000 people seeking mammograms to get them, and we'll do this because 31,076 people (1 in 10,000) suffered negative effects from radiation caused by mammograms. That's how the math works out - there were approximately 307,000,000 owned firearms in 2010 (last year I could find both stats for) and 31,076 deaths by firearm in 2010.

Of the 31,076 gun-related fatalities, two-thirds (19,392) were suicide. (In that same year, total suicides numbered 38,343, so half of successful suicides involved no guns.)

I'd rather spend energy focusing on targeted solutions that will impact the 31,076 gun fatalities without hampering the other 306.9 million gun owners whose guns did not kill anyone. Not only do I think it would be an easier lift, but it would get much widespread support from the 306M lawful gun owners who would have vested interest in helping solve the targeted problem.

 

[mayerling]

I can see that analogy (mammograms) working even more powerfully in the reverse: Let's make it harder and more restrictive for all 307,000,000 people seeking mammograms to get them, and we'll do this because 31,076 people (1 in 10,000) suffered negative effects from radiation caused by mammograms. That's how the math works out - there were approximately 307,000,000 owned firearms in 2010 (last year I could find both stats for) and 31,076 deaths by firearm in 2010.

Of the 31,076 gun-related fatalities, two-thirds (19,392) were suicide. (In that same year, total suicides numbered 38,343, so half of successful suicides involved no guns.)

I'd rather spend energy focusing on targeted solutions that will impact the 31,076 gun fatalities without hampering the other 306.9 million gun owners whose guns did not kill anyone. Not only do I think it would be an easier lift, but it would get much widespread support from the 306M lawful gun owners who would have vested interest in helping solve the targeted problem.

Since it helps protect people from disease, a mammogram is a necessity. A gun is not.

 

[packrat]

when you shoot at someone, you don't go to the leg or arm to slow them down. the chances of hitting a smaller moving target are less, and chances of hitting someone else are high. That's why targets at ranges are torso targets. you aim for mass.

 

[packrat]

that's why you can't compare mammograms and guns.

 

[partgypsy]

I can see that analogy (mammograms) working even more powerfully in the reverse: Let's make it harder and more restrictive for all 307,000,000 people seeking mammograms to get them, and we'll do this because 31,076 people (1 in 10,000) suffered negative effects from radiation caused by mammograms. That's how the math works out - there were approximately 307,000,000 owned firearms in 2010 (last year I could find both stats for) and 31,076 deaths by firearm in 2010.

Of the 31,076 gun-related fatalities, two-thirds (19,392) were suicide. (In that same year, total suicides numbered 38,343, so half of successful suicides involved no guns.)

I'd rather spend energy focusing on targeted solutions that will impact the 31,076 gun fatalities without hampering the other 306.9 million gun owners whose guns did not kill anyone. Not only do I think it would be an easier lift, but it would get much widespread support from the 306M lawful gun owners who would have vested interest in helping solve the targeted problem.

Um I think your numbers are a little off. There are 313 million people in the entire United States, there are not 306 million gun owners. In fact we don't know how many legal gun owners are in the US, because the NRA has been sucessful at fighting a national gun registry (as in so the cops know who owns gun legally and who doesn't, and being able to confiscated illegal guns).

Here's another question. For those who own guns, do you feel there are any reasonable limits placed on gun ownership? As in caliber, automatic versus semi automatic, the number of guns owned? And if no, why not? Does have 2 dozen guns make you more safe than a person who has one gun? I would personally feel having more guns make you more of a target for a robbery, not less.

 

[movie zombie]

LOL, that a gun is not necessary!
I'm a short round 66 year old woman....not a lot of self-defense options for me.
and the one I prefer is outlined in the Bill of Rights [and reinforced by the Heller decision] which also gives everyone a 1A right to have an opinion.
those in other countries that feel so strong about it can get involved within their own countries/communities and make sure those places stay the way they want them to be.

oddly, I wasn't an NRA member until about a year ago.
thanks to the anti-2A crowd I'm now a Life Member.
me, a liberal all my life....never thought I'd see the day when I'd be an NRA member.
but push anyone hard enough and there will be a reaction.

again, don't want/like guns, don't get one.
no one is forcing you to defend yourself or telling you how to do it. it is a personal decision for you to make....and I will make my own, thank you. pretty much like the abortion issue: don't like them? don't have one or get into a situation in which you need one. make that decision for yourself, but don't try making it for anyone else.

 

[redwood66]

Here's another question. For those who own guns, do you feel there are any reasonable limits placed on gun ownership? As in caliber, automatic versus semi automatic, the number of guns owned? And if no, why not? Does have 2 dozen guns make you more safe than a person who has one gun? I would personally feel having more guns make you more of a target for a robbery, not less.

I don't have any automatic weapons, as packrat stated earlier they are illegal for anyone but specialized law enforcement and military. No I do not think there should be any kind of limit on the #. Why should there be? Who should decide how many I can have? You? I have different calibers for different things, different rifles/pistols for different uses. I don't blabber to online people or IRL people what weapons I have at home. Frankly a 35K diamond is easier to steal than my weapons so robbery is not a factor for me. They are secured as they should be.

 

[movie zombie]

Here's another question. For those who own guns, do you feel there are any reasonable limits placed on gun ownership? As in caliber, automatic versus semi automatic, the number of guns owned? And if no, why not? Does have 2 dozen guns make you more safe than a person who has one gun? I would personally feel having more guns make you more of a target for a robbery, not less.

I don't have any automatic weapons, as packrat stated earlier they are illegal for anyone but specialized law enforcement and military. No I do not think there should be any kind of limit on the #. Why should there be? Who should decide how many I can have? You? I have different calibers for different things, different rifles/pistols for different uses. I don't blabber to online people or IRL people what weapons I have at home. Frankly a 35K diamond is easier to steal than my weapons so robbery is not a factor for me. They are secured as they should be.

only if there is a limit on how much bling one can own.....!

 

[MMtwo]

By the way, some of this media frenzy is...well, the media and political agenda. I firmly believe the media is shaping policy with inaccurate hype. This is from CNN by the way. You can also find stats on the FBI stats page.

"The new study found U.S. firearm homicides peaked in 1993 at 7.0 deaths per 100,000 people. But by 2010, the rate was 49% lower, and firearm-related violence -- assaults, robberies, sex crimes -- was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993, the study found."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/

The 2nd amendment was written in because our forefathers knew what a government could do if a bad man came into power. Some of you are smirking...but the Hitlers of the world will always come. Man's corruption is eternal and so it his reach for power. The idea that people play nice and fair is an illusion. If Pearl harbor happened today in DC, and people started running down the seaboard, would you want a gun for protection?

If someone came into power and pulled a coup, would you want protection then? What if there were riots and looting after a natural disaster? Would you feel responsible for protecting yourself, or rely on others? If so, who?

What I am outlining is not unprecedented, but prone to happen from time to time in history. Even in America.

 

[partgypsy]

I'm not going to beat a dead horse, but I think all gun deaths should be included in the conversation, both homicides, suicides and accidents.

OK, so no limit on number. What about background checks, if not national at least state registration, and mandatory training for gun ownership? That seems those who advocate for responsible gun ownership would want these things (those who have guns are not mentally ill, have felonies, they know how to properly use the weapons, and a means to identify the location and flow of illegal guns)?

I guess I just don't understand the emotions behind regulating a right. We have many rights, but they often come with restrictions, so that they do not undue impose hardship on others. It's part of living in a society.
People who drive have to have a licence, so they are of age and know how to drive. If they break the law they can have their licence revoked. Yes the license law cannot PREVENT someone without a license from driving, but surely people are not arguing the alternative (get rid of driver's licenses).

 

[aljdewey]

Um I think your numbers are a little off. There are 313 million people in the entire United States, there are not 306 million gun owners. In fact we don't know how many legal gun owners are in the US, because the NRA has been sucessful at fighting a national gun registry (as in so the cops know who owns gun legally and who doesn't, and being able to confiscated illegal guns).

PG, the 307M is actual guns, not owners. The figures aren't derived from registration; they're derived manufacturer's unit sales and spread out roughly as follows: 110M rifles, 86M shotguns, and 114M handguns.

I agree with you that all gun deaths should be included, and I did - the 31,706 gun fatalities I cited were all gun deaths (homicide, suicide, and accidental).

there were estimated 307M guns owned by 2010, and in 2010, there were 31,706 gun fatalities. If every single gun death happened with a different gun (which we know they didn't), that would make 31,706 guns that caused a death and the other 306.9 million guns that were not involved in killing anyone. That what I quoted above.

 

[MMtwo]

They do these things already when you buy a gun. Go to a gun show and they are very careful not to just let anyone buy one. So the problem happens after you get home. Lets say a mentally ill teen gets the gun. It wasn't his background check...it was his parents, or a stolen gun. About registration, what business is it of anyone what I own? I had a background check when I bought the gun.
Most gun owners are safe and law abiding. It is scary that some people would like to come collect the guns.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/

Here's how the current system works:
Once you have decided to purchase a gun from a retail outlet -- it could be a local gun shop or national chain such as Bass Pro Shops, Cabelas or Walmart -- the store enters your name and information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, via a toll-free number or the Internet, to check the eligibility of the buyer.
The check usually takes a few minutes to complete.
The NICS system is linked to several databases managed by the FBI, including the National Crime Information Center, and runs an individual's name through federal and state criminal records.
CNN Poll: Background checks popular, worrisome
Individuals can also be added to the NICS index outside of potential gun sales, on the recommendation of psychiatrists, mental health institutions and family members.
Under the current NICS system, buyers may be denied the purchase of a firearm for reasons such as being indicted or convicted of a felony, admitting to being addicted to a controlled substances, having been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, being subject to a restraining order, as well as other regulations.

 

[redwood66]

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats - Thanks moneymeister

I have a background check if I buy a weapon. I qualify/shoot every year to have my CCW as is required for retired law enforcement. I take classes all the time for defensive handgun, don't be a victim, etc. It is very expensive but worth it to me. I practice with my weapons all the time which is important as it develops proficiency and muscle memory - and its FUN!