×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Police To Allow Gun Users To Renew Licenses With iPhone App

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the there's-a-gun-for-that dept.

Iphone 271

Sussex police are creating a number of iPhone apps for the public, including one to renew your gun license. Unsurprisingly, the plan has some anti-gun groups upset. Lyn Costello, of Mothers Against Murder and Aggression (MAMAA), said, "This isn't suitable, especially in light of what happened in Cumbria. We've got to be extra careful giving gun licenses. We have this attitude that gun murders don't happen very often so it's OK to be lax, but it is not OK and we've got to do everything in our power to stop it happening again. We can't put money before life and if you start to do that we are losing our humanity. It is a really stupid idea.''

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

271 comments

Mothers (5, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 3 years ago | (#32615848)

Am I the only one whose skepticism level is instantly raised when a politically lobbying organization includes the word "Mom" or "Mothers" in it's name?

Re:Mothers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32615902)

But don't you think of the children!!!!

Re:Mothers (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32617018)

Only while I masturbate.

Re:Mothers (2)

tmosley (996283) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617128)

I think this is my favorite Slashdot comment of all time. An excellent response to all "Think of the CHILDREN!" arguments.

Re:Mothers (4, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#32615910)

No, it's a perfectly sane reaction. Another red flag tends to be the word "against" in the group name, "foo against bar and baf" is a standard "think of the children" group name...

Re:Mothers (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32615970)

No kidding. If the Mothers are Against Murder and Aggression what are they for? Is there anything they do like?

Then again Mothers Against Sexual Intercourse and Conception may not be a very large organization....

Re:Mothers (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32616116)

not as rare as mothers against nagging and passive aggressiveness.

Re:Mothers (2, Funny)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616124)

If the US we have MADD (mothers against drunk driving), so it's obvious what they are for: sober driving

Presumably MAMMA is in favor of peaceful resolution of conflicts.

MASIC already has a name: Christian.

Re:Mothers (5, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616256)

If the US we have MADD (mothers against drunk driving), so it's obvious what they are for: sober driving

Err, no. MADD used to be for sober driving. Now they're for Prohibition.

Re:Mothers (-1, Offtopic)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616308)

Mod parent up, MADD has pretty much achieved their stated goals and have switched focus to prohibition.

Re:Mothers (5, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616554)

Well of course. That worked so great in the 1920s! :-| Can the moms in MADD really be so stupid as to repeat the same mistake?

re: Gun Bans.

I used a gun to defend myself two years ago. And in the mid-90s a guy grabbed my girlfriend by the throat, and I forced him to run away when I put my gun to the rear of his head.

Anyway..... I'm curious how these events would be different without a gun for self-defense. In both cases I suspect the end result would be two dead victims. Is that really want anti-gun people want.

I cannot comprehend it
.

Re:Mothers (2, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617070)

Can the moms in MADD really be so stupid as to repeat the same mistake?

YUP! See: .08 "intoxication" limit now in most states.

Anyway..... I'm curious how these events would be different without a gun for self-defense. In both cases I suspect the end result would be two dead victims. Is that really want anti-gun people want.

Anti-gunners want us to believe that it's more common for previously law-abiding citizens who carry guns to commit murder, than defend themselves and others from violent crime.

Re:Mothers (3, Insightful)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617208)

Clearly you should have run away and called the cops. Also, you're just as guilty as him for fighting back! </stupid things they say in school>

Re:Mothers (3, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617216)

Yes, that's what they want. The anti-gun people basically want the government to be the only one that can legally use force (in the form of police). If anyone else uses force, they want it to be illegal, and the only recourse is the police and court system.

So if someone wants to kill you, you're supposed to allow it to happen, and then trust that the justice system will catch the perpetrator and sentence him to prison.

If you use "self-defense", you're taking away their civil rights, in their view.

Re:Mothers (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617468)

So if someone wants to kill you, you're supposed to allow it to happen

I had an argument the other day with a gun control nut who is a self-described feminist. She insisted that it's illegal to shoot someone who is attempting to rape you. When I pointed out the actual law that authorizes the use of deadly force in response to a rape she shifted gears from "it's illegal" to "it's immoral". In her world a raped woman is morally superior to one that defended her body and rights. Figure that one out....

Re:Mothers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32617258)

Anyway..... I'm curious how these events would be different without a gun for self-defense. In both cases I suspect the end result would be two dead victims. Is that really want anti-gun people want.

All other things aside, that's a pretty cheap shot. It's the same tactic the "think of the children" crowd always uses. "In this situation, internet filtering/constant video surveillance/tracking chips in everyones asses could have prevented a crime, yet you are against those things. WHY DO YOU HATE CHILDREN?!

Appeal to emotion indeed...

Re:Mothers (1)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617384)

You could have probably done equally well with a taser. Less messy and more fun watching him twitch. That being said, I find guns to be a mixed bag; for each example of proper use, you could probably dig up an example of improper use. It largely depends on the individual wielding the tool. Depending on where I lived, and the people I lived near, my tolerance of gun rights might vary. For instance, if I lived on a street with a lot of crime or gang violence, I might advocate stricter gun laws. If I lived in suburbia or near forest-y areas, where people used guns to hunt, I wouldn't be worried about their gun rights.
I believe you have the right to own a gun to defend yourself. However, I also think there are better alternatives if you're only using it for defence.

Re:Mothers (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617044)

Mod parent up, MADD has pretty much achieved their stated goals and have switched focus to prohibition.

Anyone who believes that's a good idea must be MAD...

Re:Mothers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32616610)

Support DDAM: Drunk Drivers Against Mothers!

Re:Mothers (3, Insightful)

lazlo (15906) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617892)

I like what I call the "AT&T solution" to drunk driving: More bars in more places.

I mean really, there's no excuse for driving drunk, but if the bar is within walking distance of your house, then there's both no excuse and no reason.

For reasons unbeknown to me, MADD doesn't seem to agree.

Re:Mothers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32616522)

Taking a dip in the pedantic end of the pool... just because they are against drunk driving does not mean that they are for sober driving.

Re:Mothers (1)

Mysterstyle (1106637) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616108)

Well they must be organized.. I know I wouldn't have gotten far as a kid without my mother making sure I changed my clothes once a week. I'd worry about the mood swings.

Re:Mothers (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616158)

I believe Frank Zappa wrote a song about disingenuous organization names like "The National Education Association".

Mahem on demand? (1)

hilldog (656513) | more than 3 years ago | (#32615926)

Yeah we have an app for that.

Re:Mahem on demand? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32615980)

Mahem on demand?

Dictionary app? Yeah we have one of those too

Guns don't kill people... (1, Insightful)

sv_libertarian (1317837) | more than 3 years ago | (#32615976)

Insane cab drivers kill people. He just chose to use guns. As witnessed by recent mass killings in China, he could have easily used a knife. Sadly people in England are (A) disarmed and (B) pacified to the point where they expect the government to save them, so even a knife wielding crazy would have racked up a body count. Anti gun groups beat the same drum over and over and over and over again. No logic, just fear, fear, and more fear.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (4, Funny)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616072)

Come on now - everyone knows that guns actually contain demons which possess any person unfortunate enough to come into contact with them. Radioactive demons, with large carbon footprints. They also eat sea kittens.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (1, Flamebait)

Godai (104143) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616082)

Insane cab drivers kill people. He just chose to use guns. As witnessed by recent mass killings in China, he could have easily used a knife. Sadly people in England are (A) disarmed and (B) pacified to the point where they expect the government to save them, so even a knife wielding crazy would have racked up a body count.

Anti gun groups beat the same drum over and over and over and over again. No logic, just fear, fear, and more fear.

Quoted for irony. And I'd take facing someone with a knife over a gun any day.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32616148)

And I'd take facing someone with a knife over a gun any day.

I assume you're packing heat?

Re:Guns don't kill people... (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616186)

Depends on distance, at less than 21 feet the knife wielder is probably more dangerous. He has no need to reload and aiming a knife is very easy.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (3, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617222)

at less than 21 feet the knife wielder is probably more dangerous

The rule is that the average person can cover 21 feet faster than the average person can draw and fire a handgun. It's not so much that the knife is more dangerous as it is that the knife can be brought into action faster. If the gun is already drawn then the guy with the knife loses (all things being equal of course...)

He has no need to reload and aiming a knife is very easy.

The reload doesn't really enter into it for the overwhelming majority of civilian self-defense encounters. Most are resolved without any rounds being fired. When rounds are fired the average number is between 3 and 5 according to most studies I've seen. By this metric you'd be just fine with a 5 shot .38 special. I would still say that you should carry a spare magazine or two for your semi-auto -- if for no other reason than to keep your gun functioning if the primary magazine breaks for whatever reason. The magazine is the cheapest part of most pistols and the most likely to break. It's also helpful to have a spare magazine or two on the opposite side of your body from the gun to balance out the weight distribution.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617372)

The rule is that the average person can cover 21 feet faster than the average person can draw and fire a handgun. It's not so much that the knife is more dangerous as it is that the knife can be brought into action faster. If the gun is already drawn then the guy with the knife loses (all things being equal of course...)

No, it's worse than that.

Guns require skill and discipline to use. It's easy to draw a gun quickly, and then totally miss a target that's 5 feet in front of you. There's a reason handgun users who want to stay proficient go to the range frequently and shoot at paper targets only a few yards away. Not many people are gifted with excellent aim, most have to practice it.
Even worse, most people lose much of their precision when under duress. It's a lot easier to concentrate and aim properly in a nice shooting range, rather than when people are attacking you and you're stressed.

Knives, however, can be used effectively by just about anyone. Taking a knife away from someone is a very difficult proposition unless you're a hand-to-hand combat expert. The only safe part of the knife is already in the user's hand; the rest of it is a sharp blade. All that person has to do is flail it around wildly to maim and kill people. That's why the wackos in China have been racking up big bodycounts with things like butcher knives.

It's also helpful to have a spare magazine or two on the opposite side of your body from the gun to balance out the weight distribution.

If a few ounces from a spare mag make that much of a difference, you're either a really tiny person, or your gun is too big for you. I have a .45 XD (with 13-round magazines), but I've never felt that I needed any counterweights. Guns aren't that heavy, unless you're carrying a Desert Eagle for some stupid reason.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617802)

It's easy to draw a gun quickly, and then totally miss a target that's 5 feet in front of you.

A man-sized target? I've done force on force drills and I never managed to miss a man sized target. I have missed the vital zone however....

Even worse, most people lose much of their precision when under duress.

The fine motor skills are the first thing to go when the flight-or-fight response hits. I've never been there (thankfully) but I've talked to people who have. One said that he never even saw his gun or his sights -- yet he still managed to put down the guy that was trying to kill him. Another said that everything appeared to be in slow motion -- he can recollect drawing the gun, getting a sight picture and firing -- said that it seemed to take a minute or more when in reality it was over in five seconds.

If a few ounces from a spare mag make that much of a difference, you're either a really tiny person, or your gun is too big for you

To each their own I suppose. I find that it helps me to walk more naturally. It's not just the spare magazines though -- I carry a full sized 1911 on my right hip and two spare magazines + cell phone + flashlight + leathermen on my left hip. I've carried the gun alone before and it just doesn't feel as natural to me. YMMV of course.

I have a .45 XD (with 13-round magazines)

Ah, lucky you, you live in a free state. I'm not allowed to legally possess magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. *sigh*

Re:Guns don't kill people... (3, Insightful)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616296)

And I'd take facing someone with a knife over a gun any day.

But what's to stop a criminal from possessing guns? The entire Slashdot community seems to hate every governmental intrusion of privacy and law enforcement getting all up in your grill, so how do you suggest the government enforces a gun ban? If it's illegal to own guns then anybody who owns a gun is automatically a criminal and somebody we should look out for. I'd take having a gun over not having a gun when facing anybody with anything. Most gun-related crimes are perpetrated by somebody who would never pull the trigger anyway, and most murders performed with a gun could easily be performed with a number of other weapons or non-weapons that no government could conceivably ban. The world is a dangerous place, and I'd rather feel safe in knowing that everybody has a gun than questioning who does while I don't.

Simple gun control measures (1, Interesting)

Estanislao Martnez (203477) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616630)

But what's to stop a criminal from possessing guns?

You know, in the USA, one of the reasons it's so easy for criminals to get guns is that even if your locality passes a law restricting gun purchases very severely, somebody can always drive to the next state over with the lax gun laws, buy a gazillion guns, then come back and sell them to criminals for inflated prices in a black market.

There are some pretty simple measures that, if implemented at the federal level, would make it significantly harder or more expensive for criminals to get guns:

  1. Limits on how many guns a non-dealer may purchase in a given time period. E.g., one gun per month per adult household member.
  2. Waiting periods on gun purchases. If you buy a gun today, you can't pick it up until a week from now.
  3. Close the fucking gun show loophole already; make all gun sales require a background check of the buyer.

None of these would prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns. But guess what? The NRA is rabidly opposed to all of them.

Re:Simple gun control measures (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32616754)

There is no fucking gunshow loophole...

Re:Simple gun control measures (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616794)

So then how do I sell a gun to my neighbor?
Or give one to a family member?

Re:Simple gun control measures (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32616908)

The Bill of Rights doesn't say "the right to keep and bear arms, if the ATF is feeling generous that day", it says "the right to keep and bear arms". Do you own a firearm ? I suspect not, and this eliminates your right to question the process.

Re:Simple gun control measures (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616968)

None of these would prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns.

Well if you banned them except for people who paid a $10,000 tax it wouldn't prevent law-abiding citizens from owning them either.

What's a waiting period do for what you consider straw purchases? Just purchase a week in advance.

The other issues you are discussing won't do anything meaningful to address the problem, which is why most of us are against them.

Address the root causes as to why there are situations in which people are driven to the point of murdering each other.

Do you think a lack of guns has done anything to prevent the genocide in some African nations? They just use Machetes.

I just don't see firearms as that big of a problem. I've been mugged before, and it was a knife every time. I HAVE defended myself with a firearm before. But most of this issue with the guns is just something cooked up by the media and the politicians to get you to be angry about something so that they can count on your vote.

Does X make you angry? It should, X does horrible things. I'm against X, vote for me and I'll do all I can to stop X.

Media: Is X killing your child? Tune in after the commercial.

Re:Simple gun control measures (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617062)

So just no guns for poor people?
Hmm, could we do that with free speech too? or maybe voting?

Not being serious just pointing out how the second gets some really "separate but equal" treatment.

Re:Simple gun control measures (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617264)

So just no guns for poor people? Hmm, could we do that with free speech too? or maybe voting?

That's what New York City has done. It costs $400+ to apply for a pistol license in NYC. Said license needs to be renewed every two years. The net result of this is to price handgun ownership out of reach for many people. Interestingly enough this is similar to what the Southern States used to do with poll taxes -- we wouldn't want those black people and poor whites to vote would we? -- but when you point that out to a NYC'er they get all pissed off for some reason.

Re:Simple gun control measures (2, Informative)

BarefootClown (267581) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617010)

But what's to stop a criminal from possessing guns?

You know, in the USA, one of the reasons it's so easy for criminals to get guns is that even if your locality passes a law restricting gun purchases very severely, somebody can always drive to the next state over with the lax gun laws, buy a gazillion guns, then come back and sell them to criminals for inflated prices in a black market.

There are some pretty simple measures that, if implemented at the federal level, would make it significantly harder or more expensive for criminals to get guns:

  1. Limits on how many guns a non-dealer may purchase in a given time period. E.g., one gun per month per adult household member.
  2. Waiting periods on gun purchases. If you buy a gun today, you can't pick it up until a week from now.
  3. Close the fucking gun show loophole already; make all gun sales require a background check of the buyer.

None of these would prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns. But guess what? The NRA is rabidly opposed to all of them.

Most guns used in crimes aren't bought from a dealer, they're stolen. In fact, it's often cheaper to buy a gun "on the street" than it is to do so through a dealer...so much for markup or "inflated prices in a black market." Additionally, it's illegal to buy a handgun in any state other than your state of residence, so crossing state lines to buy handguns isn't a factor--dealers won't sell them without an in-state ID. Criminals--being the law-breaking sort, pretty much by definition--obtain them through (wait for it) illegal means. Long guns just don't turn up often in crimes (source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports).

Facts never were popular with your crowd, though.

Re:Simple gun control measures (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617284)

Additionally, it's illegal to buy a handgun in any state other than your state of residence

No it's not. You just have to have the handgun shipped to a FFL (Federal Firearms License, i.e: a gun store) in your state of residence and take possession of the firearm when you return home.

Re:Simple gun control measures (2, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617032)

Limits on how many guns a non-dealer may purchase in a given time period. E.g., one gun per month per adult household member.

Why?

Waiting periods on gun purchases. If you buy a gun today, you can't pick it up until a week from now.

That won't accomplish anything. The vast majority of guns used for crime are stolen. Criminals don't walk into a gun store and buy a gun to commit a crime. The only thing it might prevent are crimes of passion, but one could argue that it ceases to be a crime of passion when one has to leave the situation, purchase a weapon and then later return to the situation.

Close the fucking gun show loophole already; make all gun sales require a background check of the buyer.

There is no "gun show loophole". There's a private party sale loophole. Of course that doesn't sound as scary so the anti-RKBA crowd doesn't use it....

Re:Simple gun control measures (4, Informative)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617270)

There is no "gun show loophole". There's a private party sale loophole. Of course that doesn't sound as scary so the anti-RKBA crowd doesn't use it....

Thank goodness someone actually pointed that out. There is NOTHING. NADA. ZILCH. special about a freaking gun show. If a dealer shows up at a gun show to sell, he has to abide by the same laws as always (which means background checks and all). I've bought several guns from dealers at gun shows and every single time I've been through a background check.

The "issue" (quotes because in reality it's a non-issue) is that a private citizen can choose to sell one of his or her guns to another citizen without involving a dealer. Just like any normal piece of property. I've bought guns from friends before, I've bought guns from other guys at the range before. Ironically I've never bought from a private party as a gun show before.

That's the only thing though. If someone chooses to bring a private firearm to sell at a gunshow then they can sell it under the same laws as anywhere else.

Gun shows are NOT popular because a bunch of hooligans are looking to make off-the-books purchases, but rather because there's simply a lot more inventory available at gun shows as a lot of dealers congregate in one area.

And ironically enough, the few people I know that prefer to do private sales to stay off the books aren't doing it for some nefarious purpose planning on committing some crime. They are simply afraid that with documentation of who owns what the government will try to eventually take their guns away. That's it. No plans to murder, or cause mayhem, they just want to keep their property and have the government butt the hell out of their lives.

You simply can't throw laws at this problem and hope to fix it. The people who are a problem here already have decided that the law is of no concern to them. Tacking on more and more of them isn't somehow going to wear down their will. It's not like someone who's going to commit murder or armed robbery is suddenly going to have a change of heart at the thought of breaking a gun law.

Re:Simple gun control measures (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617212)

People have suggested (and even implemented) those measures before. They don't work, and I could probably adapt the "spam control form" to these "ideas", but I'll be more polite. They don't work because they all assume that criminals will follow the law, that most violent crime is committed in the heat of the moment rather than premeditated (and that criminals are impatient and will suddenly turn into schoolboys when faced with a week wait), and that gun shows are a prime vector for guns used in crime. All false.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32616500)

Quoted for irony. And I'd take facing someone with a knife over a gun any day.

I'd suggest you rethink your position. If you're like 98% of the world's population, you're no more trained to properly disarm a knife wielder than a gunman (this includes most of the world's military and police forces). As well, knives are way more personal than guns, anyone willing to stab you with one is likely way more off the deep end than someone threatening you with a gun.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (0, Troll)

Taevin (850923) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616764)

Knives are also a lot less likely to accidentally kill someone. Note I'm not just talking about little Johnny blowing his face off playing with daddy's gun, but the nervous criminal might pull the trigger without really meaning to if he's startled. Consider also the carry-permit-holder packing heat and a hardon as he tries to smoke a baddie but realizes too late that it's not as easy as it looks in the movies and it's little Suzy he hit. Also easier to run from a knife wielder bent on killing you than it is to dodge bullets.

I'm not necessarily against guns, but I think a little more careful thought needs to be involved beyond just "hand out pistols on every street corner."

Re:Guns don't kill people... (1)

brainboyz (114458) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617138)

a) The Constitution says the right won't be infringed. It's a natural right to own them, so what's wrong with handing them out?
b) Permit holders in general aren't looking to actually use the weapon. They know quite well that breaking leather is probably $20k minimum defense costs even if it's a good reason.
c) Easier to run from a knife wielder? Sure that works when you're young or in shape, but what about the disabled, old, or weak? Firearms level the playing field as much as possible.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32617066)

Who says everyone is daft enough to try disarm them? I'd rather just run away. Far easier against someone with a knife.

As for 'anyone willing to stab you with one is likely way more off the deep end than someone threatening you with a gun' that pretty much confirms that you are more at risk from someone with a gun, as the barrier for use is so much lower. Someone may hesitate and shoot me with a gun, but you're right, someone really does have to want me dead to chase me down and stab me. And at that point, they may as well just be armed with a hammer or anything else, even their fists.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (5, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616718)

Quoted for irony. And I'd take facing someone with a knife over a gun any day.

Oh hell no. I'd rather not.

I've even been trained in ways to disarm a knife, and you know what? I don't trust myself to do that EVER. It's much easier to keep the barrel of a firearm pointed away from you in a scuffle than escaping from someone with a knife.

I've been mugged before too, and a knife in your back is a hell of a lot scarier since the person is much more likely to use it if they get pissed off. Firearms draw attention.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617880)

Even better, it's not that hard to disable a firearm by grabbing it the right way, if you're in a position to put your hands on it. If it's a revolver, grab it so the cylinder can't turn. If it's a semi-auto, push the slide forward and out of battery.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616978)

And I'd take facing someone with a knife over a gun any day.

Then you are an idiot. At close range I would rather be faced with a firearm than a knife. You can grab onto a firearm and attempt to wrest it away from your aggressor or at least point it away from your body. You can also disable a semi-automatic by pushing the slide out of battery or a revolver by preventing the cylinder from turning. Trying to grab onto a knife probably won't work out as well for you.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (2, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617126)

And I'd rather read funny trolls than ignorant rehashing of the progressive agenda... but I don't want to outlaw ignorant speech because I believe in the first amendment.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616334)

... Nevermind that the vast majority of gun crimes are from unlicensed gun users. Very rarely is a crime committed by someone with a license, because they receive training and take their responsibility seriously.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (2, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616508)

Just like no crimes are committed with properly registered machine guns in the USA, but some states still ban them.

Some dumbass state senator in my state wants to force new guns to stamp a serial number on each cartridge casing when fired. Which means one of three thing happen; criminals start policing their brass, revolvers become more popular, or people just grind numbers off the inside of the gun.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (2, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616796)

You forgot something: It makes a huge pile of money for the company that owns the patent on that process that your elected representative all of a sudden wants to mandate.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (4, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617354)

I think that's part of it. Legislate the requirement of this type of nonsense, and as prices go up fewer and fewer people will be able to actually AFFORD a gun. Any company that figures out a way to shave costs will get banned as a "Saturday Night Special" for costing too little.

Remember, they don't see anything wrong with the rich (ie, them) owning guns. The just don't want the commoners having them. This is evidences by so many anti-gunners carrying concealed weapons. Recently one prominent anti-gun activist even shot a home invader. Kinda hard to argue about how bad guns are when you're keeping one yourself AND actually get prompted with a valid opportunity to use it.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (2, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617432)

Remember, they don't see anything wrong with the rich (ie, them) owning guns. The just don't want the commoners having them.

There might be something to that but the first thing I always suspect when some new regulation is proposed is campaign contributions (or job offers) from the factions that stand to financially benefit from the new regulation.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (2, Informative)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617144)

Actually, there was one murder done with a registered NFA full auto a while back... it was a police officer who did it (shot his wife). Of course, police are exempt from NFA requirements, so he could've gotten one thru his department instead of as a private purchase.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32617586)

Quick!! We must outlaw police officers now! They are dangerous!

Re:Guns don't kill people... (1)

L3370 (1421413) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617604)

Or maybe its because there's no reward/benefit for a criminal to be licesned in the first place... Why license when its easier (and cheaper) to buy a gun off the street and commit crimes anonymously?

Crimes are rarely commited by the people that obtain licenses because they aren't criminals and would like to remain law abiding citizens. If an otherwise upstanding citizen were required to obtain a license and does not, then that citizen is now a criminal.
Essentially I'm trying to say licensing isn't preventing the crime. It just indicates who's willing to jump through hoops, and far less likely to break the law.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32616352)

Yeah, if only there were a large number of armed people nearby who could have stopped the crazed madman in his tracks.

Oh wait, there were, and the trained armed Police officers couldn't shoot him because he made it difficult for them to actually find him. I fail to see how some random hoo-ha with a gun could have stopped him any quicker than the Police could.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (1)

BoxRec (532280) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617088)

Murder rate per 100,000 of the USA at 5.5 is over three times that of the UK at 1.5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate [wikipedia.org] IMO the UK is a much more violent society, street fighting is the weekend pastime in many towns. The only factor reducing the death rate is the absence of guns, so while stabbings are more common in the UK deaths are more common in the USA.

Re:Guns don't kill people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32617800)

Funny, I've always read that the rate of gun/knife violence in the UK didn't change, but the fatality rate went up as stabbings replaced shootings. Something about small caliber gun wounds being more survivable than multiple knife wounds.

Yeah there's an app for that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32615986)

Can't wait for the next gen of iPhone commercial. Need to renew your gun license? Yeah there's an app for that. Worried that someone is going to hack your WoW account? Yeah there's an app for that.

MAMAA need to read (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32616004)

I think MAMAA need to read the rest of that article:

A spokeswoman for Sussex Police said: "There are no firm plans to put this method into place at this stage.
If this model was to be adopted it would not replace officers visiting the applicant, it would just allow the applicant
  to submit their initial application online

Surely this means all they're doing is replacing paper forms with electronic forms theres no other change in the process

I'm confused... (5, Insightful)

Syberz (1170343) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616020)

What exactly is the difference between a gun owner renewing his license online and a gun owner renewing his license in person?

The guy already owns a gun, he's renewing his license, not applying for one for the first time.

Convenience is the only difference between using the app versus the old way. This app does not make the streets less safe somehow.

Re:I'm confused... (1)

qoncept (599709) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616230)

What's the point of renewing a license at all if all you have to do is click a button or show up? While I couldn't care less about their cause, these idiots are at least making sense in their approach.

Logically, they believe the renewal process is too simple. They probably think it needs some kind of review that likely isn't happening when you renew in person or with the app. But you couldn't do it with the app, so the first step is making sure you have to show up in person.

Re:I'm confused... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616372)

Why does there need to be any review for a renewal?
If the license was already granted, and the person has not committed a felony what is the point of hassling them any further?

Re:I'm confused... (1)

qoncept (599709) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616420)

Why are you asking me? I clearly stated I don't agree.

Anyway, the answer is pretty obvious. $$$. Or, uh, £££. Maybe ... yeah I can't even find the euro thing.

Re:I'm confused... (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616848)

Why are you asking me? I clearly stated I don't agree.

I'm not the person you are replying to, but I also got the impression that you were somehow upset that a simple process was a problem somehow.

Taking the opportunity to expand on your comment about the money, think of an even more absurd example.

Vehicle registrations. Why the hell do you have to renew a registration every 1-2 years? It's still the same vehicle, and registration is not inspection. It's simply a yearly tax on owning a vehicle.

Re:I'm confused... (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617214)

to ensure no change in status since you last were in, did you receive an assault conviction? or any of the other number of things that would disqualify you from obtaining a gun license. It also shows the owner is semi responsible, can make time to come in and renew the permit, can't manage that, we feel you can't own a gun legally.

Re:I'm confused... (2, Informative)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617478)

That can be (and possibly already is) handled quite easily. We live in an age where computers are as common as maggots.

For instance, my state DMV will let you renew your car tags online UNLESS it's flagged for some reason (unpaid traffic violations, property taxes due, etc).

It wouldn't exactly be hard to just build the app to say "Oops. Your license is currently not eligible to be renewed online. Please stop into your local law enforcement office for review." in the event that a disqualifiying factor comes up on their record.

The only reason to not allow something like this (hell, the only reason to even IMPLEMENT such an assinine licensing requirement in the first place) is just to try and hassle people to the point that they give up on owning a gun. That's the true motive behind what most anti's call "common sense gun laws". Translated version: "we can't ban them outright so we're just going to aggravate the hell out of you in the hopes that you just give up".

Re:I'm confused... (3, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616520)

What's the point of renewing a license at all if all you have to do is click a button or show up?

The fee. You do realize that it is all an excuse for the government to put what is essentially a toll booth into your day to day life.

Re:I'm confused... (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616728)

What's the point of renewing a license at all if all you have to do is click a button or show up?

It is basically to keep track of people who own guns. A renewal says "I still live in your area and I still have guns." This is useful information.

Re:I'm confused... (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617058)

No it's not, unless you are worried about the people who follow the law and register their weapons.....

Could be even safer... (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616234)

Hell, the iPhone app even has the opportunity to sneakily take a picture of the person renewing, so as to properly profile them!

Re:I'm confused... (1)

Theodore (13524) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616514)

Agreed.
Here in Illinois, I can take the renewal form I get in the mail for my car's license plate to a kiosk, scan it, swipe my card, and get the sticker out of a laser printer in less than half a minute.
(Yeah, you get a form in the mail a couple of weeks later asking for your insurance info, BFD, another 30 seconds to make sure you know where your card is).
I never have to interact with a live human being, hell, in the Thompson Center basement, you don't actually even have to enter the DMV to do it.
I already have the big chunk of metal that moves at high velocities, and no one's been hurt by it; they just want their 454 grams of flesh.

It's the same thing here.
If their police didn't think it was safe for an individual to renew online, they would be asked to come on in someplace.

similarly stupid statement (1)

bugi (8479) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616028)

A disturbed person used a public forum to hurt someone I know, so we shouldn't let anyone use a public forum.

I wish (1)

Montezumaa (1674080) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616478)

I wish it were this easy to renew CCW/FLs in the U.S. I so hate having to go to the courthouse and wait forever to see a judge, then get fingerprinted, then wait until the renewal comes in. Once I get the first license, then it needs to have a more automated process. If I get a felony on my record, then it would be easy to spot this and revoke my license, or refuse a renewal.

Of course, then app's icon needs to be a target.

Re:I wish (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617076)

My state has lifetime pistol licenses (except in the People's Republic of NYC and a few downstate counties) that are "good until revoked". Felony convictions operate as an automatic revocation. Of course the anti-RKBA crowd is trying to change this and impose expensive renewals on everybody....

Even better is Vermont, Alaska or Arizona. No permit required.

Silly Brits (0, Flamebait)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 3 years ago | (#32616598)

Murder and aggression are part of humanity. Being against is like saying you think anuses should be removed because they stink. You can remove the guns, people will still commit murder and aggression (though I would argue that murder is 99% of the time "successful" aggression as in taken to its fullest extent.) with whatever they have on hand. In olden days, we used bones, rocks, then spears and arrows and knives. Absent any sufficiently effective object, a few hours of martial arts training is all that is needed to end a life. Though this does bring in a greater risk to the attacker, and does discourage a lot of violence, but aggression is ever present.

The majority of violence that happens is because of conflict, and you can never eliminate that.

 

Re:Silly Brits (1)

brainboyz (114458) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617296)

I would propose that even "a few hours of martial arts training" is excess. I know plenty of people who could pound the life out someone without any training at all by either kicking the skull or by holding the airway shut. Both take no specialized knowledge and relatively little force for the muscle groups in question.

Re:Silly Brits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32617806)

Us 'Silly Brits' are proud of our dramatically lower murder and gun crime rate, once-in-15-years-spree notwithstanding. Also our much tighter gun control; it's not perfect but it's a good alternative to doing nothing but spout stupid, self-evident platitudes like "the majority of violence is caused by conflict". (Really? no shit!)

What happened in Cumbria is the first in more than a decade, in a country of 60 million people. The USA (a population only about five times as large and spread over a dramatically larger land mass) often has these several times a year. You can call us silly, but we think you're insane; you should get over it.

Or perhaps you should just work on whatever it is that makes for so much 'conflict'. Because if guns don't kill people, Americans clearly do. Regularly.

IE-only all over again... (2, Interesting)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617160)

For a brief but wonderful window of time, it looked like the Web was going to be the new platform.

Then Apple came along and fucked it up.

Please explain: Why does this need to be an iPhone app? I keep hearing about more and more iPhone apps which would make just as much sense -- more sense, even -- as web apps, and that includes the iTunes store itself. (WTF is the point of making the iTunes store DRM-free if I still need a specific, proprietary client program to purchase stuff with?)

wading through all the gun debate a moment... (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617364)

...my problem is with a government organisation, the Sussex police, contemplating the production of proprietary software for a locked-down platform in order to facilitate some licensing process (*). No, I do not want my tax money to go toward funding the proliferation of Apple toys, thanks!

OTOH, this could just be someone over-buzzwording what turns out to be a web site.

(*) This will, of course, save no money whatever, and means either Apple or - more likely - some local development firm has good chums/an uncle in the police service, but we all knew that. Sussex is full of toffs, City commuters, mutual back-scratchers (but I repeat myself) and - increasingly over the last decade - a swathe of immigrants who work hard... and fight hard.

Ownership is not the issue (1)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 3 years ago | (#32617488)

There's quite a few countries with higher rates of gun ownership than the US, yet they don't see similar rates of people getting killed by them. I would dare speculate that the following has something to do with it:

-Poverty
-Social Security and Welfare
-Access to psychiatric care
-Bullying
-Working and Study conditions for employees and pupils
-Cultural differences in attitudes to weapons and violence
-Differences in the approach to dealing with crime

If you are worried about people getting killed by guns, start dealing with those issues. Oh, and require every damn idiot who wants a gun to demonstrate that he/she has an appropriate safe to keep it in. If you're not prepared to take measures to keep it from getting stolen by the neighbor's kid, then you really shouldn't be keeping one at all. That you have a right to keep arms does not mean you have a right to be irresponsible about it.

"We can't put money before life...." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32617512)

We can't put money before life and if you start to do that we are losing our humanity.

Then she'd better stop buying unneeded consumer goods and donate it all to a charity that saves lives in Africa or something. I can't stand the hypocrisy of people who say "human is infinitely precious" but don't actually practice what they preach. Human life is valuable, just not infinitely valuable. We have finite resources and not everyone gets to live a full and happy life unfortunately.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...