Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by samzenpus on from the there's-a-gun-for-that dept.

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.''

35 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. Mothers by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:Mothers by mikael_j · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    2. Re:Mothers by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Mothers by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
      .

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:Mothers by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:Mothers by Korin43 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Clearly you should have run away and called the cops. Also, you're just as guilty as him for fighting back!

    6. Re:Mothers by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Mothers by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:Mothers by lazlo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
    9. Re:Mothers by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep, Arizona has a castle law too, as do most "red" states.

      And don't count on juries to be sane. They're usually composed (after the lawyers weed out anyone with critical thinking ability) of the most easily emotion-swayed people possible, who will cry about the poor home invader after his family shows a nice picture of him and talks about what a nice, misunderstood man he was.

      But I think that even in the worst states, as long as you retreat to your bedroom and have not feasible escape path, you're still justified in shooting an invader. This is frequently a good strategy anyway; you're safer defending yourself (and family) from a single location, and allowing the invader to come to you, rather than going out in the home and trying to seek him out and shooting him. You're more likely to get shot yourself, or to shoot a family member. When you're defending, you always want the attacker to come to you. Also, you're less likely to have to shoot him this way. Yes, it's nice to remove scum from the gene pool, however, there's some big financial costs involved, and a lot of hassle. Police, coroners, courts, etc. are a pain to deal with. Secondly, it costs thousands of dollars for the crime scene to be cleaned up by special clean-up crews. The government doesn't pay for that, you do. Good luck suing the invader's estate for compensation. Finally, it can be hard in some states to sell a house that someone died in, because this may be a required disclosure.

      Of course, if someone breaks down your front door and you happen to be sitting there with your gun at hand, it may be easier to just shoot him. In my house, if I'm downstairs (like in the kitchen), I have to walk by the front door to get to the stairs to the upstairs bedroom, so obviously I can't do that if someone breaks in the front door. But at night, when we're asleep, then we've already retreated as far as possible.

    10. Re:Mothers by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You could have probably done equally well with a taser.

      Tasers are well and good unless you miss or get attacked by multiple aggressors....

      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.

      So you would advocate making it harder for the people who aren't breaking the law to obtain guns because of the people who are? That isn't a logical reaction it's an emotional one.

      However, I also think there are better alternatives if you're only using it for defence.

      There are better alternatives if it's a self-defense situation that doesn't involve deadly force. The instructor who taught my CCW class recommended that all of his students carry pepper spray in addition to the firearm. The legal barrier for using the pepper spray is much lower than the legal barrier for using deadly force -- if someone is attacking you with their fists and you shoot them you are probably going to jail unless there was a significant disparity of force.

      Put another way, if the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  2. Guns don't kill people... by sv_libertarian · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Guns don't kill people... by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Guns don't kill people... by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Guns don't kill people... by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... 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.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:Guns don't kill people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Guns don't kill people... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Guns don't kill people... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    7. Re:Guns don't kill people... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Guns don't kill people... by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    9. Re:Guns don't kill people... by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    10. Re:Guns don't kill people... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:Guns don't kill people... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Go visit a biker bar in the US, fighting is not their pastime that is their profession.
      Canada has more firearms per capita and less murders. The USA is just a very violent society, without guns we would kill each other with knives.

    12. Re:Guns don't kill people... by BoxRec · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your example is a very small section of society and Is a US biker bar is any more or less violent than a UK biker bar. Now taking a far larger example, do you think US or UK football supporters are the more violent ?

    13. Re:Guns don't kill people... by BeardedChimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the one strange thing I find reading slashdot being British.

      Americans seem to view bearing arms as a right, and I don't mean legally, I mean morally.
      Th idea that the state can limit your armament is not just laughed upon but ridiculed, and yet
      within the UK and Europe, the USA is seen as the antithesis off how to deal with guns.
      Deaths from guns are much higher, the police are less safe and guns are actually considered a problem that society has to deal with.
      You do realise that over here the police do not normally carry guns and yet they are much safer than your cops?

      I'm actually from Northern Ireland and so I know the consequences of large groups of people
      illegally carrying guns and I can assure you that the only thing that comes of more people carrying
      is further death. Guns do not solve problems (like crime) they create them. They are self perpetuating.

    14. Re:Guns don't kill people... by sv_libertarian · · Score: 2, Insightful
      1. It is possible to carry guns legally in most of the US. In many places, even openly and without a permit. I have a permit to carry concealed, and also openly carry mine. 2. In many places the cops support your right to keep and bear arms. Heck, I've even sold guns and gun parts to local cops. Friend of mine lives in a rural area, and when he moved out there, the local Sheriff's Deputy made a courtesy visit. The deputy asked if my friend had a gun. When he replied in the affirmative, the deputy said "Good. If you are lucky I can get here in half an hour if there is a problem. You are really on your own out here."

      Americans know what happens when criminals carry guns too; that is why law abiding citizens carry guns. The gun is not the problem, any more than a bottle of beer is the direct cause of drunk driving. It is the misuse of that beer, or whiskey or firearm that is the problem.

      I don't care if cops are armed or not. In fact I don't mind it in the least. Why? Because I am armed as well, and in fact am as well armed as any beat cop if I choose to be. I have had many a pleasant conversation with police officers while I was armed, and nobody thought it was strange. It's just how we do things over here in many places.

      Your Magna Carta has a right to keep and bear arms enshrined in it too. And when WWII happened, you had allowed yourself to be so heavily disarmed, that citizens in the US sent their privately owned rifles and handguns so that your home guard units could be armed. Then you guys repaid the favor by rounding them all up after the war and destroying them, having failed to learn a valuable lesson.

    15. Re:Guns don't kill people... by drsquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

      How does a drive-by knifing work again?

      Sadly people in England are (A) disarmed and (B) pacified to the point where they expect the government to save them

      Yeah it's almost as if we want to live in a civilised society rather than the Wild West.

      Are you honestly saying that the people of Cumbria should have to walk around armed at all times in case they're attacked by mad gunmen? Sounds like America is a pretty horrible place if that's how you have to live.

      How would an armed population have helped anyway? Once someone blasts you in the face with a shotgun, you're not going to fight back no matter what weapon you have.

    16. Re:Guns don't kill people... by PBoyUK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that you're a retard who pulls statistics out of his ass and doesn't bother to wipe off the shit before waving them around in public. Yes, on a brainless glance at the figures, you're right, that's what they say. But congratulations on throwing yourself in with the homoeopaths and Intelligent Design crowd for the Outstanding Lack of Intellectual Integrity award. The UK statistics cover a huge number of crimes that are omitted in the US figures. A slightly more honest comparison would be the the US:UK homicide ratio. Which, as of several years ago was 4:1.

    17. Re:Guns don't kill people... by jhylkema · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is the one strange thing I find reading slashdot being British.

      Keep in mind that America is irredeemably addicted to violence. In fact, violence is a traditional American value, right along with hatred, bigotry, racism and cultural imperialism. At the same time, American society glorifies stupidity and views smart people with suspicion. Most of us ask, "what are you reading?" but in America, they ask, "why are you reading?"

      [Y]et within the UK and Europe, the USA is seen as the antithesis off how to deal with guns.

      Yet another very good reason for America to be the laughingstock of the world.

      You do realise that over here the police do not normally carry guns and yet they are much safer than your cops?

      To be fair, that's not entirely accurate. As I understand it, the front-line cops are armed only with a truncheon, but heavily armed police are only a radio call away.

  3. I'm confused... by Syberz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    ~Syberz
    1. Re:I'm confused... by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  4. Re:Simple gun control measures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There is no fucking gunshow loophole...

  5. Re:Silly Brits by VJ42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's because of the british hooliganism that the rest of the continent had to put more security in soccer stadiums than in prisons.

    Hooliganism is all but stomped out in the British game, but I wouldn't go near Milan for a game between Inter and Ac if you paid me; the Italian "Ultras" are far worse than anything we've had here for decades. Oh, and there's very little security inside English football Stadia these days; it's now so safe that I took my mum to a recent Saints v Pompey match.

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  6. Re:Simple gun control measures by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes. When the Founding Fathers drafted the 1st (2nd) amendment they could never have anticipated the internet (repeating firearms). At the time the most dangerous technology known to society was the printing press (musket). If modern technology had been around they surely would have worded the 1st (2nd) amendment differently.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  7. Re:Ownership is not the issue by Shoe+Puppet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    here is no right to drive a car on a public road (it's a privilege)

    Wait, so you don't think you have have the right to use what you paid for with your taxes?

    --
    (+1, Disagree)