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

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.''

Comments

Mothers

[Shakrai]

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

[mikael_j]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[mr_lizard13]

Mothers against Lobbying Organizations would disagree with you.

Re:Mothers

[Mysterstyle]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

not as rare as mothers against nagging and passive aggressiveness.

Re:Mothers

[gandhi_2]

Yes. And you hate children too.

You, sir, are worse than Hitler!

Re:Mothers

[commodore64_love]

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

[$RANDOMLUSER]

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

Re:Mothers

[russotto]

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

[commodore64_love]

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

[quatin]

We also have DAMM. (Drunks against Mad Mothers)

Re:Mothers

[Anonymous Coward]

Only while I masturbate.

Re:Mothers

[mpe]

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

[operagost]

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

[tmosley]

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

Re:Mothers

[Korin43]

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

Re:Mothers

[Grishnakh]

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

[DeadDecoy]

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

[Shakrai]

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

[lazlo]

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

[gyrogeerloose]

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?

How about this?"

BTW, I just did a Google search for "mothers against -madd". The amount of hit was surprising.

Re:Mothers

[russotto]

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.

It's illegal to walk home drunk under public intoxication statutes. It's illegal to take public transportation home drunk under those same statutes. It's illegal to bicycle home drunk under DUI and/or public intoxication statutes. It's illegal to drive home drunk. And in Texas in Virginia, it's illegal to even be in a bar drunk under public intoxication statutes. All this, MADD supports. (It used to be that the bar for public intoxication was set high enough that if you could find your house, you could legally walk to it. Nowadays, at least in certain states including those two, prosecutors argue and courts agree that the DUI threshold should be used for public intoxication as well).

Re:Mothers

[swb]

I think its worse than that. I think its tied up with racial politics due to the over-representation of non-whites in crime statistics (particularly violent crimes).

I think there's a belief that the crimes committed by non-whites are due to their victimhood and/or represent some kind of reaction against an inherently racist and oppressive society. I'd swear I've read some lefty political theorist even calling property crime committed against whites "legitimate redistributive economic justice."

In other words, whitey deserves it and allowing whitey a gun to defend himself only furthers oppression of non-whites.

Re:Mothers

[Fjandr]

What are the better alternatives for defense? I hear that a lot, but nobody seems to have an actual answer. Tasers are limited in the number of attackers they work against. So are pepper spray devices.

Re:Mothers

[VJ42]

The anti-gun people basically want the government to be the only one that can legally use force (in the form of police).

Regular police don't carry guns in the UK*, nor do most regular cops want to when surveyed.

*Although in certain parts of London it can seem as if they do.

Re:Mothers

[Grishnakh]

What a nut. What state did this woman live in?

Here in Arizona, you can pretty much shoot anyone who you reasonably fear is threatening your life, whether they're attacking you with a gun or knife or their bare hands, they want to rape you, they've broken into your home, or are driving towards you (this happened not too long ago, someone stole a guy's car and tried to run him over; instead of getting out of the way, he shot the guy. His first words to the police (as they should be any time you use a gun): "I was in fear for my life".

Re:Mothers

[Grishnakh]

No, but they do carry clubs to beat people with. I'll bet those aren't legal for non-police to carry.

We have something similar in some US states: there's a weapon some police (and some civilians like me) carry, called an expandable baton. It's made of several steel pipes that fit within each other, and opens to full length (~2 feet) with the flick of a wrist, and has a steel ball on the end. It's easily concealed (because it retracts), but can be a deadly bludgeon. In some states, they're illegal for non-police to own or carry (though strangely, in some of those states, it's legal to carry a handgun).

Guns aren't the only form of force. Many leftists think that no one should use force, ever, only the police, whether it's beating people with a bat or tasering them or shooting them. For everyone else, we're just supposed to cower and cry and beg for our lives, and if we survive, we can maybe testify against the attacker in court so they can go to prison for a short term until they're released early for "good behavior" or to make room for a non-violent drug user.

Re:Mothers

[Shakrai]

New York State, though in my experience her insanity isn't unique to blue states.

In NYS you can use deadly force against someone who is about to use deadly force against you or an innocent third party. You can also use deadly force in response to forcible rape, murder, kidnapping or robbery.

We do have a "duty to retreat" law but it only comes into play if you can safely retreat with no increased danger to yourself or others. I don't worry about it too much because my attitude is that I'm not willing to shoot someone if I have the ability to safely escape from the situation. I don't really want to have to live with having ended a human life -- about the only good thing you can say about it is that it's better to live with that than to be dead yourself.

Re:Mothers

[Golddess]

You could have probably done equally well with a taser. Less messy and more fun watching him twitch.

Unless if "by the throat" GP meant the attacker had a knife at her throat. In which case you could end up with a convulsing attacker and a dead GF from the convulsing causing her throat to be slit.

Re:Mothers

[lazlo]

I didn't mean to imply that it might actually be legal to walk home drunk from a bar, just that it's the right thing to do. (and whenever "the right thing to do" and "the legal thing to do" are at odds, society is pretty screwy)

I haven't paid much attention to MADD, but if they are in favor of laws against walking under the influence, then it's long past time for them to change their name.

Makes me just want to go up to one of them and say "You should be ASHAMED of yourself! Do you know how many children are killed every year by LAWS! See if they respond with something along the lines of "but my laws don't kill any children" before or after noting the hypocrisy thus illustrated.

Re:Mothers

[Wolvenhaven]

Where the anti-gun activists fail is refusing to acknowledge that sometimes it's necessary to use a gun, and that not all uses are bad, and in such circumstances a tool which makes it easier is a benefit, not a drawback. These people refuse to admit that there is ever a reason where using a gun is acceptable, so anything which enables someone to use one is inherently evil. To them, someone who kills a rapist in self-defence is just as guilty and evil as a serial murderer who eats children. That's what allows them to paint gun owners with such a broad brush. That being the case, the concept of "safe" handling of a gun, or "responsible" use of one are totally impossible in their vision of the world. When you say "it's ok for responsible people to carry guns in public" they hear the equivalent of "it's ok for responsible people to rape and murder women". That emotional hard-wiring is why they're impossible to reason with. They lack the rational capacity of their fellow human beings. It's just that they're so numerous we can't classify them as mentally ill.

Re:Mothers

[Shakrai]

In some states, they're illegal for non-police to own or carry (though strangely, in some of those states, it's legal to carry a handgun).

My state won't let me legally carry a taser, assisted opening knife, baton or any other "dangerous weapon" yet I was able to obtain a pistol license. Figure that one out.

Re:Mothers

[Grishnakh]

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.

Re:Mothers

[bill_mcgonigle]

What, you oppose Mothers Against Dangerous Speech (MADS), Mothers Against Suspicious Concealment (MACS), and Mothers Against Incomplete Justice (MAIJ)? They work tirelessly to protect the children from dangerous ideas, dangerous things people might have, and dangerous people who are probably criminals, respectively.

They're all just trying to create a perfectly safe society - who can argue with that?

Re:Mothers

[Shakrai]

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.....

Re:Mothers

[Shakrai]

Are those laws actually used against people that are minding their own business? I've never seen anybody arrested for public intoxication who wasn't being an ass to begin with -- and I've been around my share of drunks in the day.

Re:Mothers

[Grishnakh]

That's just weird. Here in Arizona, you can carry any of those things. Tasers, batons, pepper spray/mace are all OK, and I think we're one of the few states where switchblades are legal. However, stores selling them usually check your ID to make sure you're an AZ resident and not a smuggler from California :-)

Re:Mothers

[VJ42]

No, but they do carry clubs to beat people with. I'll bet those aren't legal for non-police to carry.

IIRC truncheons are legal to possess, though not legal to carry in public - no offensive weapon is legal to carry in public here. I don't actually know anyone who has ever had the desire to carry one anyway.

We have something similar in some US states: there's a weapon some police (and some civilians like me) carry, called an expandable baton. It's made of several steel pipes that fit within each other, and opens to full length (~2 feet) with the flick of a wrist, and has a steel ball on the end. It's easily concealed (because it retracts), but can be a deadly bludgeon. In some states, they're illegal for non-police to own or carry (though strangely, in some of those states, it's legal to carry a handgun).

Google says those were recently made illegal to buy, sell or import here (2004), though not illegal to own if you had one before the ban. Though why you'd need one is beyond me - if I ever moved to a City where I though I needed an offensive weapon to defend myself, I move elsewhere very quickly. Violent crime rates are low where I live (and in the majority of the UK) - I like it that way; it means I feel safe walking the streets without having to carry a weapon. IMO that's a far better state of affairs than only feeling safe if I'm carrying one.

Guns aren't the only form of force. Many leftists think that no one should use force, ever, only the police, whether it's beating people with a bat or tasering them or shooting them. For everyone else, we're just supposed to cower and cry and beg for our lives, and if we survive, we can maybe testify against the attacker in court so they can go to prison for a short term until they're released early for "good behavior" or to make room for a non-violent drug user.

Whoever these so called "leftists" are, I disagree with them - there's a time and a place for violence in self defence. But I'd rather need not "cower and cry and beg" because my streets are actually safe rather than having to being forced to defend myself every time I go out. Tackling the underlying cause of street violence is a far better long term strategy than just fighting off the symptoms.

Re:Mothers

[couchslug]

"Is that really want anti-gun people want."

Yes, it is. "All criminals are victims of society, except people who use force to defend themselves. Self-defense is vile because we should all yield to our enemies and cure their sins by the moral example of our suffering at their hands. There is no good and bad, we all Gawd's chillun', and the nanny state will take care of us."
These "anti-Second Amendment/anti-self-defense" folks are the people who really DESERVE to be crime victims, because they betray all good citizens by denying the right of lethal self-defense.

Re:Mothers

[couchslug]

"She insisted that it's illegal to shoot someone who is attempting to rape you."

That's why many people despise pseudo-feminists. Strong women assert themselves as adults, and have self-esteem so they value their lives.

Anyone female who thinks she OWES A RAPIST SUBMISSION rather than a bullet isn't a "feminist".
The term for that epic level of fucktardedness is "stupid cunt".

Re:Mothers

[couchslug]

"I was afraid for the lives of my family. It is a terrifying situation I would wish on no one, and I'll pray for strength. All humankynd are of value, but he kept coming and wouldn't stop."
Repeat often enough to believe it and never say different. The thug worshippers won't get as much traction against you that way.

Re:Mothers

[Grishnakh]

if I ever moved to a City where I though I needed an offensive weapon to defend myself, I move elsewhere very quickly. Violent crime rates are low where I live (and in the majority of the UK) - I like it that way; it means I feel safe walking the streets without having to carry a weapon. IMO that's a far better state of affairs than only feeling safe if I'm carrying one.

That's weird, one of your fellow Britons posted elsewhere on this discussion that knife attacks are common and that streetfighting is a common pastime in many towns there. I've read many times of violent teenagers running around England terrorizing and attacking people.

Re:Mothers

[Jerrry]

As the old saying goes: "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".

Re:Mothers

[dave420]

Or, that simply by making handguns readily available, that the chances of someone having to defend themselves with a gun, from someone else with a gun, are going to increase fantastically.

Re:Mothers

[M8e]

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 .

If you was able to put an gun in the rear of his head you would also be able to stab him in the shoulder, or maybe in his leg(or hit him in the back of his head with an baseball bat etc). That way he would have been put in jail. Not being able to run away(unconscious?) or be easy to find and recognise. There isn't that many ["race"] males in around [age] with an stab wound in his right shoulder running around looking for an ER.

Re:Mothers

[Paintballparrot]

Gun Control: The idea that a woman found raped and strangled with her own panties in a dark alleyway is somehow morally superior than a woman explaining to a police officer how her attacker got that fatal gunshot wound.

Actual T-Shirt seen at gun range.

Does anyone else think that of all of the advocacy and special interest groups feminists are the most hypocritical and can never agree on anything as a whole?

Re:Mothers

[Shakrai]

Even many of the blue states have a decent castle doctrine. In New York State you can legally employ deadly force to defend yourself within your dwelling against burglary or arson. The usual "duty to retreat" imposed by our laws does not apply within the dwelling.

Re:Mothers

[nschubach]

Run away from the bullet! OMG... Go!

Re:Mothers

[nschubach]

My concealed carry instructor informed us that the best defense is a portable MP3 recorder. Use it liberally as it can easily be erased and restarted. If you ever find yourself in a defensive situation, what you say (and what they say) can be paramount in a self defense case.

Re:Mothers

[Bing Tsher E]

There is also DAMM (Drunks Against Mad Mothers)

Re:Mothers

[Graff]

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.

That's great that you got the guy to run off by threatening with a gun but that is absolutely the wrong way to use a gun. If you are gonna pull out a gun then you should be in a situation where you have no choice but to aim for center of mass and pull the trigger multiple times. Here's a good article on the subject.

Pulling out a gun and threatening with it can lead to a very bad situation. For example the guy might decide to fight you for that weapon and it goes off and shoots a bystander, your girlfriend, or yourself.

Now, I'm not saying that you had a choice in that situation. Obviously you had to do something and what you did worked. I just don't think that threatening with a gun as a proper use of a gun is an idea that should be perpetuated.

Re:Mothers

[Dr Damage I]

It's not remotely the same thing. You're creating a dangerous moral equivalence between the freedom to defend oneself and tyranny. I reject that equivalence, measures that require the initiation of the use of force are automatically morally inferior to ones that do not. I can carry the means to protect myself, whether it be a firearm, mace or billy club, without ever initiating the use of force. You cannot filter the internet, require video surveillance in private property or implant tracking chips in peoples asses without initiating the use of force at some point.

Re:Mothers

[VJ42]

if I ever moved to a City where I though I needed an offensive weapon to defend myself, I move elsewhere very quickly. Violent crime rates are low where I live (and in the majority of the UK) - I like it that way; it means I feel safe walking the streets without having to carry a weapon. IMO that's a far better state of affairs than only feeling safe if I'm carrying one.

That's weird, one of your fellow Britons posted elsewhere on this discussion that knife attacks are common and that streetfighting is a common pastime in many towns there. I've read many times of violent teenagers running around England terrorizing and attacking people.

If you go by newspaper headlines then yes, you'd think that the UK is gang ridden, murderous, hell hole. If you go by the actual statistics, the people most likely to be hurt by violent crime are other violent criminals. Admittedly there are some parts of some cities that are worse for crime than the majority of the UK (most notably parts of London, Manchester and Nottingham), but country wide violent crime is low although recently it's been rising, against the general crime trend, hence the hysterical media reports. The perception of crime in the UK is far worse than actual crime rates suggest that it should be.

Re:Mothers

[commodore64_love]

(1) Banning guns would work about as well as banning marijuana and cocaine ----- i.e. not at all.

(2) The people I defended myself from had KNIVES. I still needed something to prevent my own murder. You advocate leaving me defense like a sheep to be slaughtered by the wolves.

Re:Mothers

[commodore64_love]

>>>n her world a raped woman is morally superior to one that defended her body and rights.

Maybe you should have raped to see if she really believes what she says. I suspect not. I suspect she'd have defended herself using whatever she could (fist, nails, rock, dirt thrown in your face).

I hate hypocrites who SAY one thing but do something else different, when it's them
.

Re:Mothers

[jcr]

In both cases I suspect the end result would be two dead victims. Is that really want anti-gun people want.

It's not that the gun-grabbers want you dead, it's just that they don't care if you die. The power of the state is far more important to them than human lives: always has been, always will be.

-jcr

Re:Mothers

[dafing]

The problem with guns in the USA is GUNS. You want to solve the problem by having...MORE guns?

If guns made cities, states, countries, continents safer, then the Americas would be the safest place to live in the world.

When everyone has a gun, then every criminal will *also* be armed.

By New Zealand standards, I live in a rough neighbourhood. Sometimes, when I walk past people on the street, they dont say "hello" to me! If guns made you safe as an American, your country wouldn't be so rife with violent shootings, perhaps each citizen wouldn't be scared shitless of their neighbours, that is unless they had an M60 in their hands.

More than anything, I think issues with crime are an "attitude" thing. But don't take a random strangers opinion on this issue seriously, just look at the statistics.

Re:Mothers

[Pvt_Ryan]

In Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK) ALL police officers carry guns, you can't be a police officer even with a desk job if you fail your firearms training.

Re:Mothers

[Pvt_Ryan]

Tackling the underlying cause of street violence is a far better long term strategy than just fighting off the symptoms.

So true, only I have to say Genocide is frowned upon under the Geneva convention even if it is the CHAVs we are killing.

Re:Mothers

[Pvt_Ryan]

Plant the chips as soon as the child is born..

Re:Mothers

[Pvt_Ryan]

At that point you have to ask yourself "Do you actually like her?"

Re:Mothers

[CrimsonAvenger]

If guns made cities, states, countries, continents safer,

Note that in the USA, the places with the most gun crime are the places with the fewest legal guns.

Where I grew up, there was essentially no gun crime at all (I think there was a murder back when I was single-digits old), though every house has firearms, and it's rare that the plural isn't appropriate.

Where I live now, we have little gun crime. But we're right next to a city with moderately severe gun laws. Their murder rate is about 20 times our rate, even though most people here have guns, and most there don't.

In other words, it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people who want to shoot each other....

Re:Mothers

[ElectricTurtle]

But don't take a random strangers opinion on this issue seriously, just look at the statistics.

The statistics are that while US national handgun ownership since the early 70s has more than doubled, the national averages for murder per capita are down something like a third in that period. So yeah, I won't take your random opinion seriously. In the US, the places that are the most dangerous and violent are always those places which have the strictest gun control. Once again, statistically, I'm safer in a 'shall issue' concealed carry state than I am in a 'may issue' or 'no issue' state.

There is an inverse correlation between legal gun ownership and crime precisely because legal gun owners are not criminals. This is why every state in the last 30 years that has passed 'shall issue' concealed carry legislation has either seen no change in their levels of violent crime or a decrease. In NO INSTANCE WHATSOEVER has such action increased violent crime.

Re:Mothers

[ksheff]

Really? Those areas must be very bad since the country average is worse than Detroit. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html UK: 2034/100K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Detroit,_Michigan Detroit: 1924/100K.

Re:Mothers

[dafing]

Where I live now, we have little gun crime. But we're right next to a city with moderately severe gun laws.

And what does "moderately severe" mean to you? You say "severe" as if its some dreadful term! What you might call "moderately severe", I might deem as "not strict enough".

Again, I live in a country where there are essentially NO guns, I never have to worry about what other people might do to me. I am 1.95 metres tall, I am very muscular, I can defend myself in the exceedingly rare situation that I were attacked. I do not want a gun pointed at me. Anyone can feel "powerful" with a gun in their hands.

Countries where gun ownership is "low" are "gentler", are "safer" and are "less violent". In New Zealand, even the police generally DO NOT have guns. We do get "moral panic" about "the police need guns!" in the media every now and then, but the majority of my country would be against armed police officers.

Here is one such story, an undercover police officer shot to death by an AIR RIFLE: http://www.3news.co.nz/Firearm-laws-need-updating---Police-Assn-gun-sellers/tabid/423/articleID/160821/Default.aspx

The police are now trying to have greater restrictions on more powerful modern air rifles. What would you suggest, have every other citizen armed? Have the police toting assault rifles? I know of friends who visited Italy, and noticed police officers standing about with guns...they were *SHOCKED*.

I dont believe a gun "wants" to kill people, I dont believe a gun is "inherently evil". I do find the idea of "normal" people having guns awful, if your problem is too many guns already, adding more will accomplish nothing.

Re:Mothers

[ronbo142]

Great story. Always remember when seconds count the police are but minutes away! I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Re:Mothers

[NervousWreck]

Well, that's one place I want at the top of my "states to live in" list. I live in NYC and know exactly how well the criminalization of self defense doesn't work.

Re:Mothers

[NoxNoctis]

So if guns cause crime, do cameras cause child porn?

Re:Mothers

[mqduck]

I think the reason might be that it seems arbitrarily exclusive. What reason does Mothers Against Murder and Aggression have to exclude, say, childless women of childbearing age? Starting just with the name, it's already an irrational appeal to emotion.

Re:Mothers

[JWSmythe]

I'm sorry that happened. I'm glad you were able to defend yourself (and your girlfriend).

    I did some hunting online about MAMAA (god, who thought of that name?). Lots of bitching about crime and even non-crime.

    I'm an advocate of self defense. My father started training me with them when I was about 8 years old. I've only had a few situations where I needed one handy (it may escalate), and have yet needed to use one.

    If the day comes where I need one, I'd rather have one, than be a victim.

    As I've known it, it's been safer to be in areas where you know everyone is armed.

    Places were people aren't legally armed, then only the criminal element has weapons (and the advantage). I know folks like MAMAA would counter that with "but the police are armed, and they're there to protect you." The police aren't everywhere all the time, and even a 5 minute response may be 4 minutes too late.

Re:Mothers

[JWSmythe]

    There's only one answer to this. Arm the children.

Re:Mothers

[JWSmythe]

As with any weapon, it's all about the proper use and control of it.

    Any weapon can be taken from you and used against you. If it's pepper spray, stun gun, knife, gun, car, urban assault vehicle, or tank, if you don't control and use it properly and effectively, it can (and likely will) be used against you.

    In your example, I'd damed well want a weapon, if I lived in an active gang crime area.

    In rural areas, you'd be surprised what you need them for. I grew up in the Southeast US. We were miles from the nearest water, but one day an alligator showed up, and started attacking our livestock.

    Your choices are,

1) ignore it, and hope it'll go away. Who cares if it kills some of your livestock and/or pets.

2) call animal control, and wait an hour or two for them to arrive, if they do.

3) deal with the situation yourself.

    Sometimes, just because you're miles away from any sort of civilization, doesn't mean you're safe. Sometimes that makes you a target that can't get help quickly.

    Everyone out there had firearms, usually quite a few of them. Not only that, but they were practiced in their use. I know in an urban setting, it isn't exactly practical, but in a rural setting, it's not completely unusual to be able to just go behind the house, and target shoot at old soda cans.

    An indoor shooting range will teach you to ignore the sounds of other weapons firing, but outdoors, you learn little things like windage.

Re:Mothers

[JWSmythe]

    You're absolutely right, and wrong.

    You want to aim for center mass. That's what we're always taught.

    You also MUST know what's behind your target.

    If the assailant is between him and his girlfriend, a center mass shot would likely put the bullet through the assailant and into the girlfriend. Moving to either side and aiming at his head, would have likely moved her head out of the line of fire, and made for a safe shot. She may not be happy about the blood splatter, or the fact that she's deaf in on ear now, but hey, they're both alive.

    But, as I've also been taught, you must already have decided that the person you're aiming at is going to die, before you pull the weapon. If you hesitate for anything, you may find yourself dead instead. If they are armed and you didn't know it, they may shoot. If you aren't actually read to fire, he may jump you and take your weapon, and then shoot you. Being so close that you can put the weapon to his head means that you're too close. You're suppose to keep a buffer between you and an assailant. I believe it was more than 15 feet, which as you'll find someone can run and take you down, before you have a chance to pull a weapon, aim and fire. Don't be a statistic, don't give an attacker the opportunity to kill you with your own weapon.

Re:Mothers

[salesgeek]

but that is absolutely the wrong way to use a gun.

Outcomes are all that matter. It's easy to talk tough and come up with hypotheticals about what you should or should not do. Reality is that the op saved a life and did not take one. That is the best possible outcome. Had we used your rules, we would have killed one for sure, and likely shot through the assailant and injured or killed the girl -- which would have defeated the purpose.

Re:Mothers

[Graff]

Had we used your rules, we would have killed one for sure, and likely shot through the assailant and injured or killed the girl -- which would have defeated the purpose.

Had we used my rules the gun would not have been pulled out at all. You don't pull a gun out unless you intend to use it to kill someone AND you are pretty sure that no one else will be hurt.

I wasn't in the situation but I'm guessing the best answer would have been to use your fists or some handy blunt instrument instead of the gun. However, he did accomplish what he wanted so it all worked out in the end. I just don't like the risk of threatening with a gun, it runs counter to all the weapons training I've received.

Mahem on demand?

[hilldog]

Yeah we have an app for that.

Re:Mahem on demand?

[Silly Man]

Yeah we have an app for that.

Don't you mean "We have a cap for that!"?

Re:Mahem on demand?

[gandhi_2]

MAgnetoHydrodynamic Explosive Munition?

Maybe I will get an iPhone after all.

Re:Mahem on demand?

[Concerned Onlooker]

I think you meant killer app.

Guns don't kill people...

[sv_libertarian]

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...

[Wonko the Sane]

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...

[Godai]

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...

[h4rr4r]

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...

[RoFLKOPTr]

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.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[girlintraining]

... 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...

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

[h4rr4r]

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...

[IndustrialComplex]

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...

[Wonko the Sane]

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...

[Shakrai]

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...

[BoxRec]

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 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...

[operagost]

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...

[brainboyz]

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...

[i.r.id10t]

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...

[Shakrai]

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...

[MBGMorden]

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...

[Grishnakh]

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...

[Wonko the Sane]

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...

[L3370]

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...

[Shakrai]

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...

[Grishnakh]

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...

[Grishnakh]

Exactly. Getting a license just makes it easier to get caught if you do commit a crime, because the government knows you have a gun, and probably what kind (depending on if you have to register what gun(s) you have).

Anyway, here in the USA, there's no gun licenses or registration, except in certain states, and usually only for concealed carry. There's no nationwide gun license.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[h4rr4r]

My mistake, I was unaware. I will change my statement too:
No crimes are committed with properly registered machine guns in the USA, except by the folks you would expect, cops.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[h4rr4r]

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.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Taevin]

Considering I was modded "Troll" within seconds of my previous post for merely providing a counterpoint to the "knives are way more scary and dangerous than guns" narrative, I'm not really sure what good can come of me responding but I apparently can't help myself.

a) Why is there such a rabid and thoughtless defense of this particular amendment/right? If we're going to talk about natural rights, I also have the natural right to build a nuclear weapon and keep it in my basement. That doesn't mean any industrialized nation is going to let me nor that it is reasonable to expect that they should. At some point some reason has to enter the discussion and someone is going to have to decide where the line is. A private citizen keeping nuclear weapons (or high explosives in general) is regarded as too high of a risk to society so it isn't allowed. On the other hand, for the most part, we regard the risk of collateral/accidental damage from a firearm to be an acceptable risk. Thus, my point was, there must be and already is reason involved in deciding who is allowed to have which weapons. And really, that was a sub-point in that my true goal was to reign in the knives are way more dangerous than guns argument.

b) For the most part, I'd say you're right; most of the permit holders I know are very responsible. There are still many who love to talk about how they carry and wouldn't hesitate to blow away some lowlife. Sure, most of them would pussy out when the time came, but again my point was about collateral damage, not crazed gun owners. The guy that thought he was going to do the world some good could very easily miss and destroy a family. To reiterate, my point was that knives have a much smaller potential for collateral damage.

c) Again, I'm not really making an anti-gun statement here, just bringing a counterpoint. It's an extremely common point made in these discussions, that someone threatening you with a knife is more violent and more dangerous psychologically than someone threatening you with a gun. I don't dispute this, I'm just pointing out that in the case that both attackers want to kill me with their weapon, my chances of getting out alive are better with the guy swinging the knife.

And as long as we're on the subject, I'm not convinced that someone old or weak is going to be much better off even if they have a gun. It takes a certain amount of strength to hold and keep steady a metal gun (though this can be minimized with proper training and gun selection) and dexterity to aim and squeeze the trigger without throwing off your angle. You also have to act faster than your attacker who is probably younger, stronger, faster and by the nature of the situation probably has you by surprise with his weapon already prepared.

Yes, I know that next thing someone is going to say in response to that last bit is that the intent is not to have the person with the gun to their head act, but rather some other brave soul in the room pull their gun. I'd just point out that this situation is statistically much less likely to ever arrive than it is that you'll be butchered in your sleep by your spouse/lover/friend/family member.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Grishnakh]

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....

You probably have a bit more practice than someone who's barely shot a gun. Lots of gun owners buy a gun, and then keep it in a drawer at home and never shoot it. And people who don't even own a gun, and just get their hands on one temporarily, are even worse.

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*

You need to move out of CA.

We also have one of the new 9mm XD-Ms, with 19-round magazines. 39 rounds (19+1 + 1 spare mag) is pretty good for a concealable weapon.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Fjandr]

Most people don't understand that. The violence in the US is cultural. It has nothing to do with what weapons are available to whom.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[VJ42]

Sadly people in England are (A) disarmed

Surely the very existence of this app proves that we're not disarmed. Sure we don't have the same gun culture as you in the USA do, but we didn't have it before the gun laws were tightened either. Imagine British anti gun legislation was replaced with that of, say, Texas tomorrow; do you think that gun ownership levels would reach the same levels? I'll bet my bottom dollar that they wouldn't. Having said that, I do think that our firearms legislation is too harsh here in the UK, but I also think that the American fetishisation of the gun is far from healthy.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[misexistentialist]

Most serious knives (especially in England and other declared gun-free zones) are illegal to carry. And there are no licenses to grant exceptions to civilians. (Strange that this tool that hominids have been using for millions of years has so easily been excluded from the "intent" of the 2nd Amendment)

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Good luck with that. If you must go for the gun, either get it out of the guy's hands or point it away from you and punch the guy until he lets go.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Shakrai]

Not in CA, I'm in NYS I'm afraid. CA is actually worse than us -- we don't (yet) have a microstamping law or .50 BMG ban. There's a handful of states that beat us for gun control stupidity -- CA, IL, MA and NJ.

And yeah, I've had more practice than most people. I encourage anybody who is going to buy a gun for protection to seek out some training in how to use it effectively. Too many people seem to think that a firearm is a magical talisman. It's not -- it's just another piece of technology that one needs to learn how to operate effectively.

There's also the mental barrier to consider. If you don't have what it takes to point a firearm at another human being and squeeze the trigger as many times as it takes to stop them then you shouldn't own a firearm for self-defense. All you've done is give your attacker a more effective weapon to use against you.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Shakrai]

I'm partial to the 1911 platform myself. I shoot it much more accurately than the other handguns I've tried and I find it easier to conceal because of the flat profile. It was also the first handgun I ever fired so it has a bit of nostalgia for me.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Grishnakh]

Admittedly, it's 1) easier to do with the revolver than the semi-auto, and 2) it's just another thing to keep in mind as a possible defense, not necessarily the best defense. It can help keep you from getting shot while you get the gun out of the other guy's hands. However, that said, it's obviously risky and foolish to rely entirely on it, and it's best to keep the gun pointed away from you in the first place. Every situation is different, and YMMV.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[bill_mcgonigle]

.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.

Sure, but the highest forms of corruption require a disarmed populace. Sometimes you have to do foundational work before you get a pay-back.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Grishnakh]

It should be even easier for you to move then! If you're around NYC, CT is very close by, as is PA. If you're in upstate NY, VT is right next door and is probably the most gun-friendly state in the country (which is funny considering it borders NY and MA).

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[bill_mcgonigle]

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

There's an app for that.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Shakrai]

I'm in the Binghamton area. I've thought about moving but it would be really hard to walk away from my current job -- it has pretty incredible benefits (four weeks of vacation time, five personal days, 12 sick days, full payment of my health insurance premiums, 6% contribution to my 401(k)....) that I would be hard pressed to match. I could move just across the border to PA but then I'd have to give up my NYS pistol license and wouldn't be able to carry here. The nearby county in PA isn't well populated and I'd still be driving across the border for most of my activities, so I wouldn't be gaining much there.

I was also born and raised here and genuinely love the place. I just hate the politics and the taxes. If I ever lose my job I'd probably bail on the place -- I doubt the attraction to the area would be enough to keep me here at that point.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Grishnakh]

You wouldn't be able to keep your pistol license if you moved across the border? That sucks. Looking at a map, it looks like you're only about 10 miles from PA, so living in PA and commuting would be easy, and it's not like you'd be leaving the area (only 10 miles away isn't a different area).

This is a prime example of why I advocate redrawing the state borders, and following the plan for the 38 States. Upstate NY (which in reality is most of NY) should be separate from NYC, which should be combined instead with parts of CT and NJ (namely the beautiful and picturesque Newark). According to the 38 States plan, your home would become part of the new "Mohawk" state, along with your neighbors across the border in PA. Most likely, the gun laws there would be relaxed, the taxes lowered, and the politics more to your liking. Your neighbors in the state of Hudson, however, would be stuck with high taxes (probably even higher, now that they don't have all the upstate NY voters rejecting their tax increases) and restrictive gun laws.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[h4rr4r]

If you live in PA you can't carry in NY. NY does not honor carry permits from other states.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[BoxRec]

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 ?

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Grishnakh]

They don't have a non-resident permit? Some states have those.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[BeardedChimp]

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.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Shakrai]

NYS doesn't really have a non-resident permit. If you own a business here you can get a premises permit for that location but short of being a retired LEO or active armored truck guard it's next to impossible to get a carry license in NYS as a non-resident.

Our situation is further fucked up by the fact that it's up to the individual County Court Judges to decide whom gets permits in most of the state. The net result of this is that each county has different standards for whom can get pistol licenses and what types they can get. I can get a carry permit in Broome County if I take a class on the legal use of force and safe gun handling. In other counties you can get a carry permit just by applying for one. In some parts of the state you can't get one at all unless you are rich or well connected.

That 38 state map looks interesting but I'm not sure that's the way I would go. I would much rather see a Constitutional Amendment to nullify Reynolds v. Sims. That was a SCOTUS ruling that determined that State legislative districts could no longer be drawn based on geography. That ruling was nothing more than an urban power grab. Why is it acceptable for the US Senate to be based on geographical lines but not for the NYS Senate to do the same?

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Grishnakh]

I like the 38 State idea because it would reorganize the country based on today's population, and eliminate things like metro areas that span multiple states, and states where different parts of the state are constantly fighting because they're too different.

For instance, from what I've heard, rural Illinoisans really hate Chicago because of their dominance of the state and government. Some gun companies have even left the state for nearby Iowa because of all the anti-gun laws there that come from Chicago. NY is much the same. The 38 States idea would fix that.

It could use some tweaks, of course, as it was drawn up by one guy in 1976, and things have changed a little since then, and it should get more input from others, but fundamentally I think it's a good idea. I don't think I'd split up Alaska, though, and I don't think all the states need new names (Alaska and Hawaii can stay unchanged, for instance).

But I agree on Reynolds v. Sims, that completely goes against the Founders' wish to provide a balance of power between urban and rural interests.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[mjwx]

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

The fact that they are hard to get.

In Australia, gang wars are fought with knives, bottles and clubs. This means if a gang fight breaks out right next to me I need only take a few steps to the side to be perfectly safe.

The old "teh criminals will have guns" argument is as bad as the "think of teh children" argument as both end up being based on unrealistic assumptions.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[RoFLKOPTr]

Ah, but Australia has never really had a problem with firearms-related crime. As soon as that picked up, the government severely cracked down on gun ownership. And even still, if you think a criminal in Australia that wants a gun isn't going to be able to get one, you are sadly mistaken. In America, however, guns have been owned by law-abiding citizens and criminals alike since the very beginning of this country. It would be completely impossible to make guns "hard to get" for anybody but those who do not wish to break the law.

Just because gangs in Australia don't have a need for guns and are perfectly content with using knives, bottles, and clubs to kill each other doesn't mean they CAN'T obtain guns if they so chose. They may be difficult and expensive to obtain because of the low gun ownership and import rates that Australia has always had, but it's certainly not impossible.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Man On Pink Corner]

The fact that they are hard to get.

I can kill more people with a gallon of gasoline than you can with a gun, so no, that must not be it.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Shakrai]

That depends. Are you talking about real football or soccer? *duck*

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Man On Pink Corner]

I also have the natural right to build a nuclear weapon and keep it in my basement

Yeah, and exactly who's going to stop you if you want to do that and have the means to do it?

You're basically a state-level actor at that point, not a citizen.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[rmushkatblat]

Except that UK's violent crime rate is nearly 5x that of the US and has only been increasing since the gun bans in the 1970s, rendering all your arguments useless.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[sv_libertarian]

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.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[sv_libertarian]

If you are unarmed, I don't think it will make a difference. I have no reason to be illogically afraid. I know I can defend myself if needs be, or at least stand a better chance of defending myself against a knife wielding crazy, or a gun wielding crazy, or an axe wielding crazy, or a Windows Vista wielding crazy (those are the ones who really scare me). A gun is a tool. I am simply a tool user.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[sv_libertarian]

IIRC you mainly can have .22 rifles and very low capacity shotguns. If you are lucky I believe some can get permits for ancient bolt action rifles. On top of that you need ammo permits, and are forced to store the guns locked, broken down and apart from the ammo.

I have a loaded .357 on my table, and a dozen loaded AK-47 magazines if I wanted to insert them into a rifle. I can buy a semi automatic belt fed .50 caliber if I had the money. Compared to an American, you are disarmed. You effectively can only use your guns for sport, and using them to protect your home, your family or yourself is pretty much impossible.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Bing Tsher E]

I remember reading a Simon Cowell interview recently where he was deploring all the 'knife crime' in big cities in the U.K.

When you take away the guns, the violence re-emerges with knives.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[drsquare]

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.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[VJ42]

IIRC you mainly can have .22 rifles and very low capacity shotguns. If you are lucky I believe some can get permits for ancient bolt action rifles. On top of that you need ammo permits, and are forced to store the guns locked, broken down and apart from the ammo.

You appear to have a better knowledge of UK gun law than anyone I know who lives here. This should tell you something about the relevance of the gun in American culture compared to it's relevance to British culture.

I have a loaded .357 on my table, and a dozen loaded AK-47 magazines if I wanted to insert them into a rifle. I can buy a semi automatic belt fed .50 caliber if I had the money. Compared to an American, you are disarmed. You effectively can only use your guns for sport, and using them to protect your home, your family or yourself is pretty much impossible.

As I said, it's not the law that has us disarmed, it's our culture - even our police don't carry guns. If the law was changed so that we could have the same arms as you almost no one would buy them - proof is prior to the Dunblane massacre in 1996 the public could get their hands a far larger variety of weapons. Very few people bothered then; the gun is no more desirable now. Whenever I have this discussion with another Brit - advocating more permissive gun laws - I'm met with the same answer "what would you do with them?". The general population don't want the ability to own a wide variety of firearms and wouldn't know what to do with a gun if they were given one.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[jimicus]

The bit that always gets neglected in these discussions is that there's a huge cultural difference here in the UK and the majority of thugs don't carry guns themselves. Sure, you hear about the odd bit of gun crime but it's unusual enough that it's still a major news item.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[sv_libertarian]

I dunno. Used to be you guys could buy anything you wanted, and way back in the day carry a pistol in a jacket pocket with no fuss. I believe culturally you are disarmed, because you have been over the decades trained to be that way. Gunz r bad, gunz have no place in the home,etc... I'll wager if a US style gun shop with modern Glock pistols, semi auto AK-47's, high powered hunting rifles, defensive shotguns, and other sporting and defensive arms was possible in England, it would have no shortage of customers. Just look at your airsoft fans, or that kid who built a gun from lego bricks. The demand is there, and they are satisfying themselves as best as possible with a poor substitute for the real thing.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Cimexus]

agree. But I think the 'only criminals have guns' argument isn't inherently silly. It depends on the country you are talking about.

I am a dual US/Australian citizen who spends part of each year in either country. However, I am perhaps unusual in that I advocate two completely different gun policies for two different countries. I am in favour of (responsible and regulated) gun ownership in the US, and very much against any guns at all in Australia.

Why? It's to do with history. Australia has never HAD a lot of guns, so as you so rightfully pointed out, very few people have them. Even criminals. They simply aren't 'there' to obtain (in any great number). Not to say it's ~impossible~ for a criminal to get one, but it's much, much harder than in the US. The average Australian criminal doesn't have one. As a result, the number of deaths related to firearms in Australia per year is minute ... 20 or 30 out of a population of 22 million. I'd like to keep it that way and I fully support the tough gun laws we have in AU.

OTOH I support the 2nd Amendment in the US and would be against a proposal to make guns illegal in America. Why? It's because there are simply already too many guns out there. Guns are one of those things that, once the cat is out of the bag so to speak, it's impossible to get it back in. Revoking the right of Americans to bear arms now WOULD result in 'only the criminals having guns' (law abiding citizens might hand in their guns, but criminals certainly wouldn't!). And then, unlike in Australia where both victims and criminals are on a level, gun-less playing field, the criminals in the US would have a field day. They'd have all the power and victims would have none. That'd be a scary world to live in.

Another way to put it - I feel safe walking the streets in Australia because I know everyone, including those that would do me harm, are unarmed. But in the US, since I know criminals are armed (more often than not), I'd feel safer knowing other responsible people around me were armed as well, just in case some punk criminal wants to make me his victim.

That is, it should always be a level 'playing field' ... either everyone has guns, or noone does. So gun control policies need to differ according to the culture and history of the particular country you are talking about. There's no one size fits all solution.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[PBoyUK]

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.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[PBoyUK]

Oh, well, if Simon Cowell said so...

Reading a Simon Cowell interview? Paying heed to what he says and trusting its integrity? Bringing up what he says in a discussion about a serious issue? What are people like you doing on /.?

Here, let me help you. The interwebs can get confusing sometimes, take a wrong tube and you soon find yourself somewhere you don't belong.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[IndustrialComplex]

so it's almost a criminal/thug version of mutually assured destruction?

If you assume that the person being mugged is a criminal/thug.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[rmushkatblat]

I'm not even going to dignify that with my own response. http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[PBoyUK]

What happened to 5x higher violent crime rate?

The figures on your (ridiculous) sources, if they are to be believed, point to "only" a 1.4-2 times higher chance to be robbed/burgled in the UK than the US. Even if this were true, and I accept it's a considerable amount, it's nowhere near the 5x hyperbole that you were spouting previously. I wonder what your next post would contain, if I cared enough to refute your sources again. Would your estimates drop a second time?

The gun lobby source in particular, that one is amusing. It points out alleged fabrications of the statistics in the UK figures, due to political pressures of trying to keep a lid on crime rates for public approval. Yet, in a country like the US, with a much higher murder/rape rate, surely the same pressures apply, and the same abuses can be found. Look into any bureaucracy and you'll find corruption of some kind, especially the "victimless" cooking of statistics. Purely as an example in the opposite direction: in the homicide ratios between the US and UK, the UK figures included those who died in terrorist attacks. The US did not. The gun lobby source then continues with hilariously bad mis-information, which just 2 minutes of reseach for me refuted. Take this gem:

"Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all."

In direct contridiction to the Home Office report on how homicide is classified in their statistics:

"deaths were initially recorded as homicide, a decrease of two per cent on the previous year. Where the police initially record an offence as homicide it remains classified unless the police or courts decide later that no offence or homicide took place."

Note that the homicide recording isn't based on getting a conviction - but on the police later deciding that what was previously suspected to be a homicide turned out not to be the case.

The page also mentions this: "England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997". Which is true, the BBC report mentioned can be found here. What the page fails to do however is mention the conclusion of the BBC's report, which is that although a new law was introduced, it was badly implemented since it was only targetted at hobbyist/sporting gun communities, instead of targetting the illegal smuggling of weapons. Why is this an important distinction? Because this snippet was introduced in the context of supporting the idea that gun control laws do not work/make you less safe. The BBC report does not condone that conclusion whatsoever; it merely re-iterates the hopefully obvious point that a bad law won't work, whereas a better law with similar aims may well have.

The hilarity continues, with the next table that claims to indicate a higher level of violence in countries with a low level of gun ownership, in comparison to those with high levels of gun ownership. Did you even read this table? I suspect not, because it could be the very definition of selective reading and statistical manipulation that it was so keen to decry only a paragraph before. For a summary: 3 countries are listed as high gun ownership (Switzerland, US, Israel) and 3 with low gun ownership (Denmark, France, Japan). Only 6 countries? What kind of study was this? Well actually, if you follow the source, the study had A LOT more countries, so firstly, what methodology was used to pick those 6? As it turns out: a bad one - but more on that later. What do the statistics actually show? They tally up suicide rate and homicide rate to arrive at a total ({24.1, 19.0, 7.9} for high gun rates vs {27.2, 21.9, 17.3} for low g

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Pvt_Ryan]

When was the last time you heard of someone being killed by a drive by knife throwing?

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Pvt_Ryan]

We could just count up the number of incidents in the UK & USA in the last 20 years where a school child with a gun has gone postal.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Burb]

I think what most people fail to understand is the cultural gap between the UK and the USA in this regard. We start from different cultural assumptions about guns, I think. The USA mindset often includes "the right to bear arms" as a fundamental part of the culture. The American revolution and it's cultural consequences are embedded in the many of its citizens think. British mindset is often geared to a nostalgic desire for a past with less violence, where the village policeman was able to carry out his duties without recourse to firearms. Regardless of the truth or otherwise of these viewpoints, they are part of the cultural memes.

The WW2 analogy isn't a great one. Yes, Britain was in a bad position in 1939 because of underinvestment in the armed forces, and an unwise view of Nazi Germany. But that was a question about warfare, the right of the state to defend itself against aggression, and appeasement. The Right to Bear Arms discussion is more about the activities of the individual citizen arming or not arming himself in self-defence in his daily civilian life.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Mephistophlese]

The last study I read (forgive me, I cannot seem to locate it to quote as a source here at work) states that most self-defense shoots are 3 shots in 3 seconds from 3 feet away. Honestly, only a few sessions at the range with drills for drawing and firing at man sized targets (to hit center mass) should be enough for anyone to gain the gross muscle memory required to fire under duress.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[rmushkatblat]

tl;dr http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/02/article-1196941-05900DF7000005DC-677_468x636.jpg

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[PBoyUK]

LOL. Congratulations, you just made every British person still reading this topic laugh. Not being British, I doubt you understand why. The Daily Mail! The Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper that sells by making scary shit up for ridiculous headlines, and backing this up with manipulated statistics or paid off "experts". Would any American take you seriously if you brought The National Enquirer as a source into a debate? No! You'd be laughed out of the room. This is akin to what you've just done.

For the last several years, the Daily Mail has been engaged in the heroic pursuit of classifying things that cure and cause cancer. Some things do both. Since you're apparently a fan, maybe you can help them.

It is quite obvious at this point that not only are you terrible at picking your sources, but that you also know nothing at all about the UK on which to pick any good source. I won't deny that the UK has problems in its inner cities, but they are not at all caused by a lack of guns for people to defend themselves. By any real measure of crime, the US falls behind the UK. The US has a higher homicide rate, higher rape rate, higher murder rate, lower World Peace Index ranking. If you think these things are an acceptable trade off for being 1.4 times more likely to come home with your wallet still in your pocket, that's your prerogative - though one I doubt that most sane people would share.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[GunFox]

No. There is no distance at which a firearm chambered in a combat caliber is less dangerous than a knife. Even assuming you manage to stab your target, they only need to wound you to prevent you from being an effective combatant with a knife. Whereas they can be severely wounded and still retain almost full function and lethality with their firearm.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[rmushkatblat]

The Daily Mail is quite obviously not the source of the information, it was just the first place I found that hosted this.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[jhylkema]

I'm not even going to dignify that with my own response.

I'm not even going to dignify your response from disreputable, right-wing, pro-gun sources with any kind of a response.

Those of us in touch with reality, however, know the facts:

-- Nations with strict gun control laws have homicide rates that are a tiny fraction of America's.

-- Guns make homes less safe, not more safe. Granted, one can take issue with the oft-quoted 43x number, but the fact remains that while guns are supposed to make Americans more safe, the exact opposite turns out to be true. The only question is, how many times less safe?

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[jhylkema]

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.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[rmushkatblat]

The first point is irrelevant if the same was true before gun control was instituted.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

The second point is misleading to the point of being useless.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[jhylkema]

You're citing a pro-gun website with an agenda, guncite.com. Hardly an unbiased, reputable source. Strike one.

Some of the counter-research cited on your propaganda pages was done by John R. Lott, Jr. I'm sure the fact that his position is endowed by the corporate parent of Winchester doesn't affect his objectivity in any way. Strike two.

The first point is irrelevant if the same was true before gun control was instituted.

Earlier, you were shown to be an idiot when you feebly tried to claim that the "UK's violent crime rate is nearly 5x that of the US and has only been increasing since the gun bans in the 1970s . . . " Now you're admitting that the UK's violent crime rate is a tiny fraction of America's?

Strike three. You fail.

Sit down.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[modecx]

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

As others have pointed out, though less bluntly, you're a fool. I can say that as someone who has seen his share of both types of wounds.

If you're hit in a vital spot with either a knife or a gun, you're in trouble. The difference is, criminals tend to carry concealable, small caliber handguns, with store bought FMJ ammo--which basically pushes a nice straight hole through the body. A lot of people live though this sort of shooting.

But a guy with a sharp knife can make you look like something a great white shark spat out, in about two seconds flat. God forbid he knows a thing or two about anatomy, and has a basic amount of experience.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[FozE_Bear]

You know, Adolf Hitler made these arguments about the safety of the police and populace, when his fiat when he extended the 1928 gun controls in 1938. Now I know that Nazi's didn't really need gun control laws at this time, but they sure help. A government fear of wacko extremists who may go off the deep end is a healthy fear to have.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Tassach]

Americans seem to view bearing arms as a right, and I don't mean legally, I mean morally.

That's because it IS. Having the means to be able to defend yourself, your family, and your community against unwarranted aggression is a fundamental human right. As much as I hate bumper-sticker jingoism, there's a lot of truth to the saying that an armed man is a citizen while a disarmed man is a subject.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[jhylkema]

sv_libertarian (1317837) writes:

On top of that you . . . are forced to store the guns locked, broken down and apart from the ammo.

That's what they teach you to do in gun safety class, no?

Well, when your kid shoots himself with it, at least he won't grow up to be a losertarian moron with male potency issues. When the intruder you fear so much shoots you with it, or steals it and uses it in a crime, how will you feel?

Compared to an American, you are disarmed.

And this is a problem . . . why?

You effectively can only use your guns for sport, and using them to protect your home, your family or yourself is pretty much impossible.

Maybe they don't need to because their crime rate is a tiny fraction of America's? Maybe they're not paranoid that someone is going to break into their trailer and steal their Zenith black-and-white TV and tinfoil rabbit ears? I find it interesting that the gun nuts who complain the loudest actually have the least to protect.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[penguinman1337]

You're right, actually. The United States has always viewed the right to keep and bear arms as inherent. It is, in fact, written into our Bill of Rights, second only to the right of freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. The idea being to ensure that we have those most precious rights, and secondly to ensure we have the ability to defend them. America's system of government is based on a system of checks and balances. An armed citizenry is the final check against a tyrannical and runaway government. And before you say that farmers with hunting rifles can't hope to stand up to a well equipped army, look at Iraq and Afghanistan. They seem to be doing alright over there. Too many people on either side of this debate get overly emotional about the issue. Personally, I disagree with the belief that firearms and weapons cause violence. Outlawing weapons ensures that only the outlaws, and the government, will have weapons. Some will argue that the right to bear arms is an archaic notion. But in the grand scheme of things, 250 years isn't that long.

Note for the record: I actually do not own a personal firearm, and I am a serving member of the US Armed Forces.

Re:Guns don't kill people...

[Z8]

Assuming the gun was legal, I would trust that anti-gun activist more. S/he knows the utility of a gun but still feels the negatives outweigh the personal benefits. On the other hand most anti-gun activists probably don't know anything about guns.

It's like when Warren Buffett, who has literally saved billions in tax loopholes, called for the government to end tax loopholes for the rich.

MAMAA need to read

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

[Syberz]

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...

[qoncept]

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...

[h4rr4r]

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...

[qoncept]

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...

[Theodore]

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.

Re:I'm confused...

[IndustrialComplex]

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...

[jklovanc]

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...

[IndustrialComplex]

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...

[Shakrai]

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

Re:I'm confused...

[cynyr]

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...

[MBGMorden]

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...

[mjwx]

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

None.

UK police cut down on red tape so Slashdot posts the most inflammatory headline possible using a group that no-one in the UK takes seriously.

similarly stupid statement

[bugi]

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

we need to be carefull...

[gandhi_2]

...when we allow people to be free. we can't be just handing that shit out.

Gun... License?

[XanC]

What a stupid idea. Do you live in a police state?

Nice to know...

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Lyn Costello, of Mothers Against Murder and Aggression (MAMAA), said:...

...that you've got dumbasses over there, too.

...rappers do.

[Steve Cox]

...I seen it in a documentary on BBC2... :)

Could be even safer...

[SuperKendall]

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

MAMAA

[jspenguin1]

MAMAA... just killed a man. Put a gun against his head, pulled my trigger, now he's dead...

Re:MAMAA

[Montezumaa]

You, sir, are awesome. I must meet you so that I can buy you a beer or 30.

I wish

[Montezumaa]

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

[Shakrai]

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.

Re:I wish

[Grishnakh]

You need to move to a freer state. Seeing a judge for a CCW? Are you serious?

Simple gun control measures

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no fucking gunshow loophole...

Re:Simple gun control measures

[h4rr4r]

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

Re:Simple gun control measures

[IndustrialComplex]

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

[BarefootClown]

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

[Shakrai]

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

[h4rr4r]

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

[operagost]

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:Simple gun control measures

[Shakrai]

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

[MBGMorden]

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

[Shakrai]

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

[Fjandr]

Which means it's not a loophole, and you still have to comply with in-state regulations. This comment does nothing to refute anything in the previous comment.

Re:Simple gun control measures

[Posting=!Working]

Yes, and the purchase and background check are officially done in your state, not the one the gun originated in. You still can't cross a state line and buy a gun.

Re:Simple gun control measures

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

So then how do I sell a gun to my neighbor?

Get a dealer to mediate the sale.

Or give one to a family member?

Localities that have these restrictions have special provisions for this.

Re:Simple gun control measures

[mog007]

I can attest to this. I purchased my second firearm at a gun show. I paid for it, then I had to wait a week to pick it up at the guy's shop.

Re:Simple gun control measures

[RoFLKOPTr]

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.

1. And what's the point of that exactly? Somebody who is going to commit a crime with a gun only needs one gun.

2. California (my place of residence) has a 10-day waiting period on all firearm purchases, but even with this foolproof method of stopping gun crimes, people still get shot in California all the time. That article, posted two hours ago, was on the first page of a Google News search for "shooting".

3. What gun show loophole? You've been drinking too much of the anti-gun koolaid that seems to assume that gun shows have private parties peddling their wares.

Re:Simple gun control measures

[Shakrai]

Actually the purchase is done out of state, you just can't take possession until it's been shipped to an in-state FFL and you go through the 4473 process.

Most free states will also let you purchase long guns out of state without any additional steps. Even the People's Republic of New York allows me to purchase shotguns and rifles out of state without jumping through additional hoops. I've purchased all but one of my long guns out of state.

Re:Simple gun control measures

[h4rr4r]

Should I pass all my first amendment speech via some intermediary as well?

Re:Simple gun control measures

[Shakrai]

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.

Re:Simple gun control measures

[rmushkatblat]

Except that the black market is already so well established that this wouldn't do anything.

Re:Simple gun control measures

[nschubach]

Damn me for already posting... and Slashdot for not having a +1 Sarcastic mod.

Re:Simple gun control measures

[mdarksbane]

Yep, if a woman's being stalked by her ex I'm sure she has no problem at all having to wait a week for a gun. I'm sure he'll just wait outside. And I'm sure no criminal or gang member ever plans ahead in their weapons purchases (not that they really ever buy from a dealer anyway, since we already have the reasonable gun control of background checks on gun store purchases).

Re:Simple gun control measures

[BarefootClown]

Well, sure it possible--so is murder. Both are illegal, however. You can only sell to a resident of your state.

IE-only all over again...

[SanityInAnarchy]

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?)

Re:IE-only all over again...

[SanityInAnarchy]

Actually, these are irrelevant:

it's not like people will need to use on a frequent basis, and anyone with an iPhone is likely to have access to a computer.

It's more that it needs network access of some sort anyway, and the iPhone has a web browser. So even if you were targeting an iPhone, I don't get why you'd bother to make it an iPhone app.

Re:Silly Brits

[brainboyz]

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.

wading through all the gun debate a moment...

[FuckingNickName]

...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

[BlueParrot]

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.

Re:Ownership is not the issue

[rmushkatblat]

Therefore people who cannot afford a safe do not have the right to keep and bear arms.

Re:Ownership is not the issue

[jhylkema]

Therefore people who cannot afford a safe do not have the right to keep and bear arms.

Exactly. Just like people who can't afford insurance don't have the right to drive a car. It's the same principle.

Re:Ownership is not the issue

[rmushkatblat]

Not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

There is no right to drive a car on a public road (it's a privilege), and you are allowed to drive a car on your own property without insurance.

Re:Ownership is not the issue

[jhylkema]

Not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

I was referring to the right to travel. In the same sense, I have the right to travel to Europe this summer, but if I don't have the money to make the trip, I can't exercise that right, can I?

Even assuming arguendo the Second Amendment is an individual right applicable to the states (courts are still murky on this one - don't challenge me on this, you will lose as I will post the case law), the exercise of all Constitutional rights is subject to reasonable limits. Your right to free speech is subject to time and place restrictions, for example. The Fourth Amendment simply does not apply at the U.S. border or the functional equivalent thereof, even to your laptop, for another example.

So it is with the Second Amendment. Insane people do not have the right to keep and bear arms at all, nor do children, nor do felons. The reductio ad absurdum of your argument that the Second Amendment is untrammelled would be to claim that it gives you the right to bear a nuclear device, a howitzer, a tank, a machine gun or a grenade launcher. After all, the government has all of these and if you accept the argument that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to give the people the right of rebellion, then why shouldn't you?

Re:Ownership is not the issue

[rmushkatblat]

Of course a right is contingent on you being able to afford it - but you should only have to be able to afford to exercise the right in its inherent definition, not including any burden the government might decided to place on you. A good example of prohibition by taxation is 1934 NFA (a $200 tax on $2 guns - according to you, perfectly OK).

To address your other points, felons have been denied some rights by due process (legal), children and the insane have been deemed not fully responsible for their actions and thus do not have all associated rights.

If you'd read the Federalist papers to see what the founders thought the 2nd amendment should represent, you would understand that it meant that the individual should be able to possess the same arms that any individual in the military could have - the rationale being that individuals would always greatly outnumber a standing army. Thus the only thing on your list that would be inappropriate would be the nuke (and in case you didn't know, fully automatic weapons aren't illegal under federal law).

Re:Ownership is not the issue

[Shoe Puppet]

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?

Re:Ownership is not the issue

[rmushkatblat]

I'm pretty sure there are no conditionals in the law. The constitution doesn't say much about taxation, as the founders didn't really like that topic. On a serious note, the government is taxing you without your permission anyways.

Re:Silly Brits

[scorp1us]

For those of us that do know martial arts, it is the approach that is most important. You assuredly could pound the life out of someone or kick in their skull, or choke them, without any special knowledge. But all those presuppose you have a dominant and controlling position.

If you over commit, under commit, or miss, you're setting yourself up for all that nasty stuff to happen to you. If you let your emotions run out of control, the adrenalin rush would turn your muscles to jello.

In fact, the reason why I don't walk up ans assault someone is because I now know how, and how much I am making my self vulnerable when I commit to initiating an attack. But I now can read people better, and I have strategies on blocking and evading strikes. The biggest thing was I used to lock up or even flinch when I saw a punch coming. Now, I can think and act through it.

I'm a smaller guy, and not that strong. I have a friend who says muscle will always win. After a couple sparring matches, he's the first one to flinch now.

Stupid MAMAA

[archmcd]

Is the problem murders, or lawful gun ownership? The fact is, those that are licensed gun owners aren't the ones you need to worry about. It's the illegal gun owners that are a threat. And don't start telling me that lawful gun ownership increases the incidence of murder. If I'm going to kill you and I don't have a gun, I'm going to use some other lethal means of performing the deed. And if I'm a criminal and I need a gun, I can't lawfully acquire one anyway, so I'm going to get my hands on one illegally.

Re:Stupid MAMAA

[archmcd]

Oh, and by the way, if you make it easier to register a gun, and acquire a gun license, if one of the lawfully purchased guns is used in a crime, it's far easier for law enforcement to trace it back to its owner, so there.

Re:Silly Brits

[VJ42]

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.

How many gun crimes by legal gun owners?

[cenobyte40k]

My question is what percentage of gun murders (As she puts it) are committed with a legal firearm used by the registered owner?

Hmmm

[SeaFox]

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."

Pardon my interruption here, MAMAA. But the purpose of this iPhone app is to RENEW pre-existing licenses. So nobody will be using it to get a gun who doesn't already have one.

Uberspecialized apps getting ridiculous

[GPS Pilot]

Am I alone in thinking we should not have apps for highly specialized tasks that a user will only need once every few years (like renewing a gun license)? Soon users will rebel against the cluttering of their phones with hundreds of ridiculous apps. ("Honey, how many pages of apps do I have to scroll through until I get to the one that displays the tensile strength of Reebok shoelaces?")

How about -- gasp -- creating a web site where people can renew their gun licenses? All iPhone users already have an app for that: [mobile] Safari

Re:Uberspecialized apps getting ridiculous

[Bing Tsher E]

Apple loves all the specialty apps, because it allows them to boast about "100,000 more apps in the store just in the last few months."

So there are 'apps' that are radio players for each and every single Radio Station's stream. Celebrities have started putting up their own apps. A lot of eBooks are sold as separate Apps in the store.

What I'd do to save $99

[caywen]

To save $99 per year, I want to renew my iPhone App development license with a gun.

Re:What I'd do to save $99

[jhylkema]

To save $99 per year, I want to renew my iPhone App development license with a gun.

I have mod points, but I've already posted in this discussion. Damn.

Funny you mention that, though. I wonder if a gun is how a lot of these sexually frustrated males plan on getting girlfriends.

Why stop at guns.

[brycethorup]

Can't you kill with knives, baseball bats, poisonous blowdarts, fists, cliffs, boots, rope, cord, pencils, pens...........? Why don't we license these things as well? I'm sure Apple could approve an app like that!