Slashdot Mirror
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.''
Am I the only one whose skepticism level is instantly raised when a politically lobbying organization includes the word "Mom" or "Mothers" in it's name?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
What exactly is the difference between a gun owner renewing his license online and a gun owner renewing his license in person?
The guy already owns a gun, he's renewing his license, not applying for one for the first time.
Convenience is the only difference between using the app versus the old way. This app does not make the streets less safe somehow.
~Syberz
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.
MAgnetoHydrodynamic Explosive Munition?
Maybe I will get an iPhone after all.
THL phish sticks
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.
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.
... Nevermind that the vast majority of gun crimes are from unlicensed gun users. Very rarely is a crime committed by someone with a license, because they receive training and take their responsibility seriously.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
MAMAA... just killed a man. Put a gun against his head, pulled my trigger, now he's dead...
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.
Quoted for irony. And I'd take facing someone with a knife over a gun any day.
Oh hell no. I'd rather not.
I've even been trained in ways to disarm a knife, and you know what? I don't trust myself to do that EVER. It's much easier to keep the barrel of a firearm pointed away from you in a scuffle than escaping from someone with a knife.
I've been mugged before too, and a knife in your back is a hell of a lot scarier since the person is much more likely to use it if they get pissed off. Firearms draw attention.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
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.
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:
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.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
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....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
And I'd rather read funny trolls than ignorant rehashing of the progressive agenda... but I don't want to outlaw ignorant speech because I believe in the first amendment.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
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?)
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
I think that's part of it. Legislate the requirement of this type of nonsense, and as prices go up fewer and fewer people will be able to actually AFFORD a gun. Any company that figures out a way to shave costs will get banned as a "Saturday Night Special" for costing too little.
Remember, they don't see anything wrong with the rich (ie, them) owning guns. The just don't want the commoners having them. This is evidences by so many anti-gunners carrying concealed weapons. Recently one prominent anti-gun activist even shot a home invader. Kinda hard to argue about how bad guns are when you're keeping one yourself AND actually get prompted with a valid opportunity to use it.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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.
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.
It's because of the british hooliganism that the rest of the continent had to put more security in soccer stadiums than in prisons.
Hooliganism is all but stomped out in the British game, but I wouldn't go near Milan for a game between Inter and Ac if you paid me; the Italian "Ultras" are far worse than anything we've had here for decades. Oh, and there's very little security inside English football Stadia these days; it's now so safe that I took my mum to a recent Saints v Pompey match.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
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 ?
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.
Yes. When the Founding Fathers drafted the 1st (2nd) amendment they could never have anticipated the internet (repeating firearms). At the time the most dangerous technology known to society was the printing press (musket). If modern technology had been around they surely would have worded the 1st (2nd) amendment differently.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
How does a drive-by knifing work again?
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.
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.
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.
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?
here is no right to drive a car on a public road (it's a privilege)
Wait, so you don't think you have have the right to use what you paid for with your taxes?
(+1, Disagree)