UK Police To Allow Gun Users To Renew Licenses With iPhone App 271
Sussex police are creating a number of iPhone apps for the public, including one to renew your gun license. Unsurprisingly, the plan has some anti-gun groups upset. Lyn Costello, of Mothers Against Murder and Aggression (MAMAA), said, "This isn't suitable, especially in light of what happened in Cumbria. We've got to be extra careful giving gun licenses. We have this attitude that gun murders don't happen very often so it's OK to be lax, but it is not OK and we've got to do everything in our power to stop it happening again. We can't put money before life and if you start to do that we are losing our humanity. It is a really stupid idea.''
Mothers (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only one whose skepticism level is instantly raised when a politically lobbying organization includes the word "Mom" or "Mothers" in it's name?
Re:Mothers (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's a perfectly sane reaction. Another red flag tends to be the word "against" in the group name, "foo against bar and baf" is a standard "think of the children" group name...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Then again Mothers Against Sexual Intercourse and Conception may not be a very large organization....
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Err, no. MADD used to be for sober driving. Now they're for Prohibition.
Re:Mothers (Score:4, Insightful)
I like what I call the "AT&T solution" to drunk driving: More bars in more places.
I mean really, there's no excuse for driving drunk, but if the bar is within walking distance of your house, then there's both no excuse and no reason.
For reasons unbeknown to me, MADD doesn't seem to agree.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 a
Re:Mothers (Score:5, Insightful)
Well of course. That worked so great in the 1920s! :-| Can the moms in MADD really be so stupid as to repeat the same mistake?
re: Gun Bans.
I used a gun to defend myself two years ago. And in the mid-90s a guy grabbed my girlfriend by the throat, and I forced him to run away when I put my gun to the rear of his head.
Anyway..... I'm curious how these events would be different without a gun for self-defense. In both cases I suspect the end result would be two dead victims. Is that really want anti-gun people want.
I cannot comprehend it
.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
YUP! See: .08 "intoxication" limit now in most states.
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that's what they want. The anti-gun people basically want the government to be the only one that can legally use force (in the form of police). If anyone else uses force, they want it to be illegal, and the only recourse is the police and court system.
So if someone wants to kill you, you're supposed to allow it to happen, and then trust that the justice system will catch the perpetrator and sentence him to prison.
If you use "self-defense", you're taking away their civil rights, in their view.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So if someone wants to kill you, you're supposed to allow it to happen
I had an argument the other day with a gun control nut who is a self-described feminist. She insisted that it's illegal to shoot someone who is attempting to rape you. When I pointed out the actual law that authorizes the use of deadly force in response to a rape she shifted gears from "it's illegal" to "it's immoral". In her world a raped woman is morally superior to one that defended her body and rights. Figure that one out....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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):
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, Arizona has a castle law too, as do most "red" states.
And don't count on juries to be sane. They're usually composed (after the lawyers weed out anyone with critical thinking ability) of the most easily emotion-swayed people possible, who will cry about the poor home invader after his family shows a nice picture of him and talks about what a nice, misunderstood man he was.
But I think that even in the worst states, as long as you retreat to your bedroom and have not feasible escape path, you're still j
Re: (Score:2)
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 wor
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 no
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
You could have probably done equally well with a taser.
Tasers are well and good unless you miss or get attacked by multiple aggressors....
Depending on where I lived, and the people I lived near, my tolerance of gun rights might vary. For instance, if I lived on a street with a lot of crime or gang violence, I might advocate stricter gun laws.
So you would advocate making it harder for the people who aren't breaking the law to obtain guns because of the people who are? That isn't a logical reaction it's an emotional one.
However, I also think there are better alternatives if you're only using it for defence.
There are better alternatives if it's a self-defense situation that doesn't involve deadly force. The instructor who taught my CCW class recommended that all of his students carry pepper spray in addition to the firearm. The legal barrier for u
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who believes that's a good idea must be MAD...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. And you hate children too.
You, sir, are worse than Hitler!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 [swgalaxies.net]?"
BTW, I just did a Google search for "mothers against -madd". The amount of hit was surprising.
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly is the difference between a gun owner renewing his license online and a gun owner renewing his license in person?
The guy already owns a gun, he's renewing his license, not applying for one for the first time.
Convenience is the only difference between using the app versus the old way. This app does not make the streets less safe somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Anyway, the answer is pretty obvious. $$$. Or, uh, £££. Maybe
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 com
Re:I'm confused... (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the point of renewing a license at all if all you have to do is click a button or show up?
The fee. You do realize that it is all an excuse for the government to put what is essentially a toll booth into your day to day life.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Could be even safer... (Score:2)
Hell, the iPhone app even has the opportunity to sneakily take a picture of the person renewing, so as to properly profile them!
Re: (Score:2)
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 alread
similarly stupid statement (Score:2)
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... (Score:2, Troll)
...when we allow people to be free. we can't be just handing that shit out.
Gun... License? (Score:2, Funny)
What a stupid idea. Do you live in a police state?
Nice to know... (Score:2)
...that you've got dumbasses over there, too.
MAMAA (Score:5, Funny)
MAMAA... just killed a man. Put a gun against his head, pulled my trigger, now he's dead...
IE-only all over again... (Score:3, Interesting)
For a brief but wonderful window of time, it looked like the Web was going to be the new platform.
Then Apple came along and fucked it up.
Please explain: Why does this need to be an iPhone app? I keep hearing about more and more iPhone apps which would make just as much sense -- more sense, even -- as web apps, and that includes the iTunes store itself. (WTF is the point of making the iTunes store DRM-free if I still need a specific, proprietary client program to purchase stuff with?)
wading through all the gun debate a moment... (Score:2)
...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 u
Ownership is not the issue (Score:2)
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 d
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah we have an app for that.
Don't you mean "We have a cap for that!"?
Re:Mahem on demand? (Score:4, Funny)
MAgnetoHydrodynamic Explosive Munition?
Maybe I will get an iPhone after all.
Re:Guns don't kill people... (Score:5, Funny)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Flamebait)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends on distance, at less than 21 feet the knife wielder is probably more dangerous. He has no need to reload and aiming a knife is very easy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 av
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 [freestateproject.org].
Re:Guns don't kill people... (Score:4, Insightful)
And I'd take facing someone with a knife over a gun any day.
But what's to stop a criminal from possessing guns? The entire Slashdot community seems to hate every governmental intrusion of privacy and law enforcement getting all up in your grill, so how do you suggest the government enforces a gun ban? If it's illegal to own guns then anybody who owns a gun is automatically a criminal and somebody we should look out for. I'd take having a gun over not having a gun when facing anybody with anything. Most gun-related crimes are perpetrated by somebody who would never pull the trigger anyway, and most murders performed with a gun could easily be performed with a number of other weapons or non-weapons that no government could conceivably ban. The world is a dangerous place, and I'd rather feel safe in knowing that everybody has a gun than questioning who does while I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
So then how do I sell a gun to my neighbor?
Or give one to a family member?
Re: (Score:2)
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
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 doe
Re:Simple gun control measures (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 [mercurynews.com]. 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
Re:Guns don't kill people... (Score:5, Insightful)
Quoted for irony. And I'd take facing someone with a knife over a gun any day.
Oh hell no. I'd rather not.
I've even been trained in ways to disarm a knife, and you know what? I don't trust myself to do that EVER. It's much easier to keep the barrel of a firearm pointed away from you in a scuffle than escaping from someone with a knife.
I've been mugged before too, and a knife in your back is a hell of a lot scarier since the person is much more likely to use it if they get pissed off. Firearms draw attention.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 indu
...rappers do. (Score:2)
...I seen it in a documentary on BBC2... :)
Re:Guns don't kill people... (Score:5, Insightful)
... Nevermind that the vast majority of gun crimes are from unlicensed gun users. Very rarely is a crime committed by someone with a license, because they receive training and take their responsibility seriously.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like no crimes are committed with properly registered machine guns in the USA, but some states still ban them.
Some dumbass state senator in my state wants to force new guns to stamp a serial number on each cartridge casing when fired. Which means one of three thing happen; criminals start policing their brass, revolvers become more popular, or people just grind numbers off the inside of the gun.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You forgot something: It makes a huge pile of money for the company that owns the patent on that process that your elected representative all of a sudden wants to mandate.
Re:Guns don't kill people... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that's part of it. Legislate the requirement of this type of nonsense, and as prices go up fewer and fewer people will be able to actually AFFORD a gun. Any company that figures out a way to shave costs will get banned as a "Saturday Night Special" for costing too little.
Remember, they don't see anything wrong with the rich (ie, them) owning guns. The just don't want the commoners having them. This is evidences by so many anti-gunners carrying concealed weapons. Recently one prominent anti-gun activist even shot a home invader. Kinda hard to argue about how bad guns are when you're keeping one yourself AND actually get prompted with a valid opportunity to use it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
.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: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 preven
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 Am
Re:Guns don't kill people... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Go visit a biker bar in the US, fighting is not their pastime that is their profession.
Canada has more firearms per capita and less murders. The USA is just a very violent society, without guns we would kill each other with knives.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
I would propose that even "a few hours of martial arts training" is excess. I know plenty of people who could pound the life out someone without any training at all by either kicking the skull or by holding the airway shut. Both take no specialized knowledge and relatively little force for the muscle groups in question.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's because of the british hooliganism that the rest of the continent had to put more security in soccer stadiums than in prisons.
Hooliganism is all but stomped out in the British game, but I wouldn't go near Milan for a game between Inter and Ac if you paid me; the Italian "Ultras" [football-hooligans.org] 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 [wikipedia.org] match.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to move to a freer state. Seeing a judge for a CCW? Are you serious?