We shouldn't talk about Ferguson without talking about guns | Vox

[Fred Sanders]

Cross posted in General Discussion



http://www.vox.com/2014/11/26/7292963/gun-control-police-shootings



"The death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, reveals many things about America. One of them that has not yet received adequate attention is that there is a strong case for a form of gun control that is much stricter than anything that's remotely plausible in the context of American politics.

This is true if you think Ferguson Police officer Darren Wilson should have been found guilty of a crime. But in many ways it's even more true if you think he's innocent of any wrongdoing. A system in which legal police shootings of unarmed civilians are a common occurrence is a system that has some serious flaws.

In this case, the drawback is a straightforward consequence of America's approach to firearms. A well-armed citizenry required an even-better-armed constabulary. Widespread gun ownership creates a systematic climate of fear on the part of the police. The result is a quantity of police shootings that, regardless of the facts of any particular case, is just staggeringly high.

Young black men, in particular, are paying the price for America's gun culture."

................

"A well-armed citizenry required an even-better-armed constabulary".

So awesomely true, where is the flaw in the logic for gun control, a call that should come from all sides?

[RBD]

1. How can we de-escalate the violence?

How can main street counter a well funded NRA (which mainly represents the gun and ammo industry)?
IMHO We need to use industry to fight industry. Just as we require drivers licenses and insurance for cars, trucks and tractor trailers, why shouldn't we push for licensing and insurance for gun owners? If you live in a rural area, and have a hunting rifle, then a modest annual fee should suffice. If you live in an urban area, and want assault rifles, a stiffer license and far higher insurance fees seem appropriate. Wouldn't the insurance industry, which is reeling from the loss of health insurance profits, want to jump on this profit potential?

[Fred Sanders]

2. Registration brings out all the sovereign citizen folk screaming "liberty" and waving their guns....

the reason is terrorism by the gun lobby.

[Amishman]

3. think about it a bit further

registration/licensing would be spotty, both Canada and Connecticut have shown that gun owners simply will not comply. Plus if the fee is too high, the whole 'poll tax' argument comes into play. It would be difficult for the courts to uphold a fee structure that sets the cost so high that it effectively blocks low income individuals from gun ownership.

Insurance also would not have the intended goal. Insurance cannot be issued that would cover intentional acts (this is a fundamental principle of the property/causality insurance industry), leaving a very limited scope of coverage. The resulting policies would be very inexpensive since they would almost never be used. To make it worse, the NRA would likely get into the game and use it as a source of further funding.

[flamin lib]

4. You are 6 times more likely to be a victim of homicide in the U.S. than in Canada

and 12 times more likely than the next most similar country. Registration does work.

With registration it becomes very difficult to sell a gun to a prohibited person and the consequences of doing so are dire for the seller.

With registration it is possible to find and confiscate the guns possessed by anyone who changes from a non-prohibited person to a prohibited.

With registration guns can be removed from the homes of people who, for mental health reasons, become a danger to themselves or others.

Besides we have it on good authority that gun owners are law abiding to a fault.

[Fred Sanders]

10. Yes, gun owners are always law abiding and not negligent or forgetful except when they are not.

And the old "criminals and gun owners will not obey new laws" kind of argues for not having laws at all.

[ncjustice80]

5. Well, cops know ita a "dangerous" job.

Start with switching to an unarmed police force. Armed response.teams can come out when necessary. Cops will be less likely to get shot since people know they dont have guns. Train them to disengage from armed suspects until a response team shows upm

[Fred Sanders]

6. Sorry, with 300 million guns in civilian hands disarming police would be......a mistake.

[ncjustice80]

7. Why? Very few cops ever get shot, and many are with their own guns.

[Fred Sanders]

8. Would you patrol, protect and serve America and its streets unarmed? Not many are shot because they

have guns...you know...for self defence. No fucking way.

I thought self defence was the Big One for gun folk.

[ncjustice80]

9. Im not a gun lover - I think 2a should be repealed :p

And I think not many are ahot because their job isnt as dangerous as they make the public think it is. Conveniance store clerks, truck drivers, and pizza delivery people all have statistically more dangerous jobs.