TED Conversations

Kate Jones

Partner, Institute for the Advancement of Service

This conversation is closed.

The time is NOW for people to stand up and say 'No More Assault Weapons" and not wait for the government to legislate the change.

Change starts when people change, not when governments legislate change. Think back to the days when driving drunk was socially acceptable, no matter who died in the process. Then Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) formed. The rest is history.

The time is 'now o'clock'. We will change our resopnse to violence and stop purchasing violence video games as gifts for our children, and stop patronizing films that promote violence, mayhem and murder. Glorifying the horrific has become the norm.

What happened in Newtown, CT should never happen again.

Remember Mahatma Ghandi's words: "Be the change you want to see in the world". The time is now o'clock!


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Dec 24 2012: Look at you with your demand. "NOW". The only thing to be done NOW, is calm down and use your brain to think. THINK NOW.

    And, remember... guns do not kill people, people kill people ... far more people that own guns and weapons of all types, including assault rifles, are responsible and ,listen, Do Not Kill People. And to hell with ALL the limits and restrictions people want to put upon other people.

    The violent video game thing, jeez c'mon, what small compartment or bubble are you looking to put humanity in before you feel everyone is in check and you are safe?
    • thumb
      Dec 24 2012: People with assault weapons kill people more effectively than those without.

      Why do the public need assault weapons.

      Aren't non automatic pistols, rifles and shot guns enough.

      Where do you draw the line on what weapons are available to the public?

      Rocket launchers?
      • thumb
        Dec 24 2012: People want assault rifles, for a sense of security, for a hobby, to marvel at the design and construction of the gun. For whatever. I see no reason to take these guns out of predominately responsible, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens because of uninformed, scared citizens and a small number of sad isolated incidents.

        I know in my heart of hearts that criminals will still have weapons, law be damned. One way or the other, as I stated before: if there is a buyer, there is a seller, there is a market. Banning assault rifles will take them out of the hands of people that can handle owning them. It will not save lives. It will not change the fact that people are killing people everyday in the United States for various reasons using an array of weapons.

        Who am I to draw the line? ... Even rocket launchers do not make killers. Rocket launchers are used by people to kill other people. What you have is a people killing people problem. Not a gun killing people problem.
        • thumb
          Dec 25 2012: Tanks, cruise missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, land mines, 50 cal machine guns. All okay to be available to all?

          We have limits on what cars people can have on the roads. Suggest same logic can apply to weapons.

          You still haven't acknowledged that it's easier to kill with a gun than without.

          So if some criminals may get their hands on restricted weapons you think there should be no restrictions. Not sure that makes sense.

          Suggest that having more power full weapons in the general population does not make us safer.

          We have speed limits, although some break the rules, even though most of us would drive safely. But the limits make us safer.

          Also, humans lose it some times. Better if their is a not a gun in reach at those times.
        • Dec 27 2012: Obey No1kinobe: "You still haven't acknowledged that it's easier to kill with a gun than without."

          Uhhhhhhhhh, 911!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.