- Rob Freda
- Pylesville, MD
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
First that this idea even needs to be broached in the first place is ridiculous especially given the lack of clarity in the second amendment (eg it does not specify types of arms so that should be handled by laws not as a "do what you will free for all").
That said it seems there are some major elements that would be necessary to reduce gun deaths in the US and there are some obfuscating interests embodied in the NRA that must be sidestepped or accommodated in the solution.
Four main areas of focus jump out to reduce gun deaths:
1) "mass killings" (included in this would be the 2 or 3 person shootings as well as as Newtown or Aurora types)
2) Accidental shootings
3) Non-owner shootings (eg the shooter is not the owner of the gun)
4) "black market" trading
Added to these I would say the parameter that makes gun control legislation difficult is gun manufacturer revenue stream protection using the second amendment as a shill.
So what are the necessary parameters to make something happen vs. the absurdity of what is going to happen over the next few months in Washington:
1) Figure out a way that shifting policy creates more revenue for gun manufacturers so they get the NRA on board
2) Make sure that guns cannot be used in public places or by someone other than their owner
The Idea - Mandatory gun locks and universal kill switches.
On locks, all responsible gun owners have gun safes. Why not move the lock to the gun's trigger mechanism either with a combination code or biometric locks. That would prevent unauthorized use of the gun by anyone but the owner.
On kill switches, in the same locking mechanism put a chip and actuator that freezes the locking mechanism mentioned above when it receives a certain modulated radio signal.
If mandatory then all existing guns will have to be refitted with the new bolt mechanism creating revenue streams for the gun manufacturers and on all new guns they can charge more creating more revenue.
Thoughts?
Frank Hastings
Ken brown 30+
What about all those guns sold at the recent gun fairs? Where have all those gone?
It seems to me to be a massive void full of unknown guns out there.
There does seem to be a lot of unnecessary force used by police in some instances that can be construed as big government but hey! Take a look at the political system you have adopted, it only lasted 500 years before the Romans opted for a lifetime dictator. There's a lot of anger coming across the net fueled by the media. Take a look at why there seems to be a lot of dash cams that was able to pick up that meteor in Russia. No dash cam no evidence of the extreme violence of their roads over there as well as corrupt police extorting drivers.
If they were all armed i think there would be just road wars where everyone would drive around in APC's.
Mike Colera 10+
If you're buying all this nonsense you are reading on the WWW, I have a great deal for you on a bridge in Brooklyn, NY.
Actually, you have a good handle on big picture, but some of your details are wanting.
Most dealers at gun fairs are licensed dealers and have to comply with states laws on gun sales.
There are private sales, but a good number of those are collector items.
There is not a massive void of unknown guns out there. Law enforcement has a pretty good idea where they are coming from.
There is a black market to gather mostly pistols.
There is a large supply of guns from residential burglaries.
Then there is the trading. A hot gun from New York is traded for a hot gun from Chicago. Two cold guns for use th those cities for crime.
Now what about all the issues you hear about on the WWW.
Police powers including illegal gun use rest with the states. If there becomes Federal laws then federal police are involved and that has implications greater then this conversation.
Most of the gun violence remedies address legal gun ownership. Licensing, training, weapon type, or capacity or, or all puts additional burdens on legal gun owners. If you read closely, you seen almost no comment on illegal gun use. Although, there will be a study on the mentally incapacitated to see how they can be denied access to deadly weapons. No real effort to eliminate intercity gangs, remove illegal drug activities, no maximum imprisonment of criminals, just have legal owners jump through more meaningless hoops, then you have no knowledge of Americans and nothing I could say could mean anything to you.
Terry Hooper
Firstly, the reduction of guns in the community doesn't have to be painless for everyone.
Here in Australia, after the Port Arthur mass murder of 35 innocent people, the Australian Prime Minister took the bull by the horns and ordered all guns that aren't necesarry for various reasons, ie, a verified need for vermin control and or eradication on farms, licenced sport shooting, licenced security, licenced hunting, policing and military and so on, be surrendered to the authorities for destruction.
It wasn't a popular pill, however the result is that people haven't got an unnecessary gun at hand when they lose their cool.
He knew that it would be politically unpopular, as it was with me, but I didn't really have a need for the guns I owned, so I decided to hand them in.
I don't miss them even though I really enjoyed a bit of target shooting now and then.
I also don't think it was a breach of my rights since, if I have a desire to hunt, I can get the appropriate licence if I show I have the correct safety and hunting knowledge through completion of a course and by pasing a knowledge test conducted by the police.
I can also join a sports shooting club through which I can do the appropriate safety sourse and once again, pass a knowledge test, again conducted by the police.
I also must pass a police check that can disqualify me if I have a past history of violence, not necessarily by guns.
I think where the USA is doomed to failure is exactly what you say is the major hurdle.
The politicians will feel the need to keep everyone happy.
The politicians are afraid of losing their power and income.
The corruption of politics is too entrenched in the USA so it won't work.
Sad really, because more innocent childen will surely die and nothing will be done then either.
I wish I could be more optimistic but it doesn't seem possible to go down that path in the somewhat excessively pursued freedom of choice society in which you live.
Good luck though.
Mike Colera 10+
What is not made clear on the WWW, is that there are 50 states, commonwealths, a district who by US law can legislate the use, control, licensing of firearms. Some states have rules similar to what you have, some more restrictive, some less. All these legal actions must comply with our basic law of the US constitution. The people in each of these states can determine the extent of their laws. It is recognized that the needs of one state may not be the needs of another. The real question here is a matter of states rights. The current "problem" is that Federal Law would apply to all states equally. People in my state do not want to live by laws that are desired in "California". This goes back to the original Federation of States as created by our constitution. Some of our "founding fathers" desired a strong central governance. Another group was dubious of such governance as history tells of the degradation of strong central governments into tyrannical regimes. So, the "bill of rights" were added to the original constitution to guarantee these individual and states rights. The key to this bill of rights was the retention of militias, armed citizens of the state.
Over the years, the states have relinquished more and more of their and their citizens rights. The concern is now, that with the crippling by federal law of the 2nd amendment and a push to elect the president by direct election, the states would be entirely out of the governance of the country and a strong central government would be complete. The concern for degradation into a tyrannical government is most probable in historical perspective. As previously noted, If it happened to Rome, can the USA be far behind?
I hope I have clarified the situation as many Americans see it. Now are there problems in our society with
social, economic, environmental, more issues than I would list. But, there is focus on the issue that would most directly support a stronger central government.
pat gilbert 50+
http://www.youtube.com/embed/F584p5kJL-U?rel=0****
timothy schlotter
Robin Pearce
Mike Colera 10+
You seem to be having a one sided conversation. It sure would have been interesting to read the
comments you so skillfully foiled.
Robin Pearce
timothy schlotter
Robin Pearce
Robin Pearce
Robin Pearce
timothy schlotter
Mike Colera 10+
What I have been crusading about in this whole conversation is that politicians can not or will not address the problems. There are huge social issues that must be addressed and these politicians will pass some meaningless gun control laws, that will not violate the 2nd amendment and tell the world they took action to resolve the problems. Next year Chicago will have 500 violent murders and some insane person will shoot up a school and we'll dance to this tune again.
Ken brown 30+
In your countries case, militarize the nation, if things go belly up for your nation economically then no other world power will think about invading a country that is armed to the teeth.
Choices.
Mike Colera 10+
Andy Lee
A governments power doesn't stem from the support of law abiding citizens but from the power to punish law breakers. They continue to pass legislation making more things illegal until everyone is a criminal, all in the name of the greater good.
Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
Invention, development, maintenance and application of fire-arms are all manifestations of human behavior. Wondering if guns are very effective self-defense technology, at least one that has practically zero risk of being misused to harm somebody is also a trait of human behavior. Declining to discuss or look for solutions involving no guns is also part of human behavior.
That gun itself doesn't kill is a no brainer. Btw, did you modify your comment in this thread before? I seem to remember something like ""Hello Pabrita, I don't see a reform of law that calls lethal force in the defense of attempted ra..." which I don't see anymore.
Andy Lee
The only, "solution" I hear from non US citizens to that of firearm related homicide is to give up firearm ownership entirely because that will fix everything. It didn't happen in England for 8 years following the ban, firerarm homicides and homicide in general declined in Washington D.C. at a slower rate than existed prior to the ban, Australia has a 13 year old ban and still has firearm homicides, the same goes for Canada. Am I wrong that your country was a territory of England for decades and in that time your citizens by and large not permitted the ownership of firearms? Is it any wonder non violent protest proved to be the tool of your eventual freedom. Please understand that we are not the rest of the world. My country was established through the overthrow of an oppresive government by means of war. We have a different culture, a different mind set, and for now, we have the freedom of choice and the right to exercise it. Firearm ownership is not mandatory, nor is military service compulsory. The majority of our citzens carry non-lethal alternatives ever day. Hundreds of thousands of conflicts are resolved without the loss of life or use of a firearm but those events don't make news headlines.Our founding fathers new the risks involved with giving up hard won freedoms for the promise of secuirty. Our second ammendment exists for a reason. No, I do not eneterain the notion of abdicating the defense of my life to the good will of strangers.
What solution do you have for the problems we face? All I've read so far is that we should give up the right to own firearms for a greater sense of community, we should invent secret agent sleeping pill shooters with gps tracking systems or perhaps soothing chamomile tea and the latest Doctor Phil book.
Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9jvhK9OAYA
However, nothwithstanding your belief, the same country needs to engage with the rest of the world for very compelling reasons, business being one of them.
I don't prefer to stick to the old and possibly outdated ideas of 'nationalism' and hold very different views regarding culture, freedom, democracy and governance from yours, with due respect to your choice. Despite being no safer than many, billions of people and I in India prefer to live without the so-called protection of gun and that is also a choice.
That the choice of unregulated or insufficiently regulated right of possession of a gun by any and all citizens is a proposition that needs to be re-examined is apparent by the very question under which we are debating. I hope you also understand that living peacefully with or without guns is the order of the civilized society and not a news rather an immature and depressed individual's access to an assault weapon and eventual killing of peaceful citizens and children is a news. I think in recent past the world has seen many of such massacres in the US and it's government and the President have reasons to look for reforms.
I have observed references of 2nd Amendment of US constitution. That is a fact in history and since it is fact it cannot have a special version for anybody. I prefer not to delve in it's analysis in this thread.
I am happy that in the end you too are interested in a solution. I do not have the solution. My contribution in this debate is acknowledgement of the problem and supporting thoughts about bringing about a change (giving up guns is my opinion which seems to be rejected by you, that's fine). What is yours?
Andy Lee
The laws we have have are not being enforced. Making more laws that would turn current law adibing citizens into criminals is not the solution. Your proposal does nothing to address the crime in this country. It doesn't address our woefully innadaquate mental health system. It doesn't solve anything. It only exposes our citizens to more potential violence with one less means of protecting their homes and families. Did you know that police forces in my country have been drastically reduced due to our weakend economy? You see, without taxes we can't pay for police.
If the individual citizens right to bear arms is eliminated in my country I think the answer is to close our borders via military enforcement, stop all financial aid to foreign countries and use that money to provide for vastly increased police presence to help secure the well being of our citizens, and to impose stiff import duties and taxes on all goods and foreign workers entering my counrty to help cover the cost of the policies the rest of the world thinks we should enact. Thats my solution.
You actually believe that lethal force in defense of attempted sexual assault should be a crime and changing the law in your country was, "a knee jerk reaciton". Thank God you aren't making laws in my country.
Jason Pontin 100+
Tify Ndanoboi 30+
The problem is the point was made, where the person was solely acting only the emotionality, or what "you feel" about a situation, that involves neither, logic, nor rationale, not education. ie "I'll do it so the children dont suffer"
If you say yes, no guns, and Obama wouldn't lie, not like Bush did. As Obama, is the "new improved" and "cleans up", (yea just like soap powder), so I'll vote for it because it "feels right", and "I dont want the children to suffer", then you as far as I am concerned have no place voting at all.
If your decision is based like that on the "emotionality of a situation", be that how the person looks, speaks, if you can't comprehend the logic and experience of their conversation, then you run the risk of making a decision that later on your child hold against you, as later on, as and when they challenge you on your decision, you'll have no basis, no argument, nor rationalization that you will able to give on why you made it.
And -they- will pay the cost of that decision.
That's the problem with people today, and some of the posts on here, no argument, no facts, no reading, no rationale, just "it feels right".
Well let me point out to them, that the people that wrote the constitution, luckily didn't believe in "emotionality", even though they just had a battle, they like me, believe in looking at the facts, and rationale of any given situation. That more than anything has served the children well for the last few hundred years.
Such things includes reading, the new york times, the London times, and articles such as in vanity fair and uk's Guardian about the export, or lack of, yellowcake uranium powder from Niger.
But that nowadays is for many is just too hard to comprehend, so it's easier to say, "i feel".
And we see, "the dumbing down of civilization", some realize that the old saying is now more true than ever...
The people get the government they deserve.
Mike Colera 10+
Absolutely, too many react emotionally.
The stories of yellow cake and ball bearings being traded around has led to wars and could lead to future wars among nations. Could it be that people are spreading rumors in hopes of creating world tensions, hoping the desolation of war will allow then to come in and "pick up the pieces" for their own agendas? That has happened several times in the last twenty years. And I am not a "conspiracy theorist", I don't think. Historically, that has been a practice through out history. It seems incredible that the world population hasn't caught on to this manipulation yet. Something about not understanding history and doomed to repeat it.
I am a student of American History. I have studied the causes and effects in the creation of the US Constitution. I believe I understand the rational behind the document. I have stated it is the best work of political science in human history. Not perfect, but best. Would it work for other nations?
Not sure, It was uniquely written for our states at that time and situation addressing the promise of the future for the US. We have amended it to reflect emergent cultural changes; some good, some, not so good.
But, I think the basic premise of a Constitutional Republic is the best form of governance.
Don't get me started on "dumbing down" the people. The US had one of the best public education system ( by world standards ) 50 years ago. Now, we are behind many " third world nations" who have nowhere near the wealth and resources to educate we have here. Incredible!
Mike Colera 10+
That is why I am so put upon over our public education system. It is their responsibility to educate the citizens to be aware of our politicians
Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
Fair enough. We can see a glass as half empty or half full : that's our choice. But this is a debate and an open house where people from different culture and back grounds share with a hope to learn. Like Martin Luthar King wanted to learn non-violence from Gandhi.
The deficit that India has in democracy in terms of years is more than compensated in terms of number of people who exercised it.
Mike Colera 10+
Absolutely, I believe that India has maybe three times more people exercising democracy then we have in the USA. I was merely pointing out that India came to a democratic status a very short time ago and in a very different manner then the USA.
I may also say, that democracy (that's a small "d" ) is full of turmoil and may not be pretty. We have had about two hundred years experience. And it hasn't been always easy, including a civil war. Maybe it's a cultural difference. Hopefully, your country will not have to experience some of the dark sides of a democracy. I would just suggest that you be aware of elected politicians who tell your citizens that he knows what is best for the people and India. Vote him out before you have to shoot him out.
Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
Mike Colera 10+
Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
You mean my country of birth and residence.
I think you are referring to Delhi Gang Rape. To my knowledge 5 have been accused of the crime, all 5 arrested, jailed and put to trial. In a knee jerk reaction Indian Government (under tremendous criticism and protests) proposed first track courts to deal with rape/sexual assault cases. A commission formed specifically for the purpose recommended series of administrative reforms to deal with such crime. Man slaughter in defense of a rape attempt is proposed to be treated as not a crime. That's reasonably fair performance, if not ideal scenario, of a democratic society.
I seriously doubt if possession of gun by citizens will at all help as you suggest. The rape statistics of USA does not corroborate your suggestion.
Andy Lee
The persons who have perpetrated mass murder in my country are also either incarcerated or dead. It does nothing to mitigate the damage they have done. We are still back to the argument that the use of a thing is at the discretion of the individual, for good or for ill. Perhaps we can both agree that banning busses in your country makes no sense because the vast majority are not used in the commision of crimes. The same thing can be said of firearms in my country.
As for the talk of non lethal defense means, we have them. Pepper spray, stun guns, hand cuffs and cell phones can do everything Chad describes with the exception of stopping a gun wielding assailant.
Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
I know there is a national association for rifle in the US. If we 'love' the idea of a gun, the power and protection it promises we will never graduate to a more intelligent non-lethal yet effective deterrent for a possible crime. And no logic will work.
I think the present question and debate behind gun control/regulation in the US is due to a number of unfortunate and sad instances of violence. If I am not very wrong in Sandy Hook incidence, there was a shield from the gun, though not ideal. It was the body a teacher who was trying to protect children.
It baffles me how human mind which can have such courage cannot discover a deterrent to gun violence.
Andy Lee
The argument I make isn't based on a love of guns but a love of logic and common sense that denies the acceptance of, "solutions" that can not work and pose an undue burden on law abiding citizens. As I have said before, firearm related homicide has been on a general decline in this coutry for decades.
These recent horrific incidents indicate a problem that needs to be addressed but I believe it is far more behavioral than it is technical. Find a way to address all violent crime and I believe the solution will involve far modification of more human behavior than technology.
chad manderscheid 10+
chad manderscheid 10+
Mike Colera 10+
So, what do I believe can be acceptable to the gun owning stakeholders. Based on my understanding of NRA position and principles:
Police powers are the right of the state. No Federal officer should have police powers except in the matter of Federal laws.
Gun laws and regulations etc. should be held at the state level. States would assume the activities of the ATF for their state and the ATF be eliminated. States would coordinate through a national database identities of those individuals who are not authorized to buy a gun, ie. felons, domestic abusers, mentally dangerous, etc. gun sellers would check a potential buyer to the data base.
All federal laws effecting guns should be rescinded and left to the states to address.
Individual states can address gun controls for their states as their electorate deems required. If "California" wants to have very strict limits on guns, so be it. The SCOTUS can address state laws as to constitutionality.
There should be no federal listing of gun owners. Ownership privacy should be made a legal right.
Need by Federal officers as to gun ownership would only be available by warrant..
Further, to insure state / federal relationship as envisioned by the founding fathers, the 17th Amendment should be revoked. Further, the apparent policing action of the TSA should be curtailed under the limited Federal policing authority.
Robin Pearce
Tify Ndanoboi 30+
Really, maybe the children, would prefer if you look at why is was in the constitution in the first place, than just give it up under some misguided sense of dubious morality.
Because if you dont do the homework, dont put the effort, it's the children that WILL suffer.
Mike Colera 10+
Have you understood nothing of what I said? Most American would conduct a deadly firefight ( a hail of bullets) to defend their children. Men who are jailed for hurting children have almost no life expectancy in prisons. No, defending children are high up on America's list for the use of deadly force.
Andy Lee
I dont believe there is a viable technological solution to human nature. All personal opinions aside, it has been stated repeatedly that the use of an object is entirely dependent upon the user.We have many technological means of rendering firearms innoperable by the owner. Trigger locks, cable locks and/or gun safes are mandated throughout much of the country.The idea of biometric locks is interesting but it wouldn't stop a legal firearm purchaser from using the weapon. Sony spent millions of dollars in an attempt to prevent copying of its music cd's onto computers and it was defeated with .79 cent a magic marker. There is no technological security system that can't be overcome. According to the CIA and the president the government needs access to all corporate computer systems in order to identify and counter attempted cyber crimes. How reliable would a "kill switch" system be?
How do you go about creating a system of technologial governance of human behavior and where does the use of that technology end? How long before your car is prohibited from starting because an environmental arm of government decides your carbon foot print is too large. Legislation is already being drafted in California that will tax drivers based on the miles they drive.
Laws are being implemented in the name of the public good that deny individuals the freedom of choice and the ability to say NO. Every year we are more regulated, legislated, taxed and penalized. How much government intrusion and regulation will you tolerate in the name of the greater good? National healthcare, the patriot act, neither of those were put to a public vote. What's next, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? Please bear in mind, the lion doesn't loose sleep over the opinions of the lamb. What use is a vote without the means to enforce it.
Rob, perhaps the exclusive answer you seek can be found in an enigeneering forum.
Rob Freda
That said I felt I was pretty clear that in order to find a way through the morass of political opinion one must first identify the stakeholders that need to be accommodated, isolate their concerns and needs, and then try to find a strategy that accommodates the major stakeholders concerns with as little "pain" as possible. As a few pointed out it will never be painless, but I was using it euphemistically as it is used sometimes in business.
After identifying the stakeholder concerns and needs a spectrum of solutions should present themselves that can accommodate various stakeholders to greater or lesser degrees. I expressed one solution that I thought of quickly within the solution space. I expected that for the most part the conversation would pick at that idea in such a way as to improve it or reveal some inherent flaw.
In addition to that I expected, given this is a TED forum, that there would be other ideas brought forth that used the basic premise and approach but that were hopefully equivalent or better or showed other avenues of approach.
Unfortunately unless I missed it somewhere I have yet to see an idea broached here that in fact uses the basic approach to try another solution. Again with a few exceptions all I have seen is a bunch of opinions being spat out that have little or nothing to with exploring and enhancing or even finding some viable potential solutions.
I expected better of this forum and would hope in the last day that perhaps you can all put your politics to the side and try to broach solutions
Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
It also appears to me that a number of commenters believe that gun is the only form of protection even in a city managed by a police department therefore any regulation on its possession is a direct assault on an individual right.
It is interesting to see logic in favor of a right to possess a gun like (a) guns are benevolent compared to primitive weapon because it can take life of only the targeted, (b) guns need a decision by a person to pull the trigger so guns are as harmless as, say a piece of stone (which may also kill if so intended) and (c) those who are suggesting that guns should not be possessed by one and all are exhibiting their dire lack of experience of possessing guns.
I shall be waiting for a gun to be developed that can be used only for self defense and protection of people and property.
Andy Lee
Since the founding of America the United States government said give up your guns and we will take care of you to a great number of native people, giving up their guns in exchange for security didn't work out for them and it won't work for the rest of us.
Mike Colera 10+
We took away their weapons, herded them into really sorry reservations, destroyed their dignity
and to cap the insult we formed a Bureau of Indian Affairs. If the Federal Government could do this to the native Americans, what makes the rest of us feel safe.
Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
I noticed that at the heart of this debate lies profound questions like human nature and concept of freedom and self-defense. The country that I am born into started with a unique experiment of defense and free expression through non-violence. I am very unsure if that experiment has succeeded in the modern political nation state that is my country of birth and residence.
I was wondering if it is wise to see Government and it's policies as anything differentiated from the people in a democratic set up. If I seek the right to defend myself through weapons, wouldn't it be seen as mistrust on my part towards the democratic set up?
Freedom includes the right to compromise of one's feelings (here the feeling of safety) for a greater benefit of the community.
Andy Lee
While we may all hope for the best it is prudent to prepare for the worst rather than rely upon the benevolence of strangers.
I can't help but think the women of your country might feel safer with a more definite means of detering aggressive advances than saying no.
Mike Colera 10+
Also, the point that is too often misunderstood about American independence and our 2nd Amendment is that Americans are very suspicious of strong central governments evolving into tyrannies. And to make matters worse, in many countries one tyrannical government is overthrown and replaced by another tyrannical government. That is too long a list.
In our culture, each of us must remain free for the greater benefit of our community.
Mike Colera 10+
Gun Violence !
Gun violence, most all violence seems to be concentrated in the large metropolitan areas. Gun control measures seem to have little effect. Compare Chicago, IL with Houston, TX
Political Climate !
It has been said that the USA is more politically polarized then ever. Not sure about ever, but if we look historically, the split is between Federalist and Antifederalist. In the beginning, the Federalist believed in strong central governance and even offered Washington a crown. The Federalist were from the big cities and the Antifederalists from rural areas. The Antifederalists believed in limited government with strong individual rights. Hence the Bill of rights. Yes, the Antifederalist were concerned that a strong central government could become tyrannical.
Painless Compromise !
An oxymoron.
Technological additions to firearms !
I think there is a need here. Gun accidents, many by children finding Dad's gun. Some device to limit use of gun by others has promise.
Long Distance Opinionated Evaluations !
TED is a world wide forum. This subject is most focused on problems within the.USA. Helpful suggestions from far away can be appreciated. The forest from the trees axiom. But, so many comments were a venomous harangue pointed at the USA and Americans. Most Americans would be loathe to criticize other great democratic nations that
we call friends and allies. However, that feeling is not reciprocated on these pages. So many comments were presented with contempt and arrogance and usually with little or misguided facts. So, I have learned that TED is truly an open forum, even to the braying of pompous asses.
Ross G
A bullet will only hit what the gun is aimed at; but first the bullets must be loaded into the gun, the gun must then be cocked & pointed, and then the trigger must be pulled.
When you remove guns from the equation, they are immediately replaced with pipe-bombs and other make-shift explosives that are far less humane, and less specific. Explosives and/or fires kill & maim entire buildings, and all that just to get to 1 person. Then of course, there's poison.
You see, guns have lowered the violent crime fatality rate tremendously. A fact that is easily discovered by researching the numbers of countries where guns are outlawed. Not only have they lowered violent crimes, they are a thoroughly proven deterrent to all other types of crime as well. Again, all of this information is easily found.
All this and we haven't even come to the issue of tyranny. It's true, the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify types of arms. Think about that. The drafters of the Bill of Rights have heavily documented their positions in both letters and speeches, as well as the sound reasoning behind those positions. According to our founders, we should have access to drones and tomahawk missiles. If that scares you, why? It's not because of the drones or the missiles, it's because of the people who would wield them. And you see, therein lies the problem. The people have been subverted, systematically & deliberately. Just look at yourself.
Let's be real, guns are one of the lowest causes of death in the country. Why aren't we focused on medical errors or automotive safety? Why isn't the media, who is obviously controlling everything you think, concerned with the bigger fish?
Seriously, give up TV and take up reading.
Roman Schroeder
Let me predicate by saying that I am American. I am against all forms of slavery including Marxism. I am trained marksman, a vet as well as a family man.
First question I have is: If a criminal broke the law to obtain possession of a firearm(s.) And then subsequently used that firearm to commit murder(s) like in the Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora and V-Tech then why are some of you talking about totalitarian measures and the infliction of criminal consequences on law abiding citizens that have done nothing wrong?
Second question is: Would it be more logical and effective to first look at the failures in the enforcement of the current laws before we discuss the implementation of new laws?
The USA is a free country. We are not subjects or slaves. We do not bow to any monarchy nor do we adorn our currency with the images of royalty or dictators. Our freedom is only predicated on our ability and willingness to defend ourselves. Our Constitution, like every other constitution means nothing if the people have no way to defend their rights.
People who are against guns often forget that criminals by nature don't care about laws and consequences. And they also forget that 99.9% of the time when a crime is committed the police show after the crime. So if you disarm people or limit their ability to defend themselves. Doesn't that put you in the same spectrum of evil as the people that commit murders and rape women? An unwitting accomplice?
Some of the ideas about gun control in the USA are forged in ignorance by people that don't even own a weapon or have never used one. It's like taking driving tips from someone that neither drives nor owns a car.
Rob Freda
Where in the idea did it suggest any of what you have in your comment? The idea did not restrict gun ownership. it was not against guns. it merely applied the idea that maybe the product should include some basic safety measures and that applying those safety measures would accommodate any concerns that gun manufacturers might have to be inspired to fight it because they would make more revenue which is really the whole reason for the La Pierre positioning. At this moment the gun manufacturers are laughing their way to the bank and it has nothing to do with freedom or being an american. If they were the type of citizens or people you admire they would try some of this themselves without any laws.
Roman Schroeder
You were badgering people with your comments. Challenging them to produce evidence to support and underpin their opinions. And when they did and they certainly did, you chose to ignore the reality and then produced the above nonsensical drivel that you just posted ten minutes ago.
Consider yourself schooled.
And your biometric idea is not your idea. It was already tried with police weapons years ago. It won't work because when a people need their weapons to defend their lives the last thing in the world they want to happen is for their weapon to fail. If a weapon is required to be wound up like a camping flashlight or required to take power from a battery then that weapon will fail and people will die. Nice idea you had there buddy.
Your idea of as "little pain" as possible is laughable because you only want the gun owners to give up something. How about this. I would happy to trade my large capacity magazines and have universal background checks if non-gun owners would be willing to pay a 50% income tax to fund the needed extra security to keep every American safe. As well as fully funding a Victims Medical Insurance Program. How is that for a painless idea?
Robin Pearce
Tify Ndanoboi 30+
ie the average person has no conception of what they are up against when they own a gun.
You have NO evidence for that.
Robin Pearce
Robin Pearce
Pat Henderson
You cannot eliminate all dangers and freedom comes at a price and cost.
I will not give up freedom for security.
Some want to eliminate certain weapons for what they think is security when those very weapons secure those very freedoms.
Pat Henderson
those particular laws that have been responsable for advanceing our societies the
most and individual freedom is one of the ideas that I believe are the most important.
While we may not like the dangers that these weapons pose when in the hands of those
who would do those appalling things as in what we term as mass murder. Weapons have
done as much good as evil.
Weapons have brought the very freedoms we have at this moment and
have killed many innocents as well.I don't think there is a viable argument
against that statement.
I am of the opinion that as long as others have weapons in this imperfect world
be it government or idividual I want mine as well as said by others in varying forms
in this discussion.
As I have said in another post that I was educated about the use of weapons ie, guns
at a young age and have been around or onwed them all of my life. I have never pulled
my weapon on another human though some have been pulled on me without reason and without
real intent to use them otherwise I may not be here today.
When I have been violent in this life it has been in defense of myself or a loved one and
I did not use a gun, not to say I wouldn't if I saw the need.
Disagreement whether I was justified in my actions at that point would be the discussion.
whether I used a gun,club,knife or my hands and feet.
I don't mean to sound as if
I'm bored with this discussion But in fact I am.
Pat Henderson
I find something that may be disturbing to some and comforting to others.
I have very conservative and very liberal views on the very same issues.
I find that I get the most replies to my posts when I pick one side or
the other and ignore the other side of the issue almost completely.
As with Dewayne I provoked him with a stance that to him, from my post,
was seemingly intractable. That was an experiment on my part.Sorry Dewayne.
He was, I would say convinced by those particular statements of my
state of mind on this issue and basically did not want to hear anything
I had to say because to him I seemed ridiculous. Totally understandable.
It seems to me that we could change the title of this conversation how do
we bring common sense to the masses.
I mean most people I meet have a healthy dose of common sense when talking
to them on a one on one face to face talk. but as soon as they are
in a more public setting they have a need to represent themselves in a
slightly different way, meaning they change the way they see the world
to accommodate the world. People are generally more abusive to others
when they are in a crowd and I believe it is easier when you stand from
that point of view to be that way. Make no mistake this online discussion is
in the publicWe as humans have always sought acceptance to our clan,tribe,clique or
society. It's easier to lean in a certain way since those around us are
already doing so.
Most people alive in this world today, I believe, are Pretty normal, if there is
such a thing.
What I'm trying get across here is that huge difference of
opinion we think we have here.
We are trying to have a discussion on the dangers of weapons (guns in particular)
in our society.
There are very sane arguments on both sides of the issue and some have espoused
ideas, including me that we are discussing a social problem more than a procession of
weapons in our society problem.
Dwayne Rabideau
But for the sake of this entire argument, too much is left for conjecture and not facts.
People will use selective points in an effort to represent their point of view.
What I do believe is statistics and follow through by looking at "Cause and effect"
What you cannot deny is the body count that comes from gun possession.
shawn disney 10+
Dwayne Rabideau
The per capita gun homicide rate in Switzerland is 11x greater than that of Great Britain who has a hand gun AND automatic/semi-automatic gun ban. In fact in all gun related deaths period, Switzerland's rate 15x that of Great Britain
Canada who has strict handgun regulations and bans on automatic and semi-automatic weapons is still 2x safer than Switzerland and 7x safer than the US per capita.
The percentage of overall homicide rates and percentage of gun homicides in that number also tell the tale.
Switzerland 72%
US 68.3%
Canada 28.3%
Great Britain 8%
China (handgun ban) 3%
Japan (handgun ban) 1%