TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

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.



Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jan 18 2013: The numbers are staggering, but for some reason any attempt to rationally look at the situation turns into "they"-whoever "they" are-are trying to take away all of my guns! The rights of the gun owners are deemed paramount, without any consideration of the impact their righst have on others. Take a look at this... http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167#qundefined It seems reasonable, no?
    • Jan 18 2013: makes perfect sense. think one of the authors was on NPR a few weeks back with this point. would say throw everything into the hopper. the more vectors you can attack a disease from the more likely you are to beat it.
    • Jan 19 2013: I couldn't help but shake my head reading the chart you posted. Why is it that the government is responsible for everything? We will never succeed in curbing any kind of violence unless individuals take responsibility for their own actions.

      A gun grab will stop gun violence just like a period of prohibition prevented drinking. Drinking is a perfect example, are there legitimate uses? yes it is arguable. How many alcohol related deaths are there in this country? MANY. Yet Americans want their freedom to drink more than they want the safety a zero alcohol society would hypothetically provide.

      Think about it, if you start putting restrictions on guns, like large mag restriction or semi auto restriction, you put the gun market in the hands of cartels just like the current marijuana situation. If every gun in the world could be melted down, I would be all for it. But there are 300 million guns in America (many of which violate the proposed gun restrictions by our president), and they don't exactly have an expiration date, so to try and regulate them only would create a black market.

      Hope these thoughts make sense, I had alot of thoughts running through my head at once.
      • thumb
        Jan 20 2013: Problem is majority of people in this world prefer to blame someone else for their problems instead of standing up and saying yep my fault I F***ed up I'll take the consequences. Why?? because it's easier, even easier blame the Government it's all their fault they didn't do something in the first place.

        Human nature,= avoid responsibility if you can blame someone else.
      • Jan 20 2013: there already is a defacto "black market". they are called gun shows. to address Sean's point and your response. treating smoking tobacco and drinking and driving as public health issues have led to a substantial reduction in the rate of incidence, so I find it very hard to fathom why one would not d with guns

        it is unclear to me why you would have a problem with that unless you do not want the public's attitude on guns to change?

        how you get from regulation to all the guns being in the hand of the cartels honestly is a really big leap. sounds like a Fox news meme. just examine that comment for internal inconsistency for a moment. one you are assuming you personally are in an arms race with the cartels. two you must be assuming that the government of the US has now been defunded to the point where it and state and local governments can no longer perform their functions. three you personally can somehow build and deploy a sufficient arsenal to "protect" yourself. if you really think that situation is around the corner you better move to the EU because then law abiding citizens are toast unless we all move to Glenn Beck's little totalitarian village.
      • Jan 22 2013: Wow Corbin, your response made me go look at the chart again to make sure I posted the right thing! There is no "gun grab" there, and there nowhere does it remove personal responsibility for actions. There are common sense approaches that treat gun violence in much the same way we treat drinking and driving--as a correctable, wasteful loss of life. The public health approach to drinking and driving has been very successful, but we also didn't have anyone irrationally bleating that "they" were going to take away all of their cars. I do like that you admit that it is a trade-off between freedom and death rate, as the gun homicide rate in the US is undeniably multiples higher than comaparable developed countries. The question becomes, how many preventable deaths are acceptable to you in order to preserve the have unfettered access to weapons. Would you be OK with mandatory background checks if it saves 10 lives, or 100 lives, or would it have to save a thousand for example? I don't know the answer, but I think that is the way the question should be framed.
    • thumb
      Jan 20 2013: We must have grace with ourselves; there will be error, and lots of it. Let's back up, take a breath, and appreciate the astounding problem at hand: finding the balance point between a multitude of cultures and races and their respective values. The real solution shouldn't have a party bias because the moment we attempt to find a solution with our GOP or Democrat party hats on, we've lost sight of progress. Don't despair! We will get there with hard work, revision, and baby steps!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.