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: Re: Solving gun violence in today's insane political climate

    Each and every year, there are about 150 Mass murders by mentally unstable individuals each year with the use of firearms. I think is an insane act to perpetrate a mass murder by whatever means, gun, bomb, poison, or any other method. Like it or not this is the price we have as a society of very free individuals pay for the status quo. The real question is “ What is an acceptable number ? ” 300,000,000 people, 150 mass murders. This statistic has remained fairly constant for the past 20 years, through varying levels of gun control.

    Ignoring reality for a moment, lets assume that a magic virus melted all the guns in the US and there were no firearms anywhere, police, military, or civilian. Would mass murders cease to exist?
    Would deranged individuals seek another method to perpetrate mass murder? Would the numbers change?

    I have read many comments from both sides of the gun debate.
    It occurs to me that our government has lost sight of its own morality and each camp has its own problems.

    The Republicans are portrayed as bought off by the banks, wall street, and rich and powerful seeking to legalize greed in its primal form to take advantage of the poor, working poor and middle class.

    The Democrats seem too quick to attack the rights of all Americans on both the First and Second Amendments. Dems have for the first time, a chance of passing some real legislation for the good of the country and will be decimated at the next election due to this fight only to see it overturned.
    Dems may be able to force some legislation through, but at what real cost? Years as the minority party? Loss of all the progress toward other programs envisioned? How many others will pay the price for such action and in what ways?

    The legislators responsibility is not to try to subjugate the minority, but to protect the minority. There may be enough votes to pass gun control but should we ? Would it be a win?
    • Jan 19 2013: all that said steve we are the only OCED country that has this problem. I am neither Dem nor Republican. Both parties are bought and paid for to greater or lesser extents. Why do you think we have not had any real financial reform.

      all that said the real solution is to explain aspects of the constitution that the right does not seem to clearly understand.

      Guns and religion are the two most notable where the republicans understanding of the constitution is almost diametrically opposed to the actually writing and the original intent.

      On religion and the whole birth control thing. The constitution was designed to protect the individual's right to freedom of religion, not the religion's right to impose its values on any individual either practicing or working for it. The Repub's got the constitution bass ackwards on this one.

      On guns the second amendment is contextual with maintaining a militia but let's ignore that. let's just take the second part. the constitution does not specify the type of "arms". In our government that means the types are determined by regulations and laws passed by congress. the only way a regulation is actually unconstitutional is if it infringes on the global unspecified right, not if it regulates the parameters of the right.

      all that said hammering away at the reality of the constitution vs. the Repub fantasy of it is not going to get anything done so one must at some point revert to real politick and look for solutions that have nothing to do with gun laws but can achieve a similar result
      • Jan 19 2013: Rob:
        Thanks for the reply, I must admit I had to look up the countries in the OCED ( Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

        Your statement “we are the only OCED country that has this problem” is factually incorrect. Mexico which has strict gun laws is in a lawless state of war with mass killings each day due to the drug wars that continue unabated.

        Mexico's current status quo is similar to our prohibition period, which exemplifies the argument “if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns” . Given the choice I would rather live anywhere in the US under current gun laws rather than live in Juarez unarmed. Greed, corruption, violence and murder is the law of outlaws working in a black market whether we are talking about guns, drugs, prostitution or other illegal activity.

        There has been a lot of talk and some action on legalization of Marijuana in the US, while I do not use the stuff, it seems to me there is a valid argument in legalizing rather than continuing to allow drug cartels to kill innocents for profit. This debate and other originated from the school shooting, but many more die each day in the trafficking of illegal narcotics. Yet after an endless cost and escalation of efforts by our government, the demand and use is still there.

        Do we really want our gun market to be ruled by cartels? If we outlaw guns, or severely prohibit them will we not set the stage for cartels to profit from the demand? Will they do background checks?
        • Jan 20 2013: You are right about Mexico. Then G7. We are the only G7 country....

          Once more........no one wants to take away your gun!!!! The whole premise of the idea is that that is not going to fly so it is a non-starter. personally I find this entire thing irrational and absurd but since that really does not matter and since guns are not going away and if you realistically look at the level of complexity of the intersection of licensing and mental health which is never going to pass the NRA sniff test anyway because they have run the cost benefit analysis and strict background checks and licensing would reduce growth and revenue So since both sides have multiple non-starters why not bypass the idiocy on both sides and see if we can actually do something useful.
    • thumb
      Jan 20 2013: Another reason why we should endeavor to find a solution outside the bias of any party. Washington had it right: the true solution will be bi-partisan because it won't attempt to take a side.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.