TED Conversations

Rob Freda

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?

+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Dinoop Menon

    • 0
    Jan 20 2013: The question and answer for this issue is simple, but the difficult part is to implement it. First of all you don't require guns to protect yourself, if you make sure that the chances of the same going into a criminal or mentally ill person is considerably eliminated. So the issue is to make sure atleast 90% of the civilian population of a country do not own a gun or atleast not an assault rifle. The fact is that in US the number of people dying of gun shots is more than our soldiers dying in Kashmir fighting terrorists every year. Then the problem is the gun lobby who makes insane arguments like there are guns to protect presidents daughter but not yours. it works very similar to tobacco lobby, .
    The real question is that, are your leaders ready to take tough decisions or do they demand further sacrifice of innocent life before taking tough decisions. What you should is to to force the government,for that and make a group that organize protests and boycott guns, and run campaigns for the same cause. And for that reason the ideas that you have suggested is very interesting but the thing in current world bypassing these systems will not take a long time. So I think what your country needs is not a sophisticated Gun or a bill which enables that, but you really need some leaders with "balls" as Americans say.

    • Rob Freda

      • 0
      Jan 20 2013: you are right all the way around. unfortunately "balls" are in short supply and even if the dems had them the house/senate split means we are stuck for the short term with a law making body that is non-functional. in that environment the only way I can see pushing anything through is if you throw the gun lobby some mandated revenues so they clear away the house dam. basically the same way they got healthcare pushed through.
    • thumb

      bristol ozturgut

      • +1
      Jan 20 2013: But criminals will still get and use guns, even if it's illegal. So, instead of implementing laws that law-abiding citizens will follow - like reducing gun flow - we should look at putting guns in the hands of those who have the training and skill to use guns (but aren't allowed to carry). Who? School guards. These guards are everywhere kids are, but, unfortunately, don't carry. Right now, they are just straw dogs.
      • thumb

        Dinoop Menon

        • 0
        Jan 20 2013: its not a bad idea to give those guards a gun, but it would just contain a disaster than preventing them. May be 5 innocent will die instead of 10, but it is impossible to micro monitor a society with armed people to ensure security. If that was the case a group of armed cops would have been enough to maintain law and order.The point is you cant give everyone a gun to protect everyone else from it, when a product is freely available in market , its always difficult to contain who possess it either legally or illegally. In a country where Guns are scarcely used by public its easy to trace their smuggling and other illegal activities. But the same is much difficult in a country where 47% of civilian household possess a gun.And it just require less than 1 % of psychopaths or mentally ill people to cause a disaster every month

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.