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 22 2013: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" I do not think it takes a PHD in anything to understand exactaly what that statement means. Why not leave it at "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"? Because the men who penned our founding documents, did so from experience, from what history had shown them to be the WRONG way to govern. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, the screams of dying soilders, brothers, and sons, the smell of gunpowder and rotting flesh were first hand to these men. (watching CNN DOES NOT QUALIFY YOU) These were men of purpose who came together to make sure that no American would have to sacrafise so much ever again, and that's why those 4 words are there "shall not be infringed".
    There is not an American alive today (with the exception of direct family of a U.S. Soilder killed in action and those who fled from other countries and became U.S. citizens) who has sacraficed TO BE an American and that is because the men who did left us with playbook so we would never have to. Oh, by the way, your local Starbucks being closed in observance of MLK Day does not count as sacrafice.
    That same day in 1791 the First Amendment was also adopted. I could just imagine the uproar if the same game was played with it's clear and easly understandable language " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" Oh...could you imagine what would happen if the Goverment tried to restrict the press!!!! Or what if later this week you recieve a ticket / fine in the mail for $5000.00 because you read this and some Senator didn't like that. I can hear it now, "well that's different".
    No it's not, I wonder just how many people have been killed in the name of religion. not enough fingers & toes
    • Jan 23 2013: come on. the full amendment

      "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringe"

      and the other version

      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringe

      in either case the people's right is modified and justified by need for a well-regulated militia and therefore the way in which the keeping and bearing of said arms is done is intended to be regulated and more than that well-regulated. that has a pretty clear cut meaning to me. that in the last defense of the country (in their case the first defense as they did not want a standing amy) a well-armed populace is liberty's best defense. conversely these men were as you point out men of history. they knew the societal effect of a well-armed populace with no central organized regulation over that populace. They knew of Florence and the power of the rich in continental Europe to simply kill if the offense was sufficient with no redress under law. ipso any gun that can reasonably used in defense would be protected but those weapons and their owners would be subject to central and organized regulation. bear and keep does not even necessarily give an individual the right to keep the gun at home. remember the part you left out which is the whole justification for the people having this right is- "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

      If you get rid of that pesky modifier which throws all kinds of wrenches in then your interpretation is clear cut. perhaps we can just hop on over to DC and cross that out. why exactly would you leave that part out?
      • Jan 24 2013: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
        — Tench Coxe, 1788.
        This speach was given during meetings that were held regarding rattifacation of the amendments.
        This speach was recieved with a standing ovation.
        "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from
        time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take
        arms...the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood
        of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
        -- Thomas Jefferson
        "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared
        to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic
        purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice
        for that freedom."
        -- John F. Kennedy

        Or if you would rather, take a look at the actual legal definition of the militia as set forth in the United States Code:
        Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:
        "(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
        b) The classes of the militia are —
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.