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 24 2013: At age 80 my Father can recall that one of his classes in high school was a shooting class.
    He was telling me that on any Sunday afternoon he and his friends might be seen with .22 rifles slung across their backs riding their bikes through neighborhoods to an open field where they would go shoot cans. He also recalled a scheduled competition for school that was held on a Saturday and to get there he walked with rifle in hand down to the subway and rode it to the competition location and after the match was over he walked over to his cousins house for dinner. It was well after dark when he got back on the subway to go home. A teenage boy with a firearm by himself in public on the subway and NOT ONE odd look from anyone.
    Let’s have a teenager take the exact same trip today, people would be screaming, phones would be recording , and cops would be standing on is neck so quick your head will spin.
    So what is the difference, it's NOT THE GUN. Because as we all know there has never been a case off a gun walking down the street shooting at people but there has been cases of a PERSON walking down the street firing a gun.
    • thumb
      Jan 25 2013: John
      Your father's story was mine. I was on my high school rifle team. I got the Scout badge for marksmanship and I went out with my friends on Saturday's hunting. We went after woodchuck. It's a hard shot with a .22 but they are delicious. Later, I found myself in the Army. they issued me an M1 Garand. It was finest rifle ever. My marksmanship training proved a beneficial skill later. Marksmanship training in schools was big back then. The Army saw the performance of Sgt York in WW I. Citizens who were to be soldiers in future wars would need marksmanship training. So, when a young man was seen walking down the street with a rifle then, it was no big deal. I do remember an old neighbor lady called to me one day "to be careful, don't put your eye out"
      One other thing was different then. When my family went to see relatives in the big city, we had to drive through the poor part of town. And these people were poor, but you saw kids playing in street, moms calling out, just like on my home street. What you didn't see there then that you do now are street gangs, drug dealings, drive bys and all the things you see in big cities today. What changed? And in my lifetime?
      I am told that there is a new norm, my days are gone.
      Today it's "cool" to use a little pot, or run a line, or even better stuff out there, so what if your dealers are shooting up those neighborhoods out there. Just don't let them come to this neighborhood, it's gated. And if you little kid acts up in school, it's some kind of thing, give him drugs so he stays slumped in the back of the class. When he gets to high school he can steal a gun and shoot up all those classmates who teased him.
      But it's all about those guns, your new norm society had nothing to do with it.
      • Jan 28 2013: mike am guessing you grew up in the '50's. as a student of history you should know that period was a singular anomaly in human history.
    • Jan 28 2013: perfectly obvious that a human pulls the trigger. also perfectly obvious if there is no trigger nothing happens. this one hand clapping argument is getting really old. it is not an argument. it is a statement of fact that is obvious to everyone and has little or nothing to do with anything or a solution. it is like saying coal burning does not cause pollution, turning your light on does. what is the likelihood that people will stop turning on lights. prevalence of guns by every empirical piece of evidence is directly correlated to deaths. in science to determine causality where there is not a direct connection one examines correlations. there is nothing else that correlates as closely as ownership and deaths, not violent video game usage, not drugs, not mental illness, not ANYTHING ELSE.

      I have no problem moving on from such untenable positions as "let's ban everything". I have a huge problem with ignoring basic reality in favor of a personal desire. that means to me that regardless of what the logical side does there will never be a lasting resolution because even the most basic premises that are rigorously supported are thrown out the window... in favor of what exactly?
      • Jan 29 2013: Rob: If you are really serious about figuring it out, you really need to take into account that guns PREVENT crimes., big time. Why do the Police carry them? It's not to murder people; they are not allowed to.. Same for civilians. Something like a couple of milllion times a year, guns prevent crimes. Of course, that "Doesn't count" in the Gun Control fanatics mind. But it should.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.