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.

Thoughts?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jan 26 2013: This one is a kind of no-brainer, in my books, however, I am Canadian and our law is much more strict, with commendable reason.

    Nevertheless, gun registry is simple, and can be answered simply by asking:
    -Why do we have driving permits as well, vehicle registration?-
    • Jan 29 2013: Simply put, Arms are a Right. Vehicles are a privilege. Before you argue about cars not existing in that time. Think of this, they had horses so transport by a means that was not human was possible. Why didn't they add that to the Bill of Rights?
      • thumb
        Jan 29 2013: {face palm}

        Yeah, and the Bill of Rights was written on hemp paper... Tell you what;
        Go into an Office Depot, look for some hemp paper, come back, and tell me what you find.

        Secondly, I would think that a concerned patriot (such as you seem), would be more interested in potentially preserving the lives of his fellow citizens. Not some silly rule, that society is evolving past.


        http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/publishersplatform/more-guns-more-shootings-more-profit
        ~Oliver
        • Jan 29 2013: I am interested in preserving the ability for people to live their lives freely. Freedom and security for everyone do not work together. It is up to the individual person to protect his or her self and family. That is your responsibility. I am interested in my fellow citizens taking responsibility for themselves.

          People are born, they live several decades, then they die. Nothing tragic about it. I am interested in people being able to live free though, and freedom can be scary and dangerous. I will take freedom over safety. Living life constricted by everyone else's fear and irresponsibility is the same as being in jail.

          Just so you know, the "silly rule" that you are talking about exists so that you may use the "silly rule" before it to talk to me. take a second to think about that before talking about our Bill of Rights disrespectfully.
        • Jan 29 2013: On the hemp paper comment. Hemp is coming back because of the States using the Bill of Rights (the 10th Article) to regulate their own growing of hemp and marijuana. The States had allowed the Federal to dictate Unconstitutional laws and now they are taking that power back.
        • Jan 29 2013: Oliver: You suggest that the Bill of Rights is outdated and irrelevant . Assuming you are a grownup person, do you really believe that human nature has changed in a mere 200 years?!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.