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 26 2013: I am 30yrs old. I am a licensed firearm instructor and I don't ever force or even strongly encourage people to join the shooting sports even if it is for personal/home defense.

    It is very disturbing to hear people talking about banning firearms they know nothing about. Currently by the definition at least 90% of guns today are "Assault Weapons". They are admitting they have never used or touched a firearm yet they feel they have the right to tell us what we do and don't need. In what other aspect in life would this be acceptable? How can you discuss such major actions without knowing what you are even looking at? The truth is by doing it blindly it is showing that it is an all out assault on the 2nd Amendment and firearms in general.

    There was a time when it was very common for schools to have shooting clubs. Even in 1998 in SoCal I took a class in school for Gunsmithing. Kids had rifles in their trucks for hunting season and im talking less than 40miles from Los Angeles. I tell you anti gun people honestly, it is NOT the firearm that is the problem. Education in firearms is seriously lacking. Guns are everywhere and will continue to be regardless of what a piece of paper says. If you care about your kids, teach them to at least not touch and get an adult... at the very least please!

    Do i have an answer? No... I wish i did. I do think the medications that kids are being put on for simply being hyper or not putting energy where the school or parent wants it is not helping. Bullying in school is worse than ever with everything being online and accessible to the world. Kids are being prescribed Anti Depressants and turned into Zombies and that just doesn't seem right.

    IMO if you are going to be anti gun, then your opinion is mute unless you have actually learned about what you hate so much. In CA we have 10rd magazine limits and it takes less than 2 seconds to change a magazine. Please, do your homework. Don't be uninformed like the politicians :(
    • Jan 28 2013: joe,

      did not say ban guns. think everyone knows that is fighting city hall (not necessarily because the majority would not go for it). just for the fun though try looking up a map of per capita gun ownership and per capita gun related deaths. the two map directly correlate (lowest in the northeast and highest in the south) so empirically the idea that the availability of guns is not the problem is complete hooey unsupported by the facts.

      only by deliberately ignoring rationality, reality, and a preponderance of the scientific evidence can one make the statement that the guns do not directly cause the problem. you do not sound like that type and I understand the tradition of gun ownership but that argument it is as much a non-starter for anyone with a search engine as banning the guns.

      Is violence part of the problem? Yes, but saying violence is the core issue is like asking why if you walk into a cage with a lion it will kill you. give 1000 people guns and guaranteed someone is getting shot damn quick. we kill. it is what we evolved to do and ever since our main competition stopped being other predators and shifted to being other humans we have perfected that skill to an art form. it is embedded in our societies like a virus or our intestinal flora.

      what is strange to me is that none of the gun owners that have posted in this debate have put forward the real argument at the base of their opinions and arguments -

      " the rate of incidence of deaths are an acceptable price for my right to have a gun".

      when you clear away all the mental illness and "guns are not the problem" absurdity all this boils down to one side believes the price is worth the cost and the other does not. Ipso that only way for both sides to have marginally positive results is to find a way that does not infringe the right but at the same time reduces the rate of incidence. one side cannot have it all its own way.
      • Jan 29 2013: The price of another persons life for my Right?

        Do you equate my defending my right, to be on even grounds with someone who would do me harm, to pulling the trigger on an innocent person? If so, then you should be looking at your argument a little closer.

        Every person should have the ability to defend themselves, period.
        • Jan 29 2013: there is nothing in the second amendment that guarantees your right to own a gun to defend yourself. the state yes. yourself no. there is no legal precedence that conflates second amendment rights and individual self-denfense so if that is why you think you should be allowed to have your gun then you conclusion is flawed. (by the way I am not saying that means you cannot have a gun. i am just saying that what you are talking about is not a constitutional guarantee)

          And on the second paragraph nope that is not at all what I said. I said you prioritize the general value of the right to own guns over the negative effects of owning guns. namely people getting shot.

          actually it is just logic. you may not think about it this way but if you go back to the most basic set of established facts -

          facts: 1) if guns are not readily available the rate of deaths goes down. 2) correlations of rate of incidence in all other areas people are talking about, mental illness, tv and game violence, etc., is not correlated by geographical area 3) rate of guns per capita and rate of gun related deaths per capita are.

          conclusion: number of guns is directly correlated to deaths and there is no other general correlation in the data. therefore reduction in deaths is a function of reducing the number of guns. (this is directly derived from the actually data and correlation)

          options: 1) reduce the prevalence of guns 2) do not reduce prevalence of guns

          if number of guns is correlated to deaths, and one does not reduce the number of guns then the reason for not reducing the guns must have priority over reducing the number of deaths. there is really no other conclusion to be drawn. the weighting of the value of the right inherently is weighted over whatever value is assigned to those effected.

          I am not saying it is necessarily wrong, but the core of the argument really is the long-term societal benefits of having an armed populace outweigh the short term negative effects.
      • Jan 29 2013: Rob-
        " give 1000 people guns and guaranteed someone is getting shot damn quick"... How come there aren't just massive killings at gun shows where attendance's depending on show can grow to 20,000 and majority are armed? Yet at the same time you say its just a natural thing that is ingrained in our systems. Well if violence and murder is just any old thing built into our DNA then what good is banning guns going to do when you can poison water supplies, make a bomb with fertilizer, drive your car through a parade or just hack up your family with a knife?

        You ask me to look at a map to see where the murders are happening, been there done that. Ive driven around the country as a Driver in the movie industry and have done firearms class all through this country. That is why the current AWB is a total joke. It goes after guns like the Ar-15 and Ak-47 (i own both btw and i use my Ar15 for hunting more than any others i own) yet these guns are only used in 1.2% of gun crimes (according to FBI stats). The most gun used in poor places are cheap throw away junk handguns most often stolen btw, and are not going to be regulated under the current proposed ban. So why are we doing it then? As awful as mass shootings are, they are very rare especially since there are well over 100 million gun owners in this country and 300+ million guns. The worst mass shooting was in Va Tech and killed 32 and wounded another 17 with 2 handguns (9mm and .22lr neither in the AWB). 2nd worst was Charles Whitman in the tower at UT. He shot 48 people with a bolt action rifle (not in the AWB) so what is this going to accomplish? Sandy hook gave the shooter 20 minutes (look it up) to have full reign to kill anyone he wanted, the fact that he used a semi auto rifle which was an Ar-15 so speed of fire didn't matter at all. The only way those kids would be alive now is if another person there were armed. Almost all of them killed themselves when faced against another person with a gun.
        • Jan 29 2013: actually no guns no dead. my 1000 comment was exaggeration for effect. that said take a sample of a 1000 people. put them in a location and then put them under stress and arm them. see what happens. expand that to 300 million people and 350 million guns with little or no controls in place.
      • Jan 30 2013: @ Rob's comment to mine.

        You say that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee my right to defend myself? How does one write a list rob? When writing a list you will, use commas, space, ideas, to get your point across. See how I can use any of those? Space or ideas or commas? Now look at the 2nd Amendment and think about How they spoke and wrote then.

        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 infringed.

        So could it be that people's right to form a militia cannot be infringed, as well as their right to bear arms, so that the state may be secure?

        Also, I prioritize my ability to defend myself and my family over any one else's life. So, if the ability and responsibility of owning a gun relied on the person, why should I feel bad that someone else chose to not own a firearm to protect themselves?

        You talk about rate of death in relation to population density. Yup, you are right. People in population dense area kill each other. The Romans had the same issue, why are you using this to take guns? People will just use knives, or bombs, or illegal guns (I know, if no one has them no one can use them blah blah blah)

        If the core of your argument is long term benefits to a society who has been disarmed versus the short term benefits. Look at the data. Remove a peoples means to defend themselves from a government, the government goes Tyrannical.
        • Jan 30 2013: defending the state is a modifier (this would now be the fifteenth time on this rather obvious point) constraining the general case to a specific one. in the version you posted it is actually the subject so the way it reads without appositive modifiers is A well regulated militia shall not be infringed. either way this means the right is dependent on the purpose, defense of the state.

          no one said you cannot legislatively give the right to defend your family with guns. i merely pointed out said right is not mentioned or part of the 2nd amendment.

          no one suggested taking guns (this is now the 40th time I have had to point this out). did you read the idea?

          i did not say population density correlated to gun deaths I said ownership per capita correlates. actually per capita the most population dense area NY/NJ has one of the lowest per capita rate of gun deaths.

          NYC has a population density of 126,000 per km^2. they have one of the lowest homicide rates in the country.

          the core argument about long term benefits that i brought up was actually on the having guns side, eg that there may be an argument that the long term benefit you mention outweighs the short term negative (number of deaths due to guns). that is the basis of the core argument to have free for all in guns.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.