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.

  • thumb
    Jan 29 2013: Re: Shawn:

    Thank you for your initial optimism.
    I am 28, and do try my best, at posting informed and well thought out opinions.

    I appreciate your concern over how one may interpret the inflection of my original post.
    Text shows no emotion, malious was not my intent.

    To answer your question: No, I do not believe that "Human Nature" has changed, even in the past 500 years. Nor do I believe that The Bill of Rights is "irrelevant".

    I do believe however, that Human Behavior is evolving exponentially, (now most especially).

    In saying that, it is my consideration that our intellect, theoretically, should "progress" our understanding of human behavior, and therefore (in life) our "Conscious Nature".

    The most impressive attitude that I could wish upon any society; would be one that never lets the initial rules of its own forte [2nd def], become its very Achilles heel.

    Change is inevitable; wisdom will expect it, allow it, and learn from it.
    However ignorance (of change), will only deny it, and ultimately bury itself beneath, the passing grains, in the sands of time.

    Good things are great (The Bill of Rights);
    However ingenuity, can only make those same rights: Better, faster, stronger, for longer.
    • Jan 31 2013: Oliver.Yes, It does seem that Human Behavior is evolvling exponentiallyaa, but although I am an optimist, (fanatic, my wife says), I find much of it alarming, and not at all well thought out. Look out for unintended consequences. Those who favored the "War on Drugs",( let's give the great majority points for meaning well), but let's not forget that the whole thing was not only a monumental flop in its own right, but created a great deal of misery besidesin addition to the trillion dollars wasted. Which sort of segues into just why we need the 2nd amendment more than ever. We have armies of underemployed police-types in this country, and for a combination of reasons, we are buiilding up all the elements of a super Police State, So far, our "crisis" has not evolved far enough to enrage most of the middle class, nor have we developed a charismatic "Leader" but I can see ithe possibility.. The idea that we couldn't possibly need to defend ourselves against our own government seems to me incredibly naive. We are in fact half barbaric. When we can act as civilised as the Swiss, then we can perhaps have "Gun Control" , but of course the Swiss don't have it , and don't need it.
      • thumb
        Jan 31 2013: Hi Mr. Disney, I understand what your saying here. However I remain steadfast in the notion that any government would naturally heed; their best interest is their people.

        There are many Police forces that don't carry guns:
        Leading by example is a tough job though.

        One must consider that Switzerland has been established for 600 years. The United States, is "young blood" (almost "nouveau riche") in comparison, and Needs time to balance itself.

        All these things take time. Although, Its our recent freedom of communication, that may very well keep the U.S. as great of a role model (in different aspects) as it is today, far into the future.
        • Feb 1 2013: Oliver thanks for the kind thoughts. If the government was doing its job of taking care of its people, it would have solved our energy problem 40 years ago, by continuing the Thorium LFTR program, or they would have facilitated our billions of dollars worth of export industry in Rare Earth minerals. Instead, they killed the industryl. Just some random examples of major screwups. It's not hopeless, but it just doesn't follow that the government can always be trusted. No news to the Founders.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.