TED Conversations

Rob Freda

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

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?

+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Robert Donnell

    • +1
    Jan 29 2013: Gun control is always followed by genocide, every time, every time, every time, So if you advocate for gun control, you are the moral equal of Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and a host of other evil men. An armed Citizenry is the only way to prevent evil.

    People often say: "It is a weak argument when you play the Hitler card." Yet this is in fact the most perfect place to make the comparison. Historically the comparison is accurate.

    The US Constitution was written the way is was written for a good and cogent reason but it was immediately seen as dangerous, Too dangerous in fact to be ratified without a bill of rights. Thus any attack on the Bill of Rights undermines the legitimacy of the USA Government as a whole and sows the seeds for a civil war.
    • thumb

      Eric Preissler

      • 0
      Jan 29 2013: This is a good point, but I would like to point out that the Bill of Rights, more specifically the 2nd amendment, was created to protect citizens in the time of war and from the British Army. It was written in the 1700s for the 1700s. There is no way the fathers of our great country could have predicted the world as we live in it today. (George Washington, himself, said a country should go through a revolution every 100 years because a government will become too outdated, corrupt and powerful.) When it was written they used muzzle-loading single-shot weapons. Now we have semi-auto assault rifles that are specifically designed to kill massive amounts of people. I do not have a problem with hunting rifles and shotguns, but weapons specifically designed to kill other people should be regulated. Don't you think this is a fair compromise?

      • Robert Donnell

        • 0
        Jan 29 2013: The weapons available to evil men are more powerful today as well, the good guys need the state of the art even more today than at any point in the past.

        As for "evil Semi-Automatics" these are the compromise, a real assault rifle is Fully-Automatic and were outlawed in the USA in 1986. Your argument shows little understanding of firearms, history, law (Constitutional or otherwise). We Americans have compromised as much as we can, no more.

        Undermining the bill of rights voids the Constitution as adding the Rill of Rights was required to ratify the Constitution and create the USA Government. We Americans see gun control as treason.
        • thumb

          Eric Preissler

          • +1
          Jan 29 2013: We today do not see gun control as treason. The founders of our nation did at that time. Using their ideas of how to control civilizations for todays world is like taking a manual from a Model-T and trying to repair a 2012 Mustang. Things change with the times and why shouldn't our laws. The law is so far behind it is troubling. The last amendment to the constitution was in 1992. Think about how much has changed since even then. We desperately need to rethink our laws and regulations and be open minded about it. This nostalgia people have about the past and our past leader is wrong on many levels. If our founding fathers saw how the law hasn't changed with the times they would feel let down. Whether its guns or the quartering act or any other law, we need to look back and say how can we change this to fit our world. I think this involves getting rid of guns that are here for the sole purpose of killing people. What other reason do you need a hand gun or semi-automatic weapon for. There are none.

      • shawn disney 10+

        • 0
        Jan 31 2013: Eric: No, "Gun Control" is only a tool useful for those who would like a Police State. As far as preventing any shootings , it is not only useless, but actually counterproductive. "Gun Free Zones" attract deranged killers; why is it so hard for G.C. fans to figure that out? Do they think criminals are stupid?! And guns in civilan hands PREVENT something like 2100 crimes a day in the US. Why is so hard for G.C. fans to understand that a crime prevented is not "News", so it is not counted as significant, but it is.
        • thumb

          Eric Preissler

          • 0
          Jan 31 2013: We are never going to prevent all shootings, this is a fact of life. There are messed up people out there who want to do bad things. All I am saying is make it harder for them to. It doesn't matter how many crimes are stopped when the US still has one of the highest murder rates in the world. I do not have a problem with hunting rifles and shotguns to hunt (I enjoy trap shooting as much as anyone), but guns that only kill people are morally wrong. Having a gun in your pocket makes the escelation of a fight much worse. It makes people more inclined to push the envelope and resort to pulling it out and firing in a situation that may not have required it. I have seen many good stories about MMA fighters stopping crimes, so maybe everyone should learn jiu jitsu in grade school to make the world safer to follow your logic. I just think with the regulations now it is way too easy for those deranged people to get a gun. Bad things are happening because of that and there is no denying that.
        • thumb

          peter lindsay 30+

          • +1
          Jan 31 2013: Australia? Gun-free and mass killing free for 16 years now. We also haven't spontaneously become a police state.

    • Rashaad Abu-Hamdan

      • +2
      Jan 29 2013: Do you really think American civilians would have been able to stand up to Hitler if they were armed with guns? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't stand a chance, let alone against the American military. With that said, we should encourage people to start keeping tanks and bazookas in their garage so that if an "evil man" were to come into power, armed citizenry can save the world!!

      Don't be silly.

      • Robert Donnell

        • +1
        Jan 30 2013: Well considering that us American Civilians did in fact go to Europe in WWII and did in fact defeat Hitler and his adherents.

        To call what was in fact done "silly" is disconnect from reality.

        No in America being drafted into the Army does not make one a professional Soldier. We do our bit and we go home, the correct phrase is Citizen Soldier.

        For that matter the Armed Soviet Partisans was a major contributing factor to Hitlers defeat as were the French Resistance, which more than proves my point.

        • Rob Freda

          • 0
          Jan 30 2013: after they joined the ARMY and were supplied at a rate 10 times that of the German army. Rashaad's post is obviously true. the German's came within an inch of taking out the Soviets. would have if Hitler had not screwed up. their solution to insurgency was just kill everyone.

      • shawn disney 10+

        • 0
        Jan 31 2013: Rashaad. You should read up on your history. The US was founded as a result of defeating the Regular British Army. Both the US and the Soviet Union's Armies have been defeated at various times by illiterate militias with rifles. The US is losing 2 such wars at this very moment.
    • thumb

      peter lindsay 30+

      • 0
      Jan 30 2013: We're still awaiting ours.

      • shawn disney 10+

        • 0
        Feb 1 2013: Peter: No country "spontaneously" becomes a Police State. It is always a process, and it appears that it also requries a DRASTIC social trauma to catalyze it. Such as Germany in 1933 or Russia in 1917. Australia , I believe,has so far been blessed in not undergoing such a thing, And possibly, not having the class distinctions that help it happen. Our Founders were well aware of these tendencies. Note how the 2nd amendment refers to "infringement", translate that into contemporary "sensible gun control" and you can see that they were smarter than we are now, somehow.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.