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.

  • Jan 30 2013: Education the one thing that is consistently debated the least. when I was six years old my father an ex-Marine pulled me aside and proceeded as follows. I remember it well to this day.Son, you know I have weapons in this house. Me, yes. Do you know where they are? Me, yes. What is the first thing you do when you come upon one of them? Me, thinking I was smart replied don't touch it. And an emphatic no was his response. He said as soon as you pick it up check and see if its loaded. I was amazed by his statement. He continued, never ever pull a weapon on anyone unless you are ready and prepared to kill that person. With that in mind, if you do pull a weapon on someone the first thing they should see is the flash from it being fired.

    On the 2nd amendment. Context is everything. Most Americans cherish the Constitution but have never really set down to read it for their own understanding. The Declaration of Independence is the reason the constitution is formed the way that it is. The Declaration is about usurpation by those in power. I believe that the second amendment was added to the Constitution not just for hunting or protection from criminals but to keep those in power in check. Meaning that we the people have the right and duty to forcibly take those in power and remove them by death if necessary (hopefully in the last resort)So that they are not in absolute power by that use of force. This being the main reason for the 2nd amendment I believe.

    There are no absolutes in safety and one cannot be protected from any danger absolutely no matter what legislation we promote or pass. We do the best we can in raising our children to be fair and reasonable. But we obviously live and exist in a culture of bias. Financial, religious, race, creed, and orientation. Therefore it seems to me to be a social issue at least as much as an ethical or legal issue.
    I will protect my family from any unreasonable harm. So,
    in closing you can pry my weapon, from my cold dead hand
    • Jan 30 2013: pat

      your have the right to protect yourself and your family. you do not have a constitutional right to bear arms to do so (which is not to say that it is reasonable to deny you that ability with a gun). there is nothing in the second amendment that even hints at that interpretation. nor is there anything in the second amendment on hunting. the amendment is very clear. the right to bear arms is predicated on defense of the state. the rest of the arguments are an unsupported expansion of what the amendment actually says.

      as you pointed out "defense of a free state" could apply to both internal and external enemies of said state and since the US is defined as a government of and for the people the right to opposed tyrannical rule is inherently implied. that said exercising that right in modern conditions is realistically impossible. the likely primary reason for the amendment given the conditions of the time however is far more likely an external enemy such as Britain or the other European powers.

      to your point the focus on absolutes is a huge distraction from actually achieving anything.
      • Jan 30 2013: Context is everything, Much of the things we read or hear can be made to side with or against the implied reason of the person writing. We can run to the side we wish to believe as easily as we can try to be objective. I don't wish to get caught up so much in the semantics of the wording of our forefathers as I wish to get to the root causes of the acts that occur. Bias and nonacceptance of others as they are is, (in my belief) the root of most of the problems.
        We make pariahs of those around us not because they are a real threat but because they scare us that with to much contact we or the ones we care about may veer from those ideas we cherish. The more engagement we have across the lines of those with ideas we can't stand, the better off we all are.
        As far as the external or internal threat. They put three pieces of government in place knowing that power is greatest seducer, with that in mind they did the best they could.
        The second amendment does say period by the words written on that page that I do have a right to bear arms. That is not semantics my friend.
        • Jan 30 2013: you have the contextual right to defend the state, not an absolute right outside of defense of the state. you can legally extend that right all you want but it is not constitutionally guaranteed.
      • Jan 30 2013: I'd like to add that the United states of America was founded on the idea that "WE THE PEOPLE" are the state and that right to bear arms only reinforces that predication. Furthermore, my assertion that no one or thing can be protected from harm absolutely is not a distraction to getting to a meaningful something or anything done, that is false to me. We must accept that we have inherent dangers no matter what are able to accomplish through any means. Life is a precarious proposition at it's very best.
        • Jan 30 2013: so essentially you are arguing that the state is comprised of individuals and therefore the right to defend the individual is inherent in the defense of the state? that is a big leap.
      • Jan 31 2013: Our country was predicated on individual rights as a foundation. We are a nation of law rather than autocracy. If the individual loses those rights then where is that country we love so much. I don't see the leap. virtually every soldier will tell you that they fight for your rights to free speech, liberty and the pursuit of that happiness based on those rights. If we don't have those rights were no better off than North Korea. ergo the loss of due process under the Bush administration.
        • Feb 1 2013: the leap is that you extended defense of the state to defense of the individual based on the fact that we are a government of the people. That is a leap. I think this obdurate adherence to "our way is the only way" is a little silly. There are similar governments in Europe, one of which we derived from, that do not societally equate free speech with being able to shoot people from the government. we are in no danger of being north korea even without the bill of rights any more than England is in danger of becoming north korea. this is just boogeyman hooey. to your point about our soldiers the likelihood that the US armed forces are going to carry out illegal acts on the populace or enforce the rule of a tyrannical government is at this point unbelievable. If we ever did come to that state then the rights we have will not be worth the paper they are written on.
      • Feb 3 2013: The leap as you put it is another leap on your part. If you take a right away you infringe on the individual and the state at the same time.

        I'm not saying our way or no way. But the idea of due process was not just taken from one but many countries all the way back to ancient Egypt, Britain, France. Due process is supposed to be the backbone if our country ie our State. And the predication, I believe we were founded on, is that individual rights based on the constitution trump prosecutorial rights of the state. Therefore an attack on the right is an attack on the individual is an attack on the state. WE the people of, by and for.

        The North Korea statement is an analogy not a prediction. But would you thirty years ago ever thought you would have heard of a free speech zone in the U.S. Well we had one under the Bush Administration That's a lot closer to North Korea than I am comfortable with.
      • Feb 10 2013: Well I've been patient but you haven;t responded to this last part of our conversation. What happened?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.