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.

  • Rich B

    • 0
    Jan 31 2013: And as I stated earlier, if there is a condition on the right there must be a conditional conjunction joining the two clauses. There is none, so the prohibition is unconditional. And I know what an appositive is, and it doesn't set a condition. And I also know that a nominative absolute is not linked by a conjunction to its adjacent clause, exactly what we have in the Second Amendment. The "militia clause" only states a fact -- it doesn't set a condition. It explains why the right shall not be infringed, and that makes it an adverb. Adverbs don't modify nouns or noun pharses, like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." And in this case the commas are irrelevant.

    It's pretty pathetic that you gun banners have to come up with your own version of grammer to twist the amendment to your liking.
    • Jan 31 2013: exactly on the appositive. the people in the version you posted are the appositive. ipso according to your chain of logic then no one has that right. not my argument. your argument.

      both the appositive and the absolute nominative are modifiers. by definition a modifier specifies constraints. "the draft horse". draft is the modifier that clarifies the type/use of the horse. that is the whole reason for a modifier, eg to clarify that which may be unclear. saying you want to ignore modifiers in either case is inconsistent with your love of the constitution. either you take it as whole cloth or your take none of it.
    • Jan 31 2013: by the way for the three hundredth time nobody suggest banning guns. think you need to work on your reading comp

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.