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.

  • thumb
    Jan 29 2013: This is an obvious fact that people need to get through their heads - Bad people do bad things, but them having access to guns only makes their bad deeds worse. We need to get guns out of as many hands as possible because it makes violence and mass murder so much easier. Nobody could walk into a school with a knife and kill 20 people before being stopped, but with a gun it is really easy. It makes me sick that politicians are more hell-bent on regulating the size of soft drinks consumers can buy than controlling guns. Apparently most people in Washington believe soda drinks are a bigger threat than guns. Absolutely idiotic, and something needs to be done.
    • Jan 29 2013: Guess what, people will get guns regardless of what you ban. I lived in England and hung around with some shady people (Never got into their "activities") but I was told by a friend that if I ever needed protection (A Desert Eagle) that he could get me one. (Only 800 Pounds) I couldn't believe it! In the most regulated country in the world!

      Laws only restrict the Law-Abiding. Criminals do not and will not follow your rules.
      • thumb
        Jan 29 2013: I agree totally Jazz, but it will make it harder than it is now to get a hold of them. It is a fact that if people want something bad enough they can get it, but I just think regulating firearms will make them less common. The fact that anyone can walk into a gun show, here in Nebraska, and purchase a weapon without a background check and training is crazy. This will stop the people who get an idea and one day decide to randomly walk into a mall and gun down 50 people. You can never stop everything, I agree with you on that, but trying to is better than sitting aside and doing nothing while children and innocent people die.
        • Jan 30 2013: If people want to make a difference they should look at themselves and the people they are responsible for first. Do I think that everyone should own a gun? No, I don't. Will I make it so that they cannot get a gun? No. It is not my decision. If they ever threaten my life or the life of my family I will defend myself. But my job is not to "save" anyone but myself and my family.
      • thumb
        Jan 30 2013: That seems a little selfish to me. I totally agree with you that we need to look hard at ourselves and our loved ones first. The problem with society now is that there is no community. Everyone seems to have your sentiment about 'I am going to get mine and others are not my responsibility." We live in an age where we have to work together or our way of living will fall apart. We need to look out for each other like it is our nature to, and care for the well-being of people as a whole. It saddens me to hear you say it is not your job to "save" anyone else. If your kid were in school and something bad happened wouldn't you want someone to step up and save him. I would, so it is everyones responsibility to save each other and protect other people's loved-ones. That is how humans survive.
        • Jan 30 2013: Do not get me wrong, if I have the opportunity presented in front of me I will defend those in my immediate surrounding. As long as doing that does not threaten my family. If it is a decision between saving any number of people or getting my family out of a situation safely, I will safely extract my family. Is that selfish? Yes, and I am ok with that.
      • thumb
        Jan 30 2013: I completely understand what you are saying. I would probably do the same thing, but I think the good for the group is more importand that the good for the one and people lose sight of that, especially in politics on issues like gun control.
        • Jan 31 2013: In essence you feel that a group of people have more value than you do? I am sorry but I cannot submit myself to such an idea.

          Read "The Sword of Truth" Series. A very good read and an amazing parallel for this subject.
      • thumb
        Jan 31 2013: Ya I guess I do feel society has more value than I do. I respect the fact that you cannot submit to that and totally understand your point as well. I will read that series it sounds interesting and thought provoking.
    • Jan 31 2013: Eric: Yes , something does need to be done. What we should work on the this US popular idea that murder is exciting, entertaining, and can be "useful". It is one of those cases where leading by example would be a big help, but our President, for example, is going in the Opposite Direction, earning praise for having the "courage" to have various people assassinated around the world. Not to mention our Army doing the same thing. No trials, no formalities, no concern for "collateral damage". No wonder some young people who are not very "tightly wrapped" go on shooting sprees. And if it is a matter of the evil influence of "guns", why are not the Swiss doing this? They have more guns than we do.
      • thumb
        Jan 31 2013: I totally agree Shawn. The system is broken and you are completely right. Murder is glorified, but don't you think it will take a combination of reducint the romanticism of murder and controlling access to the weapons that do it. How many people have guns just because they are cool (I can think of many just in my family). There is a side that wants to ban all guns and a side that wants to keep all guns and control how killing is seen. I subscribe to the theory that the answer is somewhere in between.
        • Jan 31 2013: Eric: I'm glad, and impressed , that you agree about the murder glorification concept. I see that as the major problem. As to the second part of your idea, we should give careful thought to just how "Gun Control" could actually be made to work, as anything more than a useless , counter productive "feel -good" sham. And you soon would have to conclude that it would require a Police State to do it, and a far more efficient one than the Soviet Union ever was. It would amount to a coup, if carried out.And all this to "save the children"?! By the way, let's note that a lot of those "children" (below 21 years old) are actually drug gang assassins, totaling many more than merely innocent bystanders. Sad, but true, that G.C. would not save a single one, and might actually make it worse.
      • thumb
        Jan 31 2013: I definitely see where you are coming from. Maybe these should be state laws then instead of a federal mandate. Take certain types of guns and large volume clips and make just them illegal to own outside of a licensed gun range. This would require a task force like the DEA, but most people don't have a problem with the DEA (it's essentially the same concept.) It doesn't have to be a military effort to get all guns gone, It would be a state regulation and a branch of the police we already have. I don't see us taking a drastic turn like a Police State to enforce this. It would reduce at least some (not all, but some) of the unnecessary killings made by people who get drunk break into their dad's gun case and go to the mall to cause havoc (organized crime is a different story). Do you think this idea could work?
        • Feb 1 2013: Eric : I'm sorry to say this, but we are not the Swiss. Your plan might work with them, , but then, they don't need it. In the US, we have a large contingent of fairly ordinary people, let's call them Rednecks, who are very suspicious that ANY G.C. measure is merely a cover for mass confiscation, as it developed in Britain and Australia. This kind of person is well aware that G.C. ONLY affects ordinary people , not criminals, and they assume there is an ulterior motive in the whole thing, since it would only facilitate some kind of government takeover, by...(name your favorite bete noir) While I am not a redneck myself, I appreciate their good qualities, especially their concern with the Constitution , as well as common sense when it comes to fending off attackers, etc.I am so "Liberal" I have been accused of being a Communist in the past, but on this issue, the Rednecks are absolutely right, and in a common sense kind of way. Liberals these days are very far from Jeffersonian thinking, as is the Democratic party. They not only don't trust people, they brag about how they run screaming from the room if they see a gun anywhere. Jefferson would be appalled to think that the "Enlightenment" has come to this.
      • thumb
        Feb 1 2013: Yes, you are absolutely right. I am from Nebraska and live around a lot of those "Rednecks". The thing is that no matter how many conspiracy theories they can come up with they will never do anything about it, and if they do it will be short lived before the next theory abounds. (have you heard about the flouride conspiract in the drinking water, its all I heard about for about a month and now, nothing.) However, they are also a little backward in their thinking. When having these types of discussions with people like that they romanticize past times and look badly on the future and we cannot do that. WE have to embrace the future and make it a better place than our past was, and not fall into their thinking of recreating the past.
        • Feb 1 2013: Eric: I admire your enthusiasm. Part of the problem is that a lot of people feel "disenfranchised". Yes, I've heard about how fluoride is a plot to dispose of industrial waste into the drinking water, on the basis of purportedly shoddy science. But since it has been banned in many European countries, I'm still waiting to see what the truth is.
      • thumb
        Feb 1 2013: There are things that we do not know for sure. I do not know if there is a right answer to this G.C. question though. The more I talk to people the more I start to feel both sides have valid arguments. There are very intelligent people on both sides. I wish our policy makers could sit down and have convorsations like this. Maybe they need to take a page out of this book and something might get done or at least they could find middle ground. It is nice to see this many people who genuinely care for the well-being of our country. I think we can all agree on that.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.