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.

  • shawn disney 10+

    • +1
    Jan 31 2013: Ben: what makes you say the G.C. has worked in "every country that has tried it"?! i would say the opposite. And the only reason there is little illicit manufacture is that it is so easy to smuggle guns anywhere that there is no need for it. And are you saying the the Yakusa never has anyone killed? Or that they use some other means? So what? As for the constitution, any scholar would clarify that hand held weapons were envisioned, not A-bombs.
    • thumb

      Mike Colera 10+

      • 0
      Feb 1 2013: Hi Shawn,
      You are perfectly sure that no one has developed a shoulder fired tactical nuke..

      Seriously, beware of 'any scholar', I just heard of one saying 'We don't really need the constitution...it's old and out dated... written by a bunch of non scholars 200 years ago and they are all dead'. Base on his scholarly wisdom, I am faced with a choice, run over to library of congress and tear that worthless piece of paper out of it's frame or run into my library and tear that worthless certificate of scholarly recognition out of
      it's frame.
      When I was young, a PhD was well respected and we hung on every word. Now days, you get more truth out of the bikers at the local bar. All due respect to the Road Warriors.

      • shawn disney 10+

        • 0
        Feb 1 2013: Mike: I seriously doubt that any scholar would attempt to say that our armies of the Revolution were not "Militia", in the old English sense, who provided their own weapons,, ammo , and 3 days rations, all for used as infantrymen in the style of the day. Translated to now, it wouldn't be much different.. Only one- man weapons are considered, naturally. Trying to suggest that it means anything one man can't handle is just lawyer talk. There is no suggestion lthat the "regulars" would not take care of such things as artillery, etc. It's all about the bulk of the Infantry.
        • thumb

          Mike Colera 10+

          • +2
          Feb 1 2013: Shawn,
          I was pulling your leg, excuse me. Many comments ago this conversation turned left on the road to constitutional analysis. The constitution means only what at least 5 members of SCOTUS says it means.
          The question of solving gun violence or solving anything in this insane political climate .... How could there be a solution even a painful one? In this insane political climate, we aren't going to solve gun violence, unemployment, healthcare cost, global warming, global cooling, falling education ratings, poverty, male pattern baldness or the common cold.
          But, back to your comments. Translated to now, militias are state military units. Here in Texas, it is the 36th Infantry Division, complete with infantry, armor, artillery, aircraft just like the military divisions assigned to the Federal government. In fact about 3/4 of the military might of the USA is under the command of various state governors. Think of it this way, during WW2 when all the military resources including the states were engaged, the Axis powers met and discussed the end of the war and the division of the USA. The Germans expressed concerns because their intelligence was tens of millions of Americans had firearms. After the fall of Stalingrad, Hitler was said to have cancelled plans to invade America. We need to have more respect for those, beer drinking, gun tooting, bible clinging, rednecks. They maybe all that is keeping the wolves from our door.

      • Jazz Sutto

        • 0
        Feb 1 2013: The shoulder fired tactical nuke was developed in the 60's but never implemented, or tested, because of the potential harm to the user.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.