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.



Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Feb 1 2013: This might be a little on the extreme side of things but I'd like to ask one simple question to everyone about this topic. Why stop it?
    • Feb 1 2013: Because people are scared of everything these days and want to stop something they know they can stop instead of looking at the real problems in the world.
      • thumb
        Feb 1 2013: I think you have something here. The focus on this conversation has gotten so deep in the weeds, we've spent three days diagramming a sentence in the constitution (which I found fascinating).
        In the last 50 years, people in the US have been told the Federal Government "gots your back" and the people have believed them. So, the people have dulled their own sense of awareness and self preservation. Most anyway.
        Let's see.
        People figured out Airline security and 9/11. In response, we got a 100,000 member federal agency to insure our airline safety. Could the airlines have insured our safety as well and not so intrusive?
        We'll never know.
        The people around New York are still waiting for help from the Feds. And who can forget the storm in New Orleans. Tens of thousands waiting for Fed help. I think some are still waiting.
        Too many have given their life and security over to the Federal government and seem surprised when help never comes... We look at them for our health and welfare. We look for them for our retirement security. We are surprised and horrified when some people "fall through the cracks" and turn to violence, gun and otherwise in the middle of all this political insanity. Now that is the point of theis conversation.
        • Feb 2 2013: I agree. However, we also need to look at how we can restore a person's sense of accountability.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.