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.

  • timothy schlotter

    • +1
    Feb 3 2013: I have attempted to have a legitimate conversation with some on this forum, but it seems to be for naught. I have heard if there were just more regulations, but wait, we have regulations. The problem that no one wants to address is the problem of politics. Our government officials are attempting to throw us a bone. Apparently everyone watches CSI and thinks that if a crime is committed with a gun, all you have to do is give the serial # and a computer will spit out the name, not so. It can take months for the name of the owner to be found as we have no national data base, and the state offices are not computerized. Apparently the government isn't as anxious as they pretend to be to anti-gun people. Notice i say anti-gun people, and not nuts. We will never be able to do anything until the laws we do have are implemented. You peole out there that disagree with me, thats fine, but why descend to calling me dense, or obtuse just because I don't see your way? Is that really how you carry on conversations? Do all Australians when debating resort to name calling? I do not mind that "others" have entered into this discussion, what I do mind is when they think they have the right to tell us why our historical documents that have served us so well are wrong, and that we should change them, when they still have a monarchy. Our country broke away from that, and it's fine if you still wish to cling to your traditional ways. it's fine if you wish to offer advice, but it's not fine to tell us that our rights are out of line, or barbaric. If our stats are so embarassing, then by all means distance yourselves from us, remove us from your friends list, denounce us all you want, but please refrain from comparring yourselves to us, I haven't went there yet, and wish not to.

    • Jared Simmering

      • +1
      Feb 3 2013: Couldn't say it better myself Tim/Timothy, which ever you prefer. The use of "dense", "obtuse," and others like these are just the use of a detraction by a party or individual that has no argument to make.

      I'll state it once again. Instead of making an enormous issue of gun violence, why doesn't everyone just drop the issue? If the media and everyone that's into the Self-Esteem Movement would just stop bring this up it might be the best possible way to stop it from happening. People die and that's a fact of life. Yes, it's sad and a horrible thing for everyone to go through but we all do. There are many more important topics that need to be addressed in the USA.

    • Rob Freda

      • 0
      Feb 3 2013: Tim

      the British Monarchy is a showpiece and relic. It has not, and has not for centuries, had much to do with the real power structure in the UK. Just to put yourself in their shoes for a second you must admit that the idea that the US has the exclusive rights to the best and only viable form of western democracy is somewhat narrow.

      the idea that the Brits are the ones "clinging" to their traditional ways is a bit of pot calling the kettle since that is exactly what you are arguing for. That is not to say you are wrong but I have quite a few British friends and they are not exactly the traditional sticks in the mud.

      I also think that more important than Newtown or these rarer large scale murders, there are some pretty big figures around unintentional shootings. just locks on the gun would be enough to just put those away.

      Like I have said I have no problem with you owning a gun. I do have a problem with the fact that guns are the only product not subject to basic safety regulations in the US and since it is a thorny issue on how one might impose safety standards, technology probably provides the least high hurdle path through.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.