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 7 2013: Looked at the question, looked at the answers; both of them deal with the minutia of the situation. That itself is not a issue, but it's also not a solution.

    It's as much a solution as putting metal detectors in school, they temporarily work, they dont address the bigger picture of "why is this happening". Nor, does the well "it does it not happen in my country"

    That today, is what I'll pose some interesting very large vista issues.

    Please if you reply, stay away from minutia, that always just distracts from having a larger understanding of why this is happening, the psychology of it's people, and what can be done about it.

    Lets begin

    The mother of the shooter was said to have an arms cache.
    The president has a hidden base in Saudi Arabia containing predator drones.

    The shooter 'executed' children, no court, no justice, no reason, just execution.
    People in Yemen, Pakistan, are targeted by the president who with, no court, no trial, no presentation of evidence, no un sanction, bombs these people in their homes with their families. Simply put they are executed. (source ny times)

    Now give both of those scenarios, I hope you can see the similarities, in these two circumstances. I'm NOT getting emotional about either, NOR moral.

    Just posing these questions.

    1) How can people be outraged at one, and be talking and doing something about it, and not the other.

    2) How can we ask for mental health checks against citizens and not it's presidents?

    3) How can we ask for weapons to be taken away from Citizens yet not governments.

    4) If you just look at the numbers only, with no emotion, then the government kills more than anyone.

    5) What correlation between one set of actions by the president and it's impact on it's citizens psych? (hint look at any waring county - Israel, Palestine, Northern Ireland, Burma, Libya, Egypt for example)

    6) Old adages tend to be true, as they have stood the test of time, one that comes to mind for ANY president - Lead by example.
    • Feb 7 2013: Very welll said!
    • Feb 7 2013: 1) People can be outraged about the former because we don't see a moral equivalency between these killings. One is done as part of a war, the other is murder. The only way you can equate the two examples is if you do not believe that war is justified in any circumstance. I disagree, but that's a whole other debate.

      2) The President is assumed to be sane. We don't generally elect insane people to that office.

      3) We shouldn't. Since the government will always have weapons to arm it's military and protect itself, the citizens must have the same right (with reasonable limits). Both should be armed, hence the Second Amendment in the US Constitution. Otherwise, the people are rendered powerless.

      4) Which government? The Nazi government under Hitler? Stalin's government? Pol Pot's government? Milosevic's government? Absolutely true. The question is not who, but why? and do you agree with their rationale? Is killing at any time justified? I don't think you find any justification for killing, which is why you make this statement. I disagree, in that I feel there is a huge difference between murdering civilians convicted of no crime and killing soldiers of an enemy nation who want to do the same to you.

      5) You can hardly make this statement. George Bush had a set of actions and the psyche of his citizens was far from compliant. He was criticized vehemently for his position. The citizens in Libya and Egypt rose up against their "president"/dictators and overthrew them. Unless you're a sheep, you don't let your President do your thinking for you.
      • Feb 7 2013: Lets be honest, the only reason the people don't see a moral equivalency, is that it isn't happening to them. If another country at war with terrorists in our country was taking them out with drones, that also hit our children, you would quickly see the relavance, you would even call them terrorists, it's all relavant.
    • thumb
      Feb 7 2013: Hi Tify
      You seem to have a theme that Government is most responsible for death and destruction.
      You seem have given some thought to that premise. But, to end that source of death and destruction would that be to end of government?

      There have been incidents of societies without government that didn't do well. There was even a book I read about some children caught on a desert island without adults and no form of order. Not a happy story. So, no government and no death and destruction? Or are we talking about scale?
    • thumb
      Feb 9 2013: People voted for the President that started the war in the first place if he had a mental health problem why was he allowed to stand.

      At least the current President is getting America out.
      • thumb
        Feb 9 2013: Hi Morgan,
        I am not sure which President you speak of when you say "started the war" and "mental health problems" ... The USA has had presidents with "colorful personalities", not sure of mental health problems. Of the 47 presidents, can't think of an election that was clearly defined by going to war or not. Although, some candidates have been characterized as "hawkish" .

        The current President is is not really getting American out of war. In some respects, he is more "hawkish" then most. Of all the Presidents, his talent is best described as a political illusionist.
        And he is very good. He implies great things, does the mundane, blames others for failures and convinces the American public that he is one of their greatest leaders.

        For example, He is ending a war, then the cost of that operation could logically be deducted from
        the budget of the Department of Defense? No, that bureaucracy has asked for a greater budget to meet new contingencies. I could give many examples such inconsistencies in his administration but, What he has actually accomplished is something he said in a speech given in Europe about America's attitude and it's position in the world. America is too superior in it's attitude and should be more attuned and sharing with other countries.

        So, In his four years, America has become less certain, flat-lined economically, it's on the way to becoming the largest 3rd world nation. While that may give some satisfaction to those who feel the USA deserves it, it begs the question, who steps up to be the next alpha dog in this pack of human nations.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.