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.

  • L B

    • 0
    Feb 9 2013: Your original premise is flawed. The fact that the 2nd amendment does not specify types of arms is not indicative of anything other than the fact that the 2nd amendment is inalienable, right along side those other "rights" spelled out in the constitution. The founders wanted "the people" to be able to hold off the government. They weren't concerned about hunting and fishing. They specifically identified the right the keep and bear arms as a deterent to government over-reaching and stiffling the free will and liberty of the people. Furthermore, the federalist papers describe the need for "the people" to at least match the power of the government as the strongest deterent against government oppression.

    Just like the restrictions proposed on semi-automatic rifles and the magazines which feed those guns, the idea of installing a kill switch of a madatory lock of a gun in the home, does nothing to speak to the real problem of violence in our society, gun associated or not. Such switches or locks will not be installed on guns of criminals and the expense of so doing (particularly the remanufacturing of such a devise on existing firearms) would be extreme, unable to be verified on the 300 million firearms in circulation in the country and render the firearm useless for many of the estimated 7 million personal protection experiences that occur every year.

    Here's the short answer. Guns are not the problem.
    • thumb
      Feb 9 2013: The interesting thing is how many people say the 2nd is mainly to keep the government in check.

      Thing was, it written mainly to keep the British Govt. in check and in case the British took over again as the new Govt was young and vulnerable not the powerhouse it has now become.

      Interesting how things get interrupted throughout the years isn't it?
      • Feb 9 2013: Your interprtation of our constitution is flawed, and stated from a British position.I disagree with your premise that it was written solely for the British Government, it was written because they saw what governments across Europe did to their own people. With that in mind they put in safeguards such as the second. There are plenty of writings from the day explaining that very point.
        • thumb
          Feb 9 2013: Not interpretting just an observation ,
      • thumb
        Feb 9 2013: Hi,
        I'd like to blame the bill of rights on the Brits, I mean they came back 20 years later, burned down our new white house and really trashed our capital. But no, the bill of rights including the 2nd was an out growth of those who were sensitive to the rights of the states. 80 years later, the American Civil War was fought (if you read the papers of the Confederate statesmen) about state's rights.
        Here is the current situation about "guns". Gun control is a state's rights issue. Those who hold to states rights are against federal control of guns, registration, et. el. If a state wants to bring restrictions to gun ownership, use, etc. that is their choice. If a resident of that state feels his constitutional rights were infringed, then he should take that issue to the US supreme court.
        It's really as simple as that.
    • Feb 10 2013: Actually, your all incorrect.

      Look at the notes made at the time of writing the constitution. The observations and understanding that was garnered by the writers of the constitution.

      The truth is out there. You just need an internet connection and the will to find it.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.