TED Conversations

Rob Freda

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.

Thoughts?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Feb 10 2013: I believe the discussion here was about mandatory gun locks and universal kill switches. The way this debate has been taken shows the problems that are being hashed out as everybody has their own idea, and it's the only one that will work, I am truly amazed at the people of other countries that want nothing better than to disarm our citizens, get rid of an amendment to our constitution, so that we can enjoy the safety and security of their great countries. Why do you want to disarm us?The real problem of course isn't guns, or knives, but people, and crowding. mammalian stress is always born out of overpopulation, and grubbing for resources. We will always have the decriers of peace, and humanity, when we are not a peaceful species. When stressed we act just like mice, rats, or any of the others that have been put through stress and been found to turn against each other. Maybe instead, we should look to spreading our population out more evenly, and look to cutting our regeneration of species more. I do not think any of the choices that have been put forth is a workable option, there are no magic pills, and getting rid of the guns in this country will probably not happen. We should think out of the box.
    • Feb 10 2013: Very intelligent to ask people to think out of the box. I for one advocate that and go well beyond it.

      But I can't agree with the idea singularly that mammalian stress is always born out of overpopulation etc

      You deserve to know why, I'm not going to give you the whole answer, I don't like doing that, as it does not require the reader to think and particularly understand.

      What I suggest you look at is why a) wars happen, what is the common demonstrator, between any and all wars you can think of, look at the 13th century, or the 2nd.

      "...people of other countries... to disarm our citizens, get rid of an amendment to our constitution, so that we can enjoy the safety and security of their great countries. Why do you want to disarm us?"
      b) The answer to this is can be found in the notes in the margins. Or you can find it Orwell's 1984. Or Katrina.

      One question that's blinding apparent, from the "why do people get rid of an amendment to our constitution", is exactly the opposite, why is really there? What did the authors of it really see when they wrote it. What did they note? Is that already happening?

      All of these issues come down to history. We are only where we are today because of choices made. It's the path that got us here. Without understanding those choices how can we ever be smart enough to make the best choices now.

      But people want slogans / metal detectors / remove shoes - it's a simple perceptual solution. People love those, it requires the least effort. Foreigners too.

      The Nobel Prize people "perceive" it's prizes are for the greater good. It's paid for from interest on money gained from manufacturing of weapons of war.

      So abandon your perceptions, your believes, your prejudices and learn why things are they way they are, and how they got that way. And Tim when you get there, and I know you can, it means - the illusion of the box is gone. There is no box. There never was a box. It only existed in your mind. Question is who put it there...and why?
      • Feb 11 2013: I am intrigued, Stress always occupanies overpopulation. It does not require my thought. the common denomminator would be MONEY, and or Religion. Those two problems aside, My country has figured out one problem that all others have forgotten. Freedom comes at a price. is that price too high? I think if you had asked my ancestors that were here in the early 1700 hundred's. I think they would say no. If you asked my ancestors that were here in early 1830 they would say no. If you asked my Native American ancestors what they thought, well, I won't respond. My family has been here a long time, and will remain. Orwells 1984, I remember it well, I read it in 1972, and was moved, but not in the direction he imagined. I also want answers, but I am not willing to give up freedoms to sycophants wanting to disarm the populace to gain favour. Yes, Alfred had great ideals, see what they got the world.
        • Feb 11 2013: Stress always goes with overpopulation... but that was not the case in the 13 century right?

          You see what i mean, you cant, not you personally, the powers that be, cant use that as an excuse, or a reason.

          "If you asked my Native American ancestors what they thought, well, I won't respond.", but the response is part of the answer, that's the real problem I see with this whole debate, people are not willing to let go of their emotional baggage, to explore new points of view, the catch is..if you don't do that, you DO end up with sycophants. No matter who you elect.

          And lets to totally honest here, about sycophants, isn't that (not just American) the way the whole world is going, when politicians are sold marketed and packaged like soap powder.

          Interesting I watched the film "the candidate" a comedy, where the candidate is taken out and given a make over, my friend at the end of their make over said ... wow they look so much better.

          Problem is people are voting (if at all) based on that nowadays.

          Another good real example of that, is Libya, how that's portrayed to the populous... "mad dog Gaddafi", if that's not acting obsequiously toward the populous, i don't know what is.

          Maybe I do, that's the problem, that two us bipartisan senators (justice) asked Obama for the information on the use of drones to kill Americans (just americans, not yemenese nor pakistani, because thats not in justice's purview). Obama gave it to the intelligence committee (ie the cia). But not to Justice. That too is obsequious, to the very word Justice, and to the very people and departments of the government YOU elected, and to the constitution itself.

          In some ways that was what 1984 was about. He did (Orwell) have a nice understanding, about freedom and the powers that be and people reaction to them... Freedom is slavery.

          Ie the the freedom not to think, not to question, to assume that state will take care of all your needs, allows sycophants and tyrants, and that is slavery.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.