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.

  • thumb
    Feb 10 2013: I see two schools of thought here. One side is defending the right to guns, etc. The other wants to eliminate, control, what ever, guns and then there is the 2nd Amendment. So, the control side has found there are limits in the word
    " infringement" to the actions of controlling guns. If they are not subject to the laws of the USA, they seem to have an attitude of disdain, "It's a stupid law, just change it and get rid of the problem of guns". That's a valid point, but most Americans have this regard, respect, even reverence for the constitution. They don't consider changing it lightly or even in times of great emotional duress. There have been changes in the past. Some changes have not proven well thought out, the emotional thing. Other changes have altered the original intent and some of those have yet to be fully appreciated.

    What I have noticed are the comments of those who... have no skin in the game and I have made comments to that situation. For those that do, my question is how do you reconcile the 2nd with some of the demands you have proposed. It gives the right to bear Arms. Written in Caps in the original document. It doesn't address "bear muskets or flintlocks", it doesn't say good until 1808. Several other actions seem to start or end in 1808. So Arms are not defined nor is the time this amendment effective. Further, there is nothing about a single shot, or repeating or automatic fire. No description at all of the word Arms. So, it would seem that the people would decide what their Arms were. So, I could decide to have even no Arms at all and you could decide to be armed with a Sherman Tank and make that case under the 2nd amendment.
    Consider the beginning of the amendment, it addresses militias. Militias are a providence of the states. You will find in other sections of the Constitution that the President can call on the states to provide militias in defense of the United
    States. So any gun, any militia. So, we drop the 2nd?
    • Feb 10 2013: There is a third school of thought, there always is, there has to be, if there wasn't the other two wouldn't exist. And I'm not explain what it is. That's up to you to learn. Because without you learning it, you wont understand it. But it's there always and ever present in history.
      • thumb
        Feb 11 2013: Tify,
        Shame on you, You have an idea and you say to us "Guess what I know". But your right, we will never learn until we have the information to think about it, to process it in our minds, to learn about it.
        We may disagree with it later, we reserve that right. Right now the two schools are
        We keep out guns without all this yelling and screaming and address the real causes of violence.
        There are many and all have been enumerated... or,
        We pile on a ton of requirements and regulations and get involved in courts and time and and and
        the violence still occurs because instead of going after violence, we waste time on rhetoric. in the attempt to address constitutional issues. Most of this conversation would be great in law school. but what would you suggest to end this violence that pervades our major metropolitan areas.
        • Feb 11 2013: I think the one big issue, probably largest that I see in the US, is education.

          Education brings opportunity, opportunity bring wealth, wealth (at all levels) tends to stop bullets being fired.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.