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 10 2013: What about the people, you have to change their minds and attitudes towards guns. In Canada we have more weapons proportionally than in the USA but there is maybe 600 deaths compared to the thousands of Americans dying every year. Its the people here who think guns are dangerous, therefore they must be treated with respect and ideally the gun is not the answer to the problem.
    Until the people respect and do not use the gun to settle things, then that is the only time that change will come about. If the people do not get away from the 2nd amendment which was written when the British were invading, Indians were trying to keep their land and their way of living and so the amendment was put in so each person in the USA could carry a firearm to protect his Family, Land and if need be Protect his Country but that was over 200 years ago, times have changed and the 2nd amendment is outdated and no longer required. I am not saying get rid of weapons but why do you need an AK-47 or any other automatic weapon to protect your family or Land or your Country. It is just common sense that there is no need for such barbaric weaponry to protect your family. Ban these type of weapons from the Good guys and the Bad guys, the Military requires such weapons but only to DEFEND their Country for YOU. You are not needed any longer to protect the country so a pistol or hunting weapon should be more than efficient to protect your family, get food for hunting etc., But that should be more than enough to satisfy the needs of the people. That's my two cents worth and I hope something occurs because it cuts down on people wishing to visit your country.
    Tom Nugent CD1 Ret"d Military
    • thumb
      Feb 10 2013: "...the 2nd amendment is outdated and no longer required. I am not saying get rid of weapons but why do you need an AK-47 or any other automatic weapon to protect your family or Land or your Country.."

      Go live in India, Pakistan, Iraq or Afghanistan and then ask this same question.
      Go live in Israel and ask this question. The Israeli's are civilized people, right?

      I don't see where things have changed in 200 years that would allow us to make the assumption that protecting oneself and or family from violence is no longer a necessity.

      I'm sure some people have seen the movie "Red Dawn"..... now, imagine how impossible it would be to write that movie if guns were outlawed in the US. Imagine the difference in the outcome. If our major military bases and weapons were taken out in the beginning of such an invasion, people with guns would be the only thing standing in the way of total take over.

      Is the world really safe enough now so that we don't have to depend on social militias to protect our country from invasion from another super power? If another super power were to see us disarm our population, would they, maybe, see this as an opportunity?

      How well will a pistol or hunting rifle stand up to an artillery piece or machine gun? I think we can all say that a machine gun is not a hunting weapon but does that mean we can't own one? A local people's militia with only pistols and hunting rifles is really nothing to fear from thugs with machine guns and hand grenades.

      There isn't enough police and military to protect the whole country in an unforeseen natural or violent event. We need local militia to help keep the peace while we wait for the Calvary to get around to saving us, and just pistols and hunting rifles won't do the job.
      • Feb 10 2013: "There isn't enough police and military to protect the whole country in an unforeseen natural or violent event." ... implicitly begs the response... they dont they have guns?

        Or seen another way... if you are being attacked, you call the police. Why? They have guns. So why not cut out the middle man.

        Or seen another way... if you disarm the population... why do the police need guns? Would they be happy to give them up?
        • thumb
          Feb 11 2013: I'm afraid I don't understand your point Tify.... please elaborate. What does the fact the police have guns have to do with fact there aren't enough police to protect all of us from sudden, wide spread, gun violence, leaving us to protect ourselves? And, how does that relate with the idea that, if we don't have the guns, we won't be able to protect ourselves?
      • Feb 11 2013: Well John, if you want to take away from citizens, why do the police need them. See the UK.

        Also from the UK, the crimes against the person are increasing. So how do you protect yourself?

        See the conundrum / catch 22 - in both yours and my statements.

        Thats what I'm seeing as the problem, people are cherrypicking, to really solve this you have to look at society as a whole.

        Anything else is a bandaid, on a bandaid.

        One prime example for you, is the absolutely appalling education today, thats does not educate people with the needs and wants of the 21st century.
        • thumb
          Feb 11 2013: Allowing citizens to own weapons is not taking away from them Tify. In my opinion. I'ts also allowing them the means to hurt themselves, I agree.

          I'm 61 years old. Society looks to me as if it never learns from it's history, where violence is concerned. When we just look at the numbers, there are more responsible gun owners than irresponsible ones. We have not had a world war in over 68 years. This is commendable. But, when you look at war-like violence on the ground where it is happening on a national scale, it is no different than a world war. To the peace loving people of Iraq and Afghanistan, Korea, Syria, etc, it looks like the whole war is up in flames. It's always the rulers who instigate violence. Never the peace lovers.

          These sort of conflicts have continued forever in our history. It just moves around from counrty to country and the law of averages implies it will happen in a country like the US also.

          It's just a matter of time, if things are not really changing -if societies are not really maturing.

          In a country with no libraries or internet, I can make excuses for people not educating themselves, but in most modern countries, there is no excuse for everyone to be as educated as they can. In a modern country, education is a personal preference.

          If the world is not progressing towards a class I civilization, we will suffer the consequences. Passing out the grenades and guns only speeds the process along towards the inevitable conclusions.

          Living in a society where weapons are not allowed for the common citizen, and social conditions are deteriorating only presupposes that those citizens will find a means to obtain those weapons to fight back and change their situation. No dictatorship or Oligarchy can exist forever. History teaches us this fact.

          Until we take to the proper road in our social evolution, we must continue to protest in every way possible; as you are doing. I commend your efforts. Keep the faith.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.