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 11 2013: At least you addressed some issues this time. Now go home and quit trying to meddle in our affairs. Lol
    I understand your position. But did your gov take away due process. You need to cut down on the caffeine Bubba
    While I have plenty of respect for our closest and dearest neighbor I have never tried to tell anyone from your country what rights they have in their country. Something that you seem to lack. You stepped over the line with that one.
    As far as the cherished centrist Liberal thing, the vast majority of Americans including me are centrist that's just the way it is. You should have more respect for other peoples views. And, the reference to dogs being used on our citizens was to show the way it has been leaning for many years. When you lose small parts your liberties for WHAT YOU believe is keeping safe
    Maybe you neglected to read the last paragraph or at least understand it. So I will translate it for you.
    When you lose small pieces of your liberty that is a path I personally don't care for, because it is the path to losing more. Those btw were fought for through out the history of this country by my family with many of them in the national cemeteries of our great country.
    I never said I do or do not vote. That is my prerogative whichever I choose. I wasn't complaining I was giving my opinion.
    As far as issues with the Police, yes I do, the 1968 Democratic convention. look it up. citizens being put behind fences called free speech zones (oxymoron)because they're holding signs that disagreed with Dubba's policies G W That is. And there are many more examples.
    It seems to me you don't really study both sides of the issues, instead you assimilate others opinions into what you call your own. When one of my country's citizens rights areabused that's a clear sing that mine can be abused.
    Our conversation is over. because it wasn't one. I'm sure you will have the last word due to your "Fox news" approach to a conversation. But I am done with you. bye Dewane
    • Feb 11 2013: Hi, I just want to be clear. This forum is one designated to the sharing of ideas from those from around the world. I am not dictating anything. I am simply contributing to the conversation and offering some ideas that can be used to address the issues at hand. I do not dismiss your concerns about those with mental health issues. The problem still exists. What I am pointing out is that issue is minor in comparison to the overall picture. There are laws to address those with mental health issues and even those are not perfect as we say in Newtown.
      What is the common denominator in this discuss are the guns and people. Guns have a level of predictability, humans no so much.
      Personally, I do not feel that my government actions which severely restricts my access to guns is an infringement of my rights or that of my family. Yes, you can run to your Constitution but in my personal belief it is not as pure as some choose to believe. If it were, there would be slavery and women would not have the vote. Society evolves as we move to the future. The problem is that too many people want to cling onto the past because it is the fear of the future that governs their lives. To me, they have become slaves to the past which inhibits society fropm earning its future freedoms.
      • thumb
        Feb 12 2013: I am going to assume you are Canadian and very familiar with the US culture. But after your comments on the US Constitution, I see there is a weakness in your education. No matter, you have said more on the Constitution then most US high school graduates.. Yes, during the time of the writing of the document there was slavery and limited voting.But, it is a living document and since the original writing there has been updates and changes. So, slavery is not an issue and the ladies have the vote in Federal elections. There have been a number of changes, some went well, some not so good. It seems that when the changes are well though out, they serve the people well. A few were made in highly emotional national conscience and proved to be a poor choice when the nation came back down from it's high. But as a viewer of American PBS TV you are probably aware of this. The one point made about slaves to the past inhibits society from earning future freedoms seems innocuous. This whole conversation has been about Americans maintaining a current freedom and many ( including you ) on this forum are proposing limitations on this current freedom to have guns. It's confusing.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.