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.

Thoughts?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Feb 10 2013: I had to reply to some other replies that you said and I did not have enough space to reply. I am not sure about the US but in Canada we have Reserve Stations across Canada that hold Weapons and Ammunition etc... put in place for such an emergency. So the non-military people would be told to report to these Stations and enrol and receive the necessary equipment and then some training to fulfill the problem with the thugs with machine guns and hand grenades.
    I already answered the "isn't enough police and Military to protect the whole country", where do you think the majority of your Military is, its not in Afghanistan for sure, it's in the US and standing by for any such needs as to keep the peace, and the Reserve Units will supply the volunteers with the proper equipment and weapons so I don't believe that we need to have one in our homes especially with children, I cannot and will not take the chance of having a weapon and ammunition around the house, I know split up but come on, it would be foolish to have them at each end of the house now wouldn't it. So most times the ammunition is within reaching distance to the rifles/pistols. You can buy a 30 mag round clip for a Glock (Sorry about the spelling) and with a file you can make it into a fully automatic killing machine.
    I believe hobbyist's and Gun collectors can have them but registered and hopefully with the new changes will not be able to sell it to someone without first a police check and then re-registering it to the new owner. That is not much to ask for. I am not totally against it being ex-Military but some people should not have a hand gun let alone an AK-47 or RP-15 (Not sure about the name of the American weapon) but that is everywhere. And I do not mean thugs and criminals but people who just does not respect the weapon and ends up a statistic on how many people were killed cleaning there weapons. So I hope this clears up my thoughts on the whole thing
    Tom
    • Feb 10 2013: Just for the sake of argument, lets say that your government did turn tyrannical, Where do you think the first place is that they would defend? I can guarantee you that it would be your access to those very weapons. Now, if they had to come directly to you to take them away that is a whole other problem for the ones who would be your master. Your thoughts?.
      • Feb 12 2013: I am sure that we as a country (USA or Canada) would not vote in a Tyrannical candidate. We would know long before this occurs. Come now you have gotten rid of two Presidents, Nixon for trying to steal election information and Clinton for getting his tool cleaned (Excuse the abuse of the English language there) and it was fairly easy to impeach them. So if there was a hint of a President going King on his country I dare say it would be caught very easily. Just the troops movements would have the people freaking out and there are a thousand other things that must be done before he would round up the troops, and he/she would be caught well before this occurred and that would end that attempt. Canada and Especially the USA has too many backups and the press to have a Prime Minister or a President sneaking around to form a coo. We are not in some backwards country where the President usually has the 3 or 4 newspapers and the one TV Station in his pocket compared to our thousands of newspapers, than there is the thousands of TV stations plus don't you think that NATO or other countries in the world would be screaming that there is a coo happening in the USA. Can't happen, not during these times and with the Internet it just would never get off the ground because we are TOO FREE and would catch a coo being created, let alone followed through. Never Happen!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.