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 14 2013: Here's a couple of questions:

    Let me predicate by saying that I am American. I am against all forms of slavery including Marxism. I am trained marksman, a vet as well as a family man.

    First question I have is: If a criminal broke the law to obtain possession of a firearm(s.) And then subsequently used that firearm to commit murder(s) like in the Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora and V-Tech then why are some of you talking about totalitarian measures and the infliction of criminal consequences on law abiding citizens that have done nothing wrong?

    Second question is: Would it be more logical and effective to first look at the failures in the enforcement of the current laws before we discuss the implementation of new laws?

    The USA is a free country. We are not subjects or slaves. We do not bow to any monarchy nor do we adorn our currency with the images of royalty or dictators. Our freedom is only predicated on our ability and willingness to defend ourselves. Our Constitution, like every other constitution means nothing if the people have no way to defend their rights.

    People who are against guns often forget that criminals by nature don't care about laws and consequences. And they also forget that 99.9% of the time when a crime is committed the police show after the crime. So if you disarm people or limit their ability to defend themselves. Doesn't that put you in the same spectrum of evil as the people that commit murders and rape women? An unwitting accomplice?

    Some of the ideas about gun control in the USA are forged in ignorance by people that don't even own a weapon or have never used one. It's like taking driving tips from someone that neither drives nor owns a car.
    • Feb 15 2013: Roman,

      Where in the idea did it suggest any of what you have in your comment? The idea did not restrict gun ownership. it was not against guns. it merely applied the idea that maybe the product should include some basic safety measures and that applying those safety measures would accommodate any concerns that gun manufacturers might have to be inspired to fight it because they would make more revenue which is really the whole reason for the La Pierre positioning. At this moment the gun manufacturers are laughing their way to the bank and it has nothing to do with freedom or being an american. If they were the type of citizens or people you admire they would try some of this themselves without any laws.
      • Feb 15 2013: Mr. Freda,

        You were badgering people with your comments. Challenging them to produce evidence to support and underpin their opinions. And when they did and they certainly did, you chose to ignore the reality and then produced the above nonsensical drivel that you just posted ten minutes ago.

        Consider yourself schooled.

        And your biometric idea is not your idea. It was already tried with police weapons years ago. It won't work because when a people need their weapons to defend their lives the last thing in the world they want to happen is for their weapon to fail. If a weapon is required to be wound up like a camping flashlight or required to take power from a battery then that weapon will fail and people will die. Nice idea you had there buddy.

        Your idea of as "little pain" as possible is laughable because you only want the gun owners to give up something. How about this. I would happy to trade my large capacity magazines and have universal background checks if non-gun owners would be willing to pay a 50% income tax to fund the needed extra security to keep every American safe. As well as fully funding a Victims Medical Insurance Program. How is that for a painless idea?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.