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

    pat gilbert 50+

    • +3
    Feb 13 2013: I think you folks forget that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to defend yourself against tyranny. The sort of thing that has happened in many countries where the citizens were subsequently enslaved. Or in 92 in LA where the Korean shop keepers were able to keep their stores and inventory because they had automatic weapons. The police were severely out manned by the rioters. This is sort of tough to do with a single shot against an automatic weapon.

    • Andy Lee

      • +2
      Feb 13 2013: Pat I agree with your assessment but the shop keepers didn't have automatic weapons, they had semi automatic weapons at most. The president wants to take away the option of owning semi automatic weapons.
      • thumb

        pat gilbert 50+

        • 0
        Feb 13 2013: My understanding was they had SK47s which are easily made full auto

        • timothy schlotter

          • 0
          Feb 14 2013: That part is wrong, sk's are not easy to make full auto without destrying the characteristics of the weapon. Such a weapon would be almost un-usable.

    • Rob Freda

      • +2
      Feb 13 2013: have you actually read the second amendment? There is no mention whatsoever of tyranny.

      Those "many countries" you mention had no tradition of freedom or democracy so whether they had guns or not made absolutely no difference. After the fall of the Czar the Russians were armed to the teeth. Did that stop small group of radical leftist from imposing a totalitarian regime? The reason that was so easy was because Russia was a totalitarian regime under the Czars for 1000 years. Romans were armed to the teeth. That did not prevent the suborning of the republic. Every case of totalitarian governments is history is preceded by a totalitarian government so what exactly are you even talking about?

      Your premise is ignorant and absurd. try reading some actual history vs. the fantasies you are being feb by your news and pundit sources..
      • thumb

        pat gilbert 50+

        • +2
        Feb 13 2013: I thought I was obnoxious but you win the prize and then hide your profile..., but why would I expect anything else from a progressive?

        Actually the 2nd amendment was exactly about the citizen defending himself against tyranny through a militia and to underline his natural right to defend himself, as stated in the Bill of Rights and the federalist papers and the anti federalist papers.

        • Rob Freda

          • +1
          Feb 14 2013: hide what profile? Not a progressive. basically apolitical. Just know some actual history, political theory, and logic. If an adherence rationality and empiricism vs. fantasy makes me a "progressive" then feel free to use the moniker.

          Actually you are completely wrong. there is no mention of individual defense in the amendment. so you basically have two choices. 1) ignore the care and thought the framers of the constitution took in writing the actual words of the amendment which is basically like spitting in the framer's eye (and I am guessing you adulate them to a degree they themselves would find disturbing) and obviating their attempt to as Mike put it create a "living document" 2) Accept the actual amendment as written and learn some actual history.

          And yes I was obnoxious because after a certain amount of absurdity I reach my litmus point. Your absurd comments about tyranny reflect and abject lack of historical knowledge which is a bit odd for someone how worships a document from 200 years ago.

          Personally I find it more obnoxious to constantly spout opinions that are based on a lack knowledge and rigor with regard to the subject.

        • timothy schlotter

          • 0
          Feb 14 2013: To Rob,Why do you constantly attack anyone that doesn't think the way you do? You talk as if you and you alone know history. The russians [general citizens] were not armed after the revolution, it would be those pesky communists that were armed, and they quickly disarmed any not believing their way. And for you to say that the second didn't say this, or that, and then not let people defend their view because it really doesn't matter what the founders said, ........that is what your argument to me was......... it is you that is pushing this argument in one direction, and not allowing others to have a say. Why should any gun owners wish to have a discussion with people that only want their way presented?
      • thumb

        pat gilbert 50+

        • +2
        Feb 14 2013: Right back at you, but the 1st amendment allows you to state your opinion, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

        • Rob Freda

          • +2
          Feb 14 2013: which one right back at me? ignoring what the framers actually wrote because it inconveniently does not support your argument.

          you have not put out a single fact. all you have done is repeat a bunch of pablum and platitudes that have nothing to do with facts.

          what facts are there in your opinions exactly?

          1) Name a country that first disarmed its citizens and then became totalitarian.

          2) Name a western democracy that has turned into a dictatorship (and please do not throw out the Wiemar republic).

          3) where in the 2nd amendment is it even implied that the US government is the entity against which individuals should bear arms. that pesky first clause of the amendment is a bit of a problem isn't it.

          4) Please elucidate the factual basis for the 2nd amendment guaranteeing your right to bear arms to for self-defense. Where exactly are the words "self-defense" in the amendment.

          Oh, I forgot, your position is one where facts should never ruin a good story. your arguments are based on selective reading or completely inaccurate representations of history.

        • Roman Schroeder

          • +2
          Feb 14 2013: Rob Freda,

          Brother you need to go read some books. The answers you're seeking are in the Federalist Papers which outline the reasoning for each amendment in the US Constitutions - Bill of Rights.

          I'll give you an example. The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

          Some folks (leftists, progressives and idiots in general) think this means that the US Federal government cannot engage in acts of prayer or religious service. When in fact within days of the signing of the US Constitution, the Congress established the Office of the Chaplain for the House and the Senate. The reason why is explained in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Federalist Papers. All of which are the basis and reasoning for the US Constitution.

          The Second Amendment is even more straight forward. It was enacted so that every able man that was not prohibited by physical condition or religious beliefs could be ready to fight if a need to form a militia was present. The second part of the amendment affirms that the "states" are free and that they have the right to defend themselves. For those who believe that the 2nd Amendment has something to do with hunting and fishing. That's just stupid because back then if you did not hunt and fish then you did not eat. Notice carefully that it does not say the right of the militia or the government or the church. It says the "PEOPLE" have a right to bear arms and that this right shall not be infringed. This is basic 6th grade civics and American History.

          "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

          If you're serious about learning about the why and what's of the founders intent. Then I recommend the aforementioned which talk in great detail about how and why America came to be these United States.

      • shawn disney 10+

        • 0
        Feb 15 2013: Rob: you recommend that we all read History to understand what it takes to fight off a "Tyranny". Is that not what the American Revolution, fought by the men who wrote the Constitution were doing?! And the very first skirmish in it was an attempt by the Government of the day to seize private weapons. And that pattern is very consistent . In 1936 some Fascist generals in Spain though they could easily overthrow an elected government , thanks to a foreign mercenary army . Government defenders were basically civilians given guns by the government that enabled them to hang on for 3 years, almost win, but they were only defeated by Fascist and Nazi troops brought in to help the Generals. And incidently, a refusal by the rest of the world to allow the Spanish Loyalist government to buy weapons. What typannical movement did NOT try to deny weapons to ordinary people?

    • Robin Pearce

      • +1
      Feb 13 2013: Pat the second amendment does guarantee the right to bear arms , however it does not guarantee which sort of arms citizens have a right to bear. This has been tested many times since the first case in 1930. The Supreme Court then and since then has upheld the right to own arms but it has also ruled that Government can determine which arms you can and cannot own.
      • thumb

        pat gilbert 50+

        • +1
        Feb 13 2013: But a hunting rifle is irrelevant for arming/defending oneself

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.