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.

  • thumb
    Feb 14 2013: It appears to me that many commenters in this discussion believe that a vast number of societies in the world who prefer to leave the task of protection and defense of the citizens on law enforcing agencies reporting to democratically elected public representatives are not enough freedom loving at all.
    It also appears to me that a number of commenters believe that gun is the only form of protection even in a city managed by a police department therefore any regulation on its possession is a direct assault on an individual right.
    It is interesting to see logic in favor of a right to possess a gun like (a) guns are benevolent compared to primitive weapon because it can take life of only the targeted, (b) guns need a decision by a person to pull the trigger so guns are as harmless as, say a piece of stone (which may also kill if so intended) and (c) those who are suggesting that guns should not be possessed by one and all are exhibiting their dire lack of experience of possessing guns.
    I shall be waiting for a gun to be developed that can be used only for self defense and protection of people and property.
    • Feb 14 2013: In spite of your sarcasm you pointed out the fact that the use to which a thing is put depends entirely upon the user.

      Since the founding of America the United States government said give up your guns and we will take care of you to a great number of native people, giving up their guns in exchange for security didn't work out for them and it won't work for the rest of us.
      • thumb
        Feb 15 2013: Andy, you make a great point. Our Federal Government really did the Native Americans wrong.
        We took away their weapons, herded them into really sorry reservations, destroyed their dignity
        and to cap the insult we formed a Bureau of Indian Affairs. If the Federal Government could do this to the native Americans, what makes the rest of us feel safe.
      • thumb
        Feb 15 2013: My sarcasm is not directed at any particular culture, people or nation and I hope you will agree that I did not invent any of my observations. I do not claim the knowledge of American urheimat the way a native american knows but today's word is too connected to be ignorant and indifferent to what is happening in any part of the globe.
        I noticed that at the heart of this debate lies profound questions like human nature and concept of freedom and self-defense. The country that I am born into started with a unique experiment of defense and free expression through non-violence. I am very unsure if that experiment has succeeded in the modern political nation state that is my country of birth and residence.
        I was wondering if it is wise to see Government and it's policies as anything differentiated from the people in a democratic set up. If I seek the right to defend myself through weapons, wouldn't it be seen as mistrust on my part towards the democratic set up?
        Freedom includes the right to compromise of one's feelings (here the feeling of safety) for a greater benefit of the community.
        • Feb 15 2013: If I may offer another point of view, some of your countrymen, approximately 27 of them according to our news sources, gang raped a woman on a bus and left her to die.

          While we may all hope for the best it is prudent to prepare for the worst rather than rely upon the benevolence of strangers.

          I can't help but think the women of your country might feel safer with a more definite means of detering aggressive advances than saying no.
        • thumb
          Feb 15 2013: One of the US founding fathers was said to have commented " He who returns safety for liberty deserves neither". If my understanding of India's history is correct, It has only been a democratic society for a short time, There are probably a number of citizens who personally remember living under other conditions. Also, India did not fight a war for their freedom and it doesn't appear to be a society that developed using firearms. There is little commonality in our cultural backgrounds. Not to say one is better, just different with differing attitudes.
          Also, the point that is too often misunderstood about American independence and our 2nd Amendment is that Americans are very suspicious of strong central governments evolving into tyrannies. And to make matters worse, in many countries one tyrannical government is overthrown and replaced by another tyrannical government. That is too long a list.
          In our culture, each of us must remain free for the greater benefit of our community.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.