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.

  • Feb 13 2013: I did want to post this up, as I dont think it's a well know fact, we should look at the whole subject unemotionally and holistically.

    I said how can you call for mental welfare checks on ordinary citizens, and not the president. The reply was" we generally dont elect insane presidents". Fair enough. But I think the comment does not take into account that power corrupts. Nor...

    There have been 332 drone attacks total since 2004; 322 of those attacks have taken place since January 2008, under the current Obama administration.

    Again before 2008 - 10 drone attacks, after 2008 - 322, that -is- insane.

    How many knew that before the last election they scrambled to 'create a drone policy usage document' in case the president was not re-elected? What does that say to you? About a) their usage b) the governments mindset c) A plan called - save ass.

    How many knew that the White House calls drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil 'legal,' 'ethical' and 'wise' - even without evidence of a pending attack. As probably was the case with most of the other 322.

    I believe that a any and all leader's should lead, but they should also be subject to the same checks and balances as they call for on it's peoples.

    Because the leadership of any country -does- effect the mindset of the peoples of that country. Because I dont believe that the two, president actions vs peoples actions, can be effectively separated. You only need to look recently at Germany for proof.

    I dont believe those people that are effectively assassinated, are just going to go away. I do believe this policy will create more and more anger, resentment, and frustration for future generations of children to come.

    Sadly I think for Americans that will mean -less- freedom, more restrictions. I wonder if in the end, the only people that will truly have any freedom, will not be the ones who's constitution tried to enshrine it.

    Or do you believe like Bush once said, 'the constitution is only a piece of paper'.
    • thumb
      Feb 13 2013: Finally a conversation.
      First, where I am coming from.
      I believe the US constitution is a brilliant piece of political literature on the level of the Magna Carta, etc.
      Society needs rules the members can all agree too and live by.
      Individuals are responsible for their own actions and their own outcomes.

      Presidents of the US. Most have been vane individuals and are sensitive about how history will "treat" them.
      Defense of the country is the top of the list. Currently, there have been threats against the US by others.
      We can debate justifications another time. The reaction by presidents is "overwhelming response".
      The USSR knew that Regan would respond with total nuclear reaction.
      Bush 1 responded to the invasion of an ally.
      Things were quiet on Clinton's watch.
      Bush 2 reacted preemptively on WMD threats.
      Obama is facing small groups and individuals in many places, He can't send in field armies to engage an enemy, so he uses drones. He sees Americans engaged in hostile acts as treasonous and eligible to engage. This can be an extension of his authority under our constitution and is currently being considered.
      So, is it moral, some feel it is not.
      Is it legal, that is being considered.
      Is morality synonymous with legality? Maybe not.

      American Society.
      It seemed to have changed in the 60's (from my perspective) As a society, we have lost respect for each other. We've become selfish and self serving. Worse, we have lost personal responsibility for our our self indulgences.
      For example, one of thousands: One state is up in arms over constant invasion from another country by illegal recreational drug runners. Who are the greatest critics of this states reactions? The purchasers of these drugs and supporters of political factions holding great influence in federal offices.
      As far as all the discussion on gun control, in political parlance, it's picking the low hanging fruit.
      PS. Politicians are really ugly actors who can't get into movies.
    • Feb 13 2013: @Tify unless you can provide proof of the actual documents that show where drone action was called for if the President was not re-elected you are just spreading rumors or have a terrible case of paranoia . Bush did react but not preemptively on WMD threats. There has never been found any WMD's he used it as an excuse for his agenda. Every official report out there by several countries states there were no WMD's . Please use facts .
      • Feb 15 2013: Dont tell me to use facts in that tone.

        Look up the information for yourself. The truth is out there, if your willing to put the effort in.

        I suggest you start with ... "The New York Times", who had a lengthy article on the subject, including what the president and his cabinet did in case he was not reelected.

        I hope and pray you put the effort it, rather than just rely on dogma or what you overheard, or what was on the nightly news. Or worse still some false sense of ... whatever.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.