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.



Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Feb 15 2013: It's till hard for me to wrap my head around it. I am willing to do it for the children but that is the only reason. We have a murder maybe once a year and it's usually a family dispute.
    • Feb 15 2013: Always that line, I can hear the violins plays.... I'll do it for the children.

      Really, maybe the children, would prefer if you look at why is was in the constitution in the first place, than just give it up under some misguided sense of dubious morality.

      Because if you dont do the homework, dont put the effort, it's the children that WILL suffer.
      • thumb
        Feb 15 2013: Oh Tify,
        Have you understood nothing of what I said? Most American would conduct a deadly firefight ( a hail of bullets) to defend their children. Men who are jailed for hurting children have almost no life expectancy in prisons. No, defending children are high up on America's list for the use of deadly force.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.