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 15 2013: This is for Andy Lee.
    You mean my country of birth and residence.
    I think you are referring to Delhi Gang Rape. To my knowledge 5 have been accused of the crime, all 5 arrested, jailed and put to trial. In a knee jerk reaction Indian Government (under tremendous criticism and protests) proposed first track courts to deal with rape/sexual assault cases. A commission formed specifically for the purpose recommended series of administrative reforms to deal with such crime. Man slaughter in defense of a rape attempt is proposed to be treated as not a crime. That's reasonably fair performance, if not ideal scenario, of a democratic society.
    I seriously doubt if possession of gun by citizens will at all help as you suggest. The rape statistics of USA does not corroborate your suggestion.
    • Feb 15 2013: Hello Pabrita, I confess to a sense of extreme dismay to read you equating sexual assault in my country where the victim did not posses a firearm with proof that firearms don't stop crime. In fact no statisitcs have ever been cited about the crimes prevented by the firearms and yet they are a principal tool of the police.

      The persons who have perpetrated mass murder in my country are also either incarcerated or dead. It does nothing to mitigate the damage they have done. We are still back to the argument that the use of a thing is at the discretion of the individual, for good or for ill. Perhaps we can both agree that banning busses in your country makes no sense because the vast majority are not used in the commision of crimes. The same thing can be said of firearms in my country.

      As for the talk of non lethal defense means, we have them. Pepper spray, stun guns, hand cuffs and cell phones can do everything Chad describes with the exception of stopping a gun wielding assailant.
      • thumb
        Feb 15 2013: Do I see a 'love' for guns here Andy? I think we have not exercised our technological and social ingenuity to check mate the superiority of a gun by a non-lethal defense mechanism. This thread is an attempt towards that direction at least.
        I know there is a national association for rifle in the US. If we 'love' the idea of a gun, the power and protection it promises we will never graduate to a more intelligent non-lethal yet effective deterrent for a possible crime. And no logic will work.
        I think the present question and debate behind gun control/regulation in the US is due to a number of unfortunate and sad instances of violence. If I am not very wrong in Sandy Hook incidence, there was a shield from the gun, though not ideal. It was the body a teacher who was trying to protect children.
        It baffles me how human mind which can have such courage cannot discover a deterrent to gun violence.
        • Feb 15 2013: What you are advocating is a legal or technological soultion to a human behavioral issue. Was sexual assault legal in your country prior to the New Dehli incident? Did your laws prevent it? Should penises be banned or technollogically ehanced to prevent such horrible occurences in spite of the millions of non criminal owners?

          The argument I make isn't based on a love of guns but a love of logic and common sense that denies the acceptance of, "solutions" that can not work and pose an undue burden on law abiding citizens. As I have said before, firearm related homicide has been on a general decline in this coutry for decades.

          These recent horrific incidents indicate a problem that needs to be addressed but I believe it is far more behavioral than it is technical. Find a way to address all violent crime and I believe the solution will involve far modification of more human behavior than technology.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.