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.

  • thumb
    Feb 15 2013: To Andy Lee.
    Invention, development, maintenance and application of fire-arms are all manifestations of human behavior. Wondering if guns are very effective self-defense technology, at least one that has practically zero risk of being misused to harm somebody is also a trait of human behavior. Declining to discuss or look for solutions involving no guns is also part of human behavior.
    That gun itself doesn't kill is a no brainer. Btw, did you modify your comment in this thread before? I seem to remember something like ""Hello Pabrita, I don't see a reform of law that calls lethal force in the defense of attempted ra..." which I don't see anymore.
    • Feb 15 2013: Yes I did. I was prepared to answer your snarky comment about, "a love of guns" being my motivation with an equally accusatory comment and thought better of it.

      The only, "solution" I hear from non US citizens to that of firearm related homicide is to give up firearm ownership entirely because that will fix everything. It didn't happen in England for 8 years following the ban, firerarm homicides and homicide in general declined in Washington D.C. at a slower rate than existed prior to the ban, Australia has a 13 year old ban and still has firearm homicides, the same goes for Canada. Am I wrong that your country was a territory of England for decades and in that time your citizens by and large not permitted the ownership of firearms? Is it any wonder non violent protest proved to be the tool of your eventual freedom. Please understand that we are not the rest of the world. My country was established through the overthrow of an oppresive government by means of war. We have a different culture, a different mind set, and for now, we have the freedom of choice and the right to exercise it. Firearm ownership is not mandatory, nor is military service compulsory. The majority of our citzens carry non-lethal alternatives ever day. Hundreds of thousands of conflicts are resolved without the loss of life or use of a firearm but those events don't make news headlines.Our founding fathers new the risks involved with giving up hard won freedoms for the promise of secuirty. Our second ammendment exists for a reason. No, I do not eneterain the notion of abdicating the defense of my life to the good will of strangers.

      What solution do you have for the problems we face? All I've read so far is that we should give up the right to own firearms for a greater sense of community, we should invent secret agent sleeping pill shooters with gps tracking systems or perhaps soothing chamomile tea and the latest Doctor Phil book.
      • thumb
        Feb 16 2013: I do understand that the "country" you believe in is not the rest of the world. Or may be the gentlemen in this video are out of their minds.
        However, nothwithstanding your belief, the same country needs to engage with the rest of the world for very compelling reasons, business being one of them.
        I don't prefer to stick to the old and possibly outdated ideas of 'nationalism' and hold very different views regarding culture, freedom, democracy and governance from yours, with due respect to your choice. Despite being no safer than many, billions of people and I in India prefer to live without the so-called protection of gun and that is also a choice.
        That the choice of unregulated or insufficiently regulated right of possession of a gun by any and all citizens is a proposition that needs to be re-examined is apparent by the very question under which we are debating. I hope you also understand that living peacefully with or without guns is the order of the civilized society and not a news rather an immature and depressed individual's access to an assault weapon and eventual killing of peaceful citizens and children is a news. I think in recent past the world has seen many of such massacres in the US and it's government and the President have reasons to look for reforms.
        I have observed references of 2nd Amendment of US constitution. That is a fact in history and since it is fact it cannot have a special version for anybody. I prefer not to delve in it's analysis in this thread.
        I am happy that in the end you too are interested in a solution. I do not have the solution. My contribution in this debate is acknowledgement of the problem and supporting thoughts about bringing about a change (giving up guns is my opinion which seems to be rejected by you, that's fine). What is yours?
        • Feb 16 2013: Are you seriously using an entertainer and a tv show as your supporting argument? These men are paid to spout their opinions with no responsibility to be factual in their statements. Does all of your knowledge about America come from entertainers like Bill Mahr? Is it our movies that are the basis of your opinions? The problem in my country isn't law abiding citizens but criminals. Firearms regulations occur in my country at both the state and federal level, machine guns, bazookas, and tanks are as prevalent here as they are in your country.

          The laws we have have are not being enforced. Making more laws that would turn current law adibing citizens into criminals is not the solution. Your proposal does nothing to address the crime in this country. It doesn't address our woefully innadaquate mental health system. It doesn't solve anything. It only exposes our citizens to more potential violence with one less means of protecting their homes and families. Did you know that police forces in my country have been drastically reduced due to our weakend economy? You see, without taxes we can't pay for police.

          If the individual citizens right to bear arms is eliminated in my country I think the answer is to close our borders via military enforcement, stop all financial aid to foreign countries and use that money to provide for vastly increased police presence to help secure the well being of our citizens, and to impose stiff import duties and taxes on all goods and foreign workers entering my counrty to help cover the cost of the policies the rest of the world thinks we should enact. Thats my solution.

          You actually believe that lethal force in defense of attempted sexual assault should be a crime and changing the law in your country was, "a knee jerk reaciton". Thank God you aren't making laws in my country.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.