A Minnesota physician is calling for a layered public-health approach to gun violence prevention that integrates artificial intelligence as a tertiary safeguard in schools, churches, hospitals, malls, and other public gathering spaces. Writing in the Star Tribune, Dr. Stephen Contag emphasizes that firearm violence has become the leading preventable cause of death among children and teens in the United States. He frames the issue through the lens of medical prevention: primary measures to address root causes, secondary tools to catch risks early, and tertiary interventions to stop imminent threats. In medicine, tertiary steps might involve a defibrillator or organ transplant. Applied to firearms, Contag envisions AI-enabled interdiction systems designed to prevent shooters from acting once they breach a protected perimeter. The concept relies on firearmseither newly produced or retrofittedbeing equipped with embedded chips capable of signaling their presence. Venues such as schools, churches, concert halls, and hospitals could install perimeter sensors that detect unauthorized weapons. Once a firearm crosses into the restricted zone, the system would issue instant alerts to security staff and law enforcement, creating a crucial buffer of seconds or minutes before shots are fired. This approach, he argues, takes advantage of technology already embedded in other critical systems. Financial institutions use AI to flag fraud before accounts are emptied. Physicians rely on machine learning to catch strokes earlier than human judgment allows. Airports screen millions of passengers daily, using layered technology to identify high-risk items before catastrophe occurs. The same principles, Contag argues, could be harnessed for gun interdiction. The op-ed draws heavily on analogies from past safety revolutions. Cars did not originally come with seat belts or airbags, and aviation once relied on minimal passenger screening. Both industries eventually adopted layers of safety technology after the scale of loss became intolerable. These measures did not eliminate accidents or terrorism but drastically reduced fatalities. Contag suggests gun violence requires the same shift: prevention, not perfection, as the societal standard. In his view, the refusal to adopt available safeguards ensures tragedies will continue to multiply in predictable environments where crowds gather without protection. He acknowledges that cost, infrastructure, and political resistance present obstacles. Implementing such systems across thousands of schools and venues would demand significant resources. Civil liberties advocates may also object, citing surveillance concerns or fears of creeping restrictions on lawful gun ownership. Contag counters that the systems would not confiscate or prohibit firearms; instead, they would enforce situational restrictions in sensitive areas, comparable to existing bans on smoking in hospitals or requirements for drivers to wear seat belts. The goal, he stresses, is not to eliminate guns from society but to provide communities with rapid-alert tools that shorten response times and limit casualties when prevention has already failed. Supporters of this approach may see it as a pragmatic middle ground in a polarized debate. It does not demand banning firearms outright, yet it acknowledges that behavioral interventions and policy reforms alone cannot always stop determined attackers. By focusing on reducing casualties, the proposal appeals to a public-health ethic: save as many lives as possible, even if the broader problem remains unsolved. Critics, however, will note that such systems could prove vulnerable to hacking, false positives, or logistical failures, raising the risk of wasted resources without guaranteed results.