Ed's Blog

"Some people know everything, but that's all they know."

THE LESSON WE SHOULD LEARN FROM THE NORWAY SHOOTINGS

Every time there’s a mass shooting, whether it takes place in the United States or in a foreign country, like the one at Norway’s Utøya youth camp, it sparks a debate among Americans over guns and the Second Amendment. Gun-control advocates’ principal argument is a familiar one. Shooters access to and use of firearms are prima facie evidence of the need for stricter gun-control laws. The lesson we should learn from the Norway shootings, however, is not that more gun control would make us safer—Norway has very strict gun-control laws—but that strict gun-control laws are more likely to result in higher death tolls in mass shootings.  (More)

Advertisements

Filed under: Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

13 Responses

  1. Bill McMullen says:

    Yes, sir.

  2. Ben Lowsen says:

    Shame we didn’t have more people spraying bullets everywhere when Rep. Giffords was shot, as that clearly would have made the situation better.

  3. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Forum

    Dear Mr. Ross:

    I think when you give a man with an ideology a gun, once in a while they become only a man with a gun.

    There are also transport restrictions in the US, Wisconsin and Illinois being prohibitive, I thought it unusual for Wisconsin given their sportsmen environment.

    I think the gun laws in the US should be more controlled, that those with severe mental illnesses and felony backgrounds and terrorist leanings should not be able to acquire guns, but it is rather lax in some states. People on the terror watch list are allowed to buy guns, as many did over 11 years and still do so. The NRA supports the rights of those on the terror list to buy weapons. These soft laws give the rest of us gun owners a bad name.

    There was a ruse after Mr Obama was elected that he was going to restrict bullets so all the misinformed purchased bullets until, ironically, they caused a shortage and the sellers made off like bandits,

    There are those miscreants who are under the radar and with or without gun control they will find ways to kill people with guns or airplanes, As Lao Tzu said, build a strong safe and a thief with a stronger back will haul it off.

    They should enforce the laws on the books and the NRA needs to get off of its lofty tower and come back down to earth .I think the NRA does good things but I think we responsible gun owners and citizens can decide on our own without gun lobbyists who are interested only in their own power.

    Thank you for the article.

    Regards,

    Lloyd Wedes

  4. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Forum

    Hi Lloyd. You are absolutely right in what you saying. Many countries got laws and specially gun laws which they dont like to monitor or control. I dont really know why people need guns . In my country most of the guns are owned by people who fear change in my country South Africa. And most of the crime and killings are done with stolen or lost guns.
    Why do we need guns when we got police. Many of us in state institutions preach fear and hatred to our people . So the results are hatred and killings of innocent people .

    No to guns yes to preaching that all people are equal and no to HATRED.??????

    Posted by Sizwe Abrahams

  5. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: US Military Veterans Network

    Good article Ed; important and informative. I have had candidates for political office come to my door and among the questions I ask them regards their thoughts on gun control. I ask my question in as generic a way as possible so as not to influence the candidate’s response. I let them state their case for stricter laws before I ask them when they will move to ban kitchen knives, hand tools and golf clubs as these items have been used to kill or injure as well; they usually stammer for a bit. I politely remind them that people kill, not the tool that was available.

    Posted by Donald (Don) Gustafson

  6. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Heritage Foundation

    When you outlaw guns, only murderers and tyrants will own them.

    Posted by Nicholas “Nick” Voss

  7. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: US Military Veterans Network

    We must never forget that the seeds of the American Revolution were planted over government tyrrany. When the Brits feared rebellion, they began to confiscate weapons and ammunition, starting the war. When the Bill of Rights was adopted, the First Amendment was to guarantee freedom of speech, of the press, and of religious exercise. Deemed second only in necessity, and in remembrance of the causes of the war, was the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, to prohibit further seizures, and to allow the citizenry to stand up to tyrants. Only liberals object to the Second Amendment, because they are the tyranny of our time, and they are thus the ones to feel most threatened by an armed people. They will never miss an opportunity to seize upon the insane actions of madmen to demagogue the arms issue, or to stoop to blood libel in despicable bigotry against Christians.

    Posted by Ronald Bouwman

  8. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: iContact Email Marketing Group

    You make good sense, Ed.

    Posted by Bev Carlson

  9. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: US Military Veterans Network

    Mr. Bouwman, you cannot compare the slaughter of 68 civilians, mostly teenagers, to the American Revolution. That’s nonsense. The mass murders in Norway were the act of a lone gunman with questionable mental status. The Revolution was a war fought by adults, combatant to combatant typically on a field of battle.

    If Anders Breivik wanted to start a revolution, or if you want to start a revolution, that’s fine. It’s even an opinion of Jefferson that a people should revolt upon a tyrannical government. However you define tyranny is up to you as it is relative. I would hope in any revolution that the murder of 68 unarmed civilians would not be the beginning of your political fight.

    I have also yet to see any bigotry to Christians in regards to gun control as you mention.

    Posted by Joshua Brenner

  10. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: US Military Veterans Network

    Mr Brenner: Probably unintentionally, you mischaracterized my post. I did not, nor did I intend, nor will I ever intend, to make the honorable-to-evil comparison you attributed to me. Mr. Gustafson had spoken to gun control advocacies, and I spoke in defense and justification of the Second Amendment. I have carefully reviewed my post, and I find no logical path to warrant your conclusion and accusation. In terms of bigotry against Christians, please recall President Obama’s statement about rural people who cling to their guns and bibles, or the liberals who stooped to “blood libel” when they attempted to blame the Gabrielle Gifford assassination attempt on the Tea Party. Gun control advocacy, capitalization on tragedies, character assassination, and anti-Christian bigotry, are all the ways of the left.

    Posted by Ronald Bouwman

  11. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: US Military Veterans Network

    I consider myself fairly liberal, but I also believe that our right to bear arms is one of the uniquely fundamental principles of the United States, for better or worse. What we need to do as a nation is to bring the gun control debate away from extremes: “I can own any gun I want and bring it anywhere I choose” vs. “nobody should have guns at all.”

    The vast majority of people that own a gun are decent, law abiding citizens. The question shouldn’t be “do we have a right to own a firearm,” the question should be “how do we promote responsible ownership, and how do we prevent people who shouldn’t have access to weapons (known criminals, suspected terrorists, etc.) from getting them?”

    Posted by Daniel Crystal

  12. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: US Military Veterans Network

    OK, I have read everything that all have written and I try to keep this simple. No matter the tools we can choose to use them for good or bad. The fire can heat and keep people alive when used in a good way. It can be be used to destroy and kill when used in a bad way. A gun can be used to put food on the table and protect self and others when used in a good way. It can be used to rob and kill other in the persuit of wrong doing in another. Water can sustain us in a good way, and it can be used to torture or kill in another. So the point as brought out by another it is not the gun that is the problem, it is the person who has possesion of it who can use to do good or bad.

    What we have to be careful of is the few which make the laws not looking out for the people, but for the their pockets and big business who have lobbyist on the hill. You want to change something, cut big business access to the politicians and make it illegal for them to make contributions to one particular politician an if they want to contribute, let them do it into a big pool where all can work issues in the welfare of the people.

    Posted by Nate Thomas

  13. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: US Military Veterans Network

    I was in Haifa, Israel in July 2000 before the second Entifada(sp?). All of the IDF carried weapons all over the place whether they were in uniform or not. Magazines were not inserted, but were readily available. One of buddies from New York stated that with all of these guns around someone is going to go “postal” and start taking out passers by. I told him, that with all of the weapons around, he’d only get off a few shots before he got taken out by those many other weapons. It’s basically MAD on a grand scale.

    The 9-11 hijackers had box cutters and simple blades to hijack 3 planes. What would’ve (NOT) happened had many of the other passengers also had the same weapons? I know for certain that we would have had several flayed Saudis requiring miles of stitches upon landing at destination. If the adults/instructors at the camp in Norway were packing, the loss of life would’ve been much less or maybe even only one KIA. How about Rep. Giffords’ staff members or onlookers? If they were armed then that moron would’ve pulled his piece and that would’ve been that.

    Posted by David Brickey

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share

EWRoss on Twiter

RSS EWRoss.com RSS

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
%d bloggers like this: