Ed's Blog

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

GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL

gun_control

It’s difficult to write about the gun-control debate without angering one side or the other. This column likely will anger both. The horrific shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, have sparked what is shaping up as another intense and bitter battle over gun control. Like the battle over abortion, little common ground exists between the two sides, and compromise is unlikely if not impossible. That’s a shame, because I believe we could dramatically reduce mass shootings in the United States if we focused more on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill rather than law-abiding citizens.  (Read the full column at EWRoss.com)

Advertisements

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

33 Responses

  1. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: US Army

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL

    The Constitution trumps all

    Posted by Roger Bradley

  2. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Defense Executive Network

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL

    I do not own a gun,knife or anything which can harm any one.However any country where Guns were forbidden invited aggression. Please look at Tibet,Europe.How many people would go and live in Detroit,Chicago or any other parts of inner city if they did not have guns.Before a gun is purchased the buyer should go through background check and training.

    Posted by Allen Bahn

  3. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: U.S. Veteran

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL

    Thank you for the post

    Posted by Nancy Re

  4. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: International business professionals networking group

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL

    Both sides need to be angered.

    Posted by David Rich

  5. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: International business professionals networking group

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL

    Well done, Ed, well done.

    Posted by Paul Brown

  6. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: International business professionals networking group

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL

    But, Ed, mental instability and illness is not a pre-arranged illness when first a stable and sane person buys a weapon, and remains sane and stable. the comming-on of mental illness is a difficult situation to perdict, and the extent of mental instability–except in obvious cases– difficult to assess by laypeople. weapons purchases have to be made more difficult, and this is the job of the legislators.

    Posted by David Rich

  7. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Groups

    Group: Defense Industries

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL

    I concur with most of your article, however:

    1. Post Revolution-A large portion of US population were prohibited from owning guns. Define “Large Portion.” What is your source?

    2. Many frontier towns had strictest gun laws-What is your source?

    3. Background checks at gunshows-There are background checks at gunshows. I purchased a shotgun at a gunshow in December in Colorado and had to wait for the background check.

    Posted by Jason Hastings

  8. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Groups

    Group: INTELLIGENCE & SECURITY

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL

    A very sensible article, and I concur 100% with the recommendations therein.

    Posted by Steven Mondul

  9. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Strategic Plans and Policy Experts

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL

    Think of it this way= you have a real estate brokers license can you give that to your cousin to use? no think og your drivers license and registration can you give that to your maid to use ? no One of the problems is that people who are issued as individuals a license to possess a specific firearm should not be able to allow anyone but themselves to use this- simple solution to part of the problem. In real estate we call it straw buyers its a felony – and in real estate no one gets killed- so whether you want to make it a crime for allowing or worse yet giving your weapon to another to use or you want to control guns its the ame difference. As a legal gun owner – no one needs an assult weaponas a civilian period- Happy New Year

    Posted by George Goldstein

  10. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Naval Postgraduate School Alumni

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL

    I read a letter to the editor in my local newspaper today that I thought made a lot of sense. Here it is:

    The right to bear arms is a federal right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. What I propose below are intended to be federal laws. Individual states could add additional requirements as they see fit, but they would have to abide by these.

    1. Obtain a federal gun owner permit. Once obtained, an individual could purchase a weapon in any state with no waiting period, but would be held fully responsible for that weapon. The requirements would be a full background check; pass a written test and gun-range proficiency exam; provide fingerprints.

    2. Require every existing gun to be registered to an owner permit. This info would be in a federal database to allow owners to move to other states and have their record of ownership go with them because they hold the permit. This registering of guns already owned can be done over a period of time.

    3. Require all new guns sold to be registered to an owner permit and the information placed into the database.

    4. It would be the owner’s responsibility to notify authorities when the ownership is transferred to a new owner permit. If not, they would still be responsible for that weapon and its usage and could be charged as an accessory to any crime committed with that weapon.

    5. Being in possession of a gun without proper registration would be a felony with a mandatory federal sentence of 10 years per count.

    The right to bear arms is a federal right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. What I propose below are intended to be federal laws. Individual states could add additional requirements as they see fit, but they would have to abide by these.

    1. Obtain a federal gun owner permit. Once obtained, an individual could purchase a weapon in any state with no waiting period, but would be held fully responsible for that weapon. The requirements would be a full background check; pass a written test and gun-range proficiency exam; provide fingerprints.

    2. Require every existing gun to be registered to an owner permit. This info would be in a federal database to allow owners to move to other states and have their record of ownership go with them because they hold the permit. This registering of guns already owned can be done over a period of time.

    3. Require all new guns sold to be registered to an owner permit and the information placed into the database.

    4. It would be the owner’s responsibility to notify authorities when the ownership is transferred to a new owner permit. If not, they would still be responsible for that weapon and its usage and could be charged as an accessory to any crime committed with that weapon.

    5. Being in possession of a gun without proper registration would be a felony with a mandatory federal sentence of 10 years per count.

    Any reasonable owner should not object to these.

    John Flynn, Captain, USN, Ret.
    Posted by John Flynn

  11. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Council for Emerging National Security Affairs

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL

    A balanced and realistic assessment and proposal. Unfortunately, I suspect that special interest groups on both sides of the debate have become so good at shutting down debate – it’s what they know – that it’s unlikely that we will see the sort of meaningful debate that the issue needs.

    Posted by Andrew Smith

  12. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: U.S. Veteran

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL

    Very well said. I’ve been saying the same thing for years. Our lawmakers need to wake up.

    Posted by JOHN SAYRE

  13. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Homeland Security (HLS) Intelligence

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL
    Excellent article. In our zeal to shut down mental institutions and “mainstream” the mentally ill, we lost sight of the fact that there are some people that just should not be out loose in public. This was typical of feel good legislative efforts in that they are not well thought out. Having those with mild mental illnesses out in the community is usually good for everyone. Putting everyone out on the street or back with the families that turned to the institutions for help in the first place is not good.
    I own guns. I retired after almost 40 years in police work and am now a lawyer and college professor. I have never killed anyone and secure my guns when they are not in use. I resent the morons in Washington, who cannot even come up with a budget, telling me that they want to take my rights away because they cannot figure out how to handle a complex problem.

    Posted by John P. Hebb, Esq.

  14. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Wartime Professionals™

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL
    The democrats psy-op to gain the ‘moral highground’ for Obama’s smashing of the Constitional right and necceassary right 2nd Amendment

    The difference between a slave in bondage and freeman is the right to carry a legal firearm.
    anyone with media and press contacts should start a loud ‘grassroots’ consolidationof distain for these Hollywood Hypocrites get them out of the public political debate – now is the perfect time to highlight just how obnoxiously self-important they are

    Posted by Marina Knife

  15. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA)

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL
    Hello Ed,

    I would have to say that you are so correct and bring up a good point. I don’t think it should anger people though, we do need to get a hold of the situation but find some reasonable way to preserve right as well. The question is how do we do that?

    As a veteran and mother, it is my nature to protect , however there do have to be stipulations or things would ultimately spiral out of control.

    Kim

    Posted by Kimberley Matthews

  16. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Heritage Foundation

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL

    A good piece that addresses many facets of the debate. In the case of the Sandy Hook tragedy, the young man’s mother is much to blame. The guns should have been secured, and the mother knew her son was mentally unstable. Identifying potential insane murderers and protecting others from them should be a first priority, but leftists will argue against that. In some dictatorships, “insanity” is only an excuse to imprison dissidents. In my state of Oklahoma, “make my day” and “open carry” laws are in place to protect the public; however, there is no way to measure the number of crimes that are discouraged. Only recently, two criminals have lost their lives to guns fired by (1) a young mother and (2) a 12-year-old girl, after criminal forced entry into the homes of the shooters.

    Posted by Ronald Bouwman

  17. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA)

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL
    Ed You are most welcome on both. I recently obtained my BCJFS- or bachelors in criminal justice and forensic science. So I think control and safety alike are needed , and as a mom But just how far we go with it is confusing and somewhat scary.

    Posted by Kimberley Matthews

  18. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Defense Executive Network

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL

    Uhmmm… folks? Guns are NOT just for shooting people. My family and friends often drive out into the desert where we set up targets, have some fun and friendly competition, fresh air, and a picnic. The rest of the time, my guns sit locked up in a secure place, right next to the flood insurance policy I am glad I have but have never used in earnest.

    I agree with Allen that a background check and some verification of training is a good idea. Here in CA both are required for handguns and background checks are required for long guns. I’m all for it. Other CA gun requirements? Ahh… not so much…

    And its a fun sport. I have taken courses to become a gunsmith and enjoy puttering around like many used to do on hot rod cars. I grew up in the environs of NYC and guns weren’t an issue. I ended up teaching marksmanship in the Army as a Basic Training Company Commander and later as a contractor in Iraq.

    Before you label me a “gun nut redneck”, please understand that I have an Engineering Degree and a Master’s, live in suburbia, and have been an executive in high tech companies for many years.

    I remain a firm believer in the axiom that “Guns kill people like spoons make Oprah fat”.

    Posted by Robert Coleman

  19. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Homeland Security (HLS) Intelligence

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL
    Agreed John! The Republican (as in Republic, not party) concept has been highjacked by a bunch of morons and the laws they write, for the most part, and their focuses are pure idiocy!

    Posted by Dusty Kitzmiller, CHS-III, SMEMS, RSO

  20. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Wartime Professionals™

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL

    This sounds so logical…Doubt any palpable action will come of this tragic event. Thanks for the column.

    Posted by Ron Naida

  21. Shawn Nyswonger says:

    Good article however, I am completely and utterly sick and tired of hearing about the so-called “gun show loop-hole”. I really wish that ALL reporters and columnists would do their homework and get the facts. There is no loop-hole. Anyone who has ever been to a gun show and tried to purchase a firearm can tell you that you still have jump through all the hoops as if you went to a gun store. There is someone designated and you have to pay that oversees all gun sales are legal. This was disproved years ago, and now the same dishonest liberal spin is back.

  22. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: INTELLIGENCE & SECURITY

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL

    I too concur with this article. It succinctly raises the salient issues and sensibly points to a way forward.

    Posted by Spike Bowman

  23. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: INTELLIGENCE & SECURITY

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL

    Gun control !!! too late too little ? from where we gonna start ? and with who we can start with the criminals around the world or with the security conseil members ?? when we can catch all the fish in the ocean we can talk about Gun control

    Posted by TAYEB ADEL

  24. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Wartime Professionals™

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL

    If any among you watch Glenn Beck’s TV show, “The Blaze”, catch it this evening at 5:00 EST. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman will be on the show to discuss the Sandy Hook school shooting, others like it, future developments and trends, and the appropriate actions for societies to take. I have never heard any person with their act more together on this topic than Dave. He trains military & police forces worldwide in dealing with lethal combat situations, his expertise legendary at this point. If you have or can come up with a way to watch this, please do so.

    Posted by Paul Brown

  25. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: INTELLIGENCE & SECURITY

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL

    Sorry to disappoint, but (in spite of the fact that I’m opposed to more gun laws), I wasn’t “angered” by anything in the article.

    The only point that I think you missed is that both the semi-auto ban of 1994 and the full auto “ban” from the 1930s are both, arguably, unconstitutional.

    Further, the Constitution is written to define the powers of the government. The Bill of Rights protects the rights of the individual citizen. The Constitution itself defines the role of government as protecting the rights of the people, and all empowering of the government was considered as necessary to that end. Prohibition got it backwards and restricted the rights of the people. Eventually, it had to be repealed … not only because it didn’t work, but it didn’t belong in a document protecting the rights of the people.

    Posted by John Tant

  26. Reposted Fromm LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Strategic Plans and Policy Experts

    Discussion: GUN CONTROL VS. CRIME CONTROL

    Great article Ed. I agree with you that it is very tempting for us to reach for a quick fix and there by fail to solve the actual problem. I think that branding the problem as “gun control,” in it of itself, is a wrong. A crime reduction act that deals with the challenge holistically may garner less controversy. Law abiding citizens should not be restricted from these weapons knowing that it wont solve the real problem.

    Posted by Felix Gbee

  27. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    How about, instead of new laws, we try actually enforcing the ones on the books? In Richmond VA, for a while anyway, they made a civic decision to NEVER deal out the federal gun charges when felons were apprehended with weapons. The result? Initially, many felons were sent to Federal penetentiaries instead of state, generally far away from Richmond, and were less able to carry on their criminal enterprises from behind bars. Their wives/girlfriends/mothers/whatever, could not visit regularly since they were hundreds of miles away. Their incarceration was considerably less pleasant as a result. The word got around, and pretty soon, the incidence of criminals being picked up with guns dropped considerably. It raised the stakes, and changed the equation. In most places, the local authorities (police/DAs) will drop the Federal Gun charges (not forward the file to the Feds), for a variety of reasons. As a result, carrying the gun has very few downsides, and many upsides for the criminals–so they do, and as a result, when they get the urge to use it, it is right there. Richmond changed the equation, and provided a significant penalty for carrying the gun, so they stopped. Now, did they carry other weapons? Certainly, but it is more effective to run away from a guy with a knife, club, or chain than a gun, so the violent crime dropped. This requires NO LEGISLATION, just a decision by local law enforcement to start turning these criminals over to the Federal law enforcement for the Federal laws they have broken. In short, try enforcing the laws on the books before inserting new ones. Laws that are not enforced are like orders you know will not be obeyed, they just reduce the respect for all the others.
    By Carl Hartsfield

  28. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Ed

    Excellent article! What you really point out is that we, as a nation, have confused emotion over logic. Like you, I think, I am more interested in how to control the violence. Guns, legally obtained or not, are controlled by people and this is the real problem.

    Instead of addressing violence we focus on emotional solutions that do nothing but to fan the flames to prevent solutions. The idea of having armed teachers in the class room creates a variety of issues. What is the standard of training, who sets that standard? Federal Government, State Government, School District? How often does the teacher need to qualify on the weapon? Who paids?

    As you know, bullets go somewhere and not always where they are intended to go. Recently, I saw an article where a bad guy and an a policemen shot it out and a by-stander was killed. A shootout in a classroom could have similar results.

    I also saw how another district was teaching its’ teachers how to defend their students with out weapons. Better, but still needs some other actions.,

    Laws are important, but also have limitations. Generally, the keep law bidding citizen in check, not criminals.

    All citizen have some obligation in the helping to prevent future violence in the country, gun or otherwise.

    No ease answers, no quick fixes.

    JN
    By Jeff Nelson
    via: Center for a New American Security

  29. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    There are a lot of good comments here. I like to think that the rest of the population can be rational and discuss things unemotionally most of the time.

    Before I start let me make it clear that I have served 22 years in the Army, places like Korea in the DMZ, Vietnam 2X, Dominican Republic (Yes that was a combat tour), Iran as an instructor, Germany etc. Since I retired I have worked 25 years for an Aerospace company with projects in Ireland, the UK, Saudi, Oman, Kuwait, Egypt, Qatar, Bahrain and Hong Kong. After that I ran my own consulting business and have traveled extensively in the Middle East, Far East, Britain and Germany working on defense related applications. So I have seen a broad range of gun control or rather control of the population by limiting the availability of guns.

    One of the things I have to admit is that the founding fathers based our constitution on the understanding of the population they were living with. Today we are faced with a vastly different mix of substance abusers, irresponsible and mostly uneducated, who are all over exposed to violence in multiple media applications. We have lost the religious foundation and respect for life that our founding fathers had almost universally.

    The unchecked violence and rampages that revolve around the use of firearms are almost predictable if you look at society today. The solution is not in controlling the weapons, since any half baked idiot can make one (remember the zip guns of the 1950’s). Or for that matter come up with an IED from plans on the web using basic chemicals. The solution is a fundamental readjustment in the norms of society , something that is so far gone we may never get it back.

    So we now want to leave it to the psychiatrists and other practitioners to determine who amongst us is sane enough to carry or use a gun responsibly. The only problem I have with this is who will police this new order of police? Most of the “experts” I have seen on the news lately seem to have their own level of anxiety and related psychiatric issues, who will determine if they are sane enough to evaluate the rest of us?

    By Anthony Trovato

  30. One of the best articles I read in a long time.. Kuddos

  31. John B. Moseley Senior says:

    Who knew after all these years that we would agree on something…..just kidding well written column that sums up my feelings precisely

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: