It's time to have a real discussion about guns in American society

I realize every writer with a second-hand computer will sit down at their keyboard this week and write about the shootings in El Paso and Dayton. I hope you read them all.

Some will be emphatic that the only way to stop the shootings is to eliminate all guns in America. The other extreme will be just as emphatic, “Arm everyone so the people can protect themselves.” Others will be somewhat less fanatical, but you will find a near vacuum in the middle.

Both sides are ready to fight for what they believe is right for America, but few are willing to compromise to the center. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi blames the Republican House members for not agreeing with her proposal. The Republicans blame Obama. Every presidential candidate has a plan that does little except to enhance their own political position. Everyone is pointing fingers at someone else.

STOP IT!!! The whole scene sounds like school-yard bullies positioning for leadership of the gang. It’s time to back off, think and listen.

If we really want to end the shooting epidemic, we need to find answers to the basics before we start debating the definition of “military style” weapons and magazine capacity. Many feel, as I do, that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is absolute. “...shall not be infringed.” Therefore, any real gun control will require a constitutional amendment.

When I insert the issue of basic law into the debate, I get dismissed by both sides. On one side “It is too hard to amend the Constitution.” On the other, “Any amendment would be just the beginning of outlawing all guns.”

Both sides may be right, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. I know of no congressional committee working on an amendment. Instead of spending their energy trying to overthrow the 2016 presidential election, they (Democrats in the House) could be developing the wording of an acceptable amendment. Working toward compromise is the proper place to determine what types of weapons should and should not be legal.

The earliest recorded mass shooting in America was on July 26, 1764. The shooters used smooth bore muzzleloaders.

Should there be a threshold age for gun ownership? I bought my first shotgun when I was 12 and never pointed it at a human. How can we make sure that an amendment would not be the first step in the erosion of all gun rights? Government management grows, but never lessens.

I have been a hunter since I was big enough to trail behind my uncles as they hunted rabbits. I own guns to hunt birds, deer and to deter anyone would attempt to break into my home. I would be willing, however, to compromise and relinquish a portion of my Second Amendment rights if it would stop the craziness.

I don’t see another answer? Police response couldn’t have been any better in Dayton. They had the shooter down within 30 seconds. It doesn’t get any better than that — yet the shooter claimed nine victims.

The FBI profilers don’t give us much to identify potential shooters. They are generally not society misfits or mentally ill. Most don’t act on the spur of the moment. Shootings are often planned for well over a year. The only common denominator seems to be guns.

Some countries tend to kill crowds with bombs, others by smashing through crowds with large vehicles. In America, we use guns.

It’s time to put aside partisan politics and work toward compromise. Where are our legislators who are brave enough to begin work on a constitutional amendment unpopular to both extremes? Back off the rhetoric and quit blaming everyone else. I think it is time. There are enough of us in the middle to make it work.

Frank Watson is a retired Air Force Colonel and long-time resident of Eastern Washington. He has been a free-lance columnist for over 19 years.