

A dark day in Dallas


Photo_naraevid_CE139-2I was in my high school geometry class. Mr. Kurtz was discussing trisecting angles when an annoucment came over the school loudspeaker system. Someone had fired shots at the President in Dallas. Of course we were all shocked but none of us thought that it was possible the President could have been hit. After all this was John Kennedy. A war hero and an inspiration to so many. He was the  a bigger-than-life figure. His murder was unthinkable. We loved him and his family. He had become part of our family. His image effected us all in profound ways.

Then shortly thereafter came the announcement over the speaker system that President Kennedy was dead. Our school decided to keep us in class but no one was paying attention. It was if a part of each of us had died. It still feels the same all these years later.

As time went on it was announced that Lee Harvey Oswald had used a mail order gun to kill the Mr. Kennedy. Even though I have very strong lingering doubts about the official version of events (the Zapruder film shows Mr. Kennedy going back and to the left when hit with death shot) the fact that Mr. Oswald could obtain a gun  so easily by mail order in a attempt to change history seemed like madness.

And thus began my own journey towards advocating for effective gun controls. Even while serving in the military during Viet Nam I felt that it was madness for the everyday citizen to have the same access to the type of firepower being used in war.

Fast forward to the current day and we still hear from the gun lobby who feel that restrictions such as those on mail order, or online sale of guns including automatic weapons and ammunition is a inconvenience that they would like to see removed.

I wonder where they were on that day in Dallas? Perhaps on the grassy knoll.

Lawrence White

Leave a Reply

120 Responses

  1. JimmyDThing says:


    I’m in agreement that online sale of guns is probably just not a good idea. And I’m totally in agreement on the idea of an effective registration and approval process, though I still don’t think anyone has come up with a good way to determine the criteria by which approval is met or who does this approval.

    That said, what about 3D printers? They are getting better by the day. It’s only a matter of time before someone can download a 3D print file for a gun and print their gun. Right now, from what I understand, it’s just plain dangerous for even the gun user, but you can’t kill progress and at some point, this is going to be a real problem. I can’t come up with any solutions that I think will be effective, but I’m all ears to ideas. I will say that, the way my mind works, I have thought about this issue quite a bit and I am going to bring up the issues I see with proposed solutions. That said, this is the benefit of an open discussion… someone might bring up an idea neither I nor anyone else has thought of.

    I mean it when I say this: I know we disagree, but I’ really looking to have my world view challenged with approaches backed by sound philosophy that can actually help with the problems we’re currently facing.

    • Lawrence White says:

      Read the SAFE Act.

      As for plastic guns and 3-D printers:

      Congress will not even pass benign BGC legislation. How can such a dysfunctional body even begin to deal with this issue?

      However since this takes money out of the pockets of the weapons industry maybe they will do something about it. They do love their profit line.

    • Jessica says:


      Looking to the future of technology, I also wonder what it will mean for our safety. In my opinion, the “bad guys” have driven some areas of technological advance and we, the “good guys”, have been fighting to keep up the pace. Even when the “good guys” are the ones advancing technology, whether it’s for medical advancement or general scientific achievement, it’s only a matter of time until someone thinks of a way to use the same technology for less-than-honorable purposes, like 3D printers.

      3D printers have practically unlimited uses for good. Missing parts for your broken dryer? Just print them! Little Sally needs to build a model for school? Print it out! But, yet it’s the let’s-print-a-gun movement that keeps making headlines. We have to face the facts that no matter what happens, there will be people out there who push the envelope.

      The thing about criminals is that they have an inexplicable disdain for the law. Legislating limits, whether it’s on technology, guns (a form of technology, I guess), etc. will do nothing to stop those who are focused solely on doing bad things. What it DOES do, however, is impede the law-abiding individuals from having access to the same technology for use in their own defense.

    • Lawrence White says:

      So our society should get rid of laws and regulations because we are incapable of stopping all criminals. Everyone for themselves. Buy a gun today. I get it.

    • Jessica says:

      Although my comment was made within the scope of our discussion about new technology and the concerns for safety (and I think you know that), an argument can be made that we would fare better with fewer laws and regulations. Shouldn’t mature, responsible adults be able to regulate themselves based on the values and morals of those in the community, provided that the basic rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.) of others are not impeded?

      The inherent flaw with that argument is that not every adult is a mature, responsible adult. Therein lies the problem. That sole issue is the root of almost all that is plaguing society today, but where we differ is the method by which we seek to solve it. Surely, you don’t think additional restrictive legislation will help troubled youth turn away from drugs and violence?

      Instead of spending your time advocating for more legislation, I encourage you to get involved with many of the great organizations out there who help foster relationships with at-risk youth. Big Brothers Big Sisters, Girls Inc., etc. are phenomenal (and local) organizations that give responsible adults and outlet by which to help influence the next generation. Help them learn how to make the right choices instead of spending your time legislating what they can and cannot do. It’s the old “teach a man to fish” lesson and it’s one that many kids don’t have the opportunity to learn.

    • Lawrence White says:

      I am not advocating for more gun laws. I am advocating for more effective gun laws. Laws that are focused on the issues that guns place on our society today. Our gun laws are antiquated and ineffective. Particularly on a national level. The result is a horrible tally in death and pain in our country. That is what I have been asked to write about so I do.

      As for your second point, our society has taken a turn in which the lifestyles of the ultra wealthy are more important than the well being of the rest of our population. Until we have more conservative gun laws and a more progressive agenda for the well being of our entire society I am afraid this trend of senseless gun violence and alienation by our youth will continue to trend in the wrong direction.

    • Jessica says:

      Could you please clarify for me exactly how you see ANY legislation creating a safer environment? Laws concerning safety are only effective when they’re followed and we’ve already established that criminals don’t obey the law.

      What are the specific issues that guns (and only guns, not knives, baseball bats, violent people, mentally ill people, etc.) directly cause in society? I’d be more than happy to join your cause to help you solve those. Is there a shortage of steel somewhere caused by the manufacture of too many guns? If so, I promise to only buy guns made from titanium going forward!

      I’m not sure how your belief that “the lifestyles of the ultra wealthy are more important than the well being of the rest of our population” weighs into this discussion at all. I thought we were talking about your other belief. The belief that legislation will stop people from killing one another…

      I implore you to introspectively consider your statement, “I am afraid this trend of senseless gun violence and alienation by our youth will continue to trend in the wrong direction”. What is the most effective way to fix this problem? Wouldn’t it be to educate them and give them the tools with which they can succeed in life? Or do you continue to think that legislation can fix this?

    • Lawrence White says:

      “Could you please clarify for me exactly how you see ANY legislation creating a safer environment?”

      Really? You don’t see how effective BDC legislation would help?


      You are asking this question on a blog article about the shooting death of one of our Presidents.


      You brought the welfare of children and young adults. I did not.


      Effective gun controls will help to diminish the amount of gun violence in America.

    • JimmyDThing says:

      I don’t know to what you are referring in the SAFE Act.

      The issue with 3D printing is that it hurts gun manufacturers as well. They are actually “on your side” with this. I still am confused as to what your proposed solution is. As 3D printing matures, I guarantee you we will see the ability to print fully functional un-registered guns without serial numbers. This is going to happen. Progress doesn’t stop for anyone.

      For me, I like to look at what the internet has done to different industries. When the music industry tried to resist the natural progression of distributing digital music through the internet, they really shot themselves in the foot. The movie/tv industry is trying to learn from their mistakes (ala Netflix/Hulu/Amazon Prime/etc), but they still have some real concerns and the areas that resist the technology or rely on things like DRM tend to fail. Video games are also in a very interesting time because of this very problem.

      Any time technology makes things easier and cheaper, it’s a big deal. It can kill jobs and it can make things more affordable for more people. It’s not at all a simple issue. When you factor in that now we’re talking about the ability to download an electronic file that you can use with a consumer good to create as many weapons as you want, it’s definitely something that needs to be talked about.

      Do we restrict access to 3D printers? The argument for is, as stated above, you will theoretically have access to as many guns/knives/etc as you want without anyone knowing about them. The argument against is that they are definitely “the way of the future” when it comes to shipping many types of consumer goods. No need for all of the transportation costs associated with shipping. No manufacturing costs outside the cost of buying and maintaining a 3D printer and buying the materials yourself.

      Also, while they have only successfully made a plastic gun with a 3D printer, I can promise you it won’t be long before metal will be used for some parts to make higher quality and more reliable weapons.

      I don’t think Jessica was at all saying that we should get rid of laws and regulations, I think she was saying that there is definitely a very abstract line between being proactive and being intrusive and borderline fascist. She’s just pointing out that this topic is all about that line and where it lies.

    • Lawrence White says:

      It is one thing to be able to recreate a gun. It is another thing to fabricate a gun that will be effective. However that is an issue on the horizon. The people being shot today are not effected by it.

    • JT says:

      Lawrence, you say that “Our gun laws are antiquated and ineffective.”. I would disagree. The majority of gun owners are following the laws already in place and go out of their way to handle/store/use guns responsibly. That would tell me that the existing laws work.

    • Lawrence White says:

      A myopic view of this problem solves nothing.

    • LiftUptheFlag says:

      I am sure that there were those in 1968 that saw the Gun Control Act as “additional restrictive legislation” when it made purchasing firearms by mail order illegal. And additional gun regulation today “will help troubled youth turn away from violence” by reducing the number of illegal guns in America. Your other suggestions on addressing violence all make sense and have been brought up numerous times on this forum. However, no method of curtailing gun violence in the U.S. need be mutually exclusive. How about we teach children AND prevent the influx of illegal guns into our society?

    • Albert J says:

      One could only hope there will eventually be some limit to your pandering, Lawrence. Your cofession is simply WRONG, misstated and dishonest. You are clearly an advocate for MORE gun laws.

      Effectiveness has likely far less to do with what you advocate, as does the fact that you have decided that whatever YOU declare as necessessary, must stand, regardless of how much subject matter you have failed to consider before reaching your unalterable conclusion.

      Your “observation”, “Until we have more conservative gun laws and a more progressive agenda for the well being of our entire society I am afraid this trend of senseless gun violence and alienation by our youth will continue to trend in the wrong direction”, is a classic and revealing example of your aversion to dealing with actual cause, choosing instead to chase symptoms as a means to solution.

      If you were actually seeking to correct the cause of, “this trend of senseless gun violence and alienation by our youth”, you’d face the reality these trends have been created, more by the simple willingness and acquiesence of adults to tolerate, condone, excuse and ALLOW “senseless violence”, not limited to firearm abuse, and blatant rejection of reasonable standards of behavior, never before permitted to the extent that is widely ignored and accepted by a growing percentage of today’s adults and parents.

      You might rather consider, that “our youth will continue to trend in the wrong direction” up to the exact point, adults decide the trending must stop, and be reversed. At some point, hopefully, adults will accept the responsibility of defining standards, and exercise their natural authority to assist their offspring in holding to those standards, rather than accepting excuses for blanket non-compliance, which is far too often the practice today.

      A simple adjustment might be building a lot more “woodsheds”, but unfortunately, we’d still need a great number of today’s men to accept their responsibility as fathers to effectively teach the lessons that NEED to be learned behind woodsheds, between fathers and sons. Sorry, ladies, although mothers perform a vast array of valuable teachings unique to the skills of mothering, woodshed lessons require fathers (uncles, brothers).

      Children, of all colors, sizes, shapes and backgrouns come into this world with clear slates, and the behaviors they learn are all taught, whether they be good behaviors or bad. Since time began, bad behaviors are far too often easier to learn, and seem more attractive. The main requirement necessessary is still what it’s always been; for adults and parents to accept THEIR responsibility and “sdtep up” to instill the appropriate behavioral patterns. The older our children get, the harder it becomes to convert bad habits into good.

      There are some lessons we all must, and eventually will, have to learn, most of us are taught the easiest way by our parents. If that fails, it might be a teacher, , a relative, a neighbor, a priest or pastor who fills the gap. If those resources fail, the consequences of learning them are greater as the teacher might be an unhappy employer, or a policeman or even more problematic a corrections officer, but those lessons will eventually be learned.

      The lessons really haven’t changed and some of the older instructional volumes actually still apply. Although it hasn’t been updated, the story of “Pinocchio” still paints an accurate picture of where things seem still headed. “The 3 Little Pigs” continues to offer some really sound advise about planning and the security and stability of self reliance. Then “The Emporer’s New Clothes” offers a practical reminder of the dangers of relying on, “things seeming too good to be true”.

      Most often it proves to be more difficult, but facing up to the actual CAUSES of problems and dealing with them, rather than focusing on the symptoms and searching for quick fixes, inevitably produces longer lasting and better solutions.

      “Senseless gun violence” is only one, on a long line of serious problems caused by the, “alienation by our youth (and most certainly)will continue to trend in the wrong direction” until we acknowledge, face and decide to correct the root cause of that alienation.

    • Lawrence White says:

      First you start off with a gross misrepresentation of my advocacy then you spin off into another lengthy exercise of verbosity that is nothing more than a boring litany of excuses for gun violence. 3 Little Pigs? The woodshed? Wow.

      When we take the gun out of gun violence we will still have violence but not to the killing degree we do now. That is a fact and that is the goal of common sense gun controls.

    • Jessica says:


      To your question: “You don’t see how effective BGC legislation would help?”

      I think the only way any BGC legislation would work is if it wasn’t actually focused on the “G”, but focused on the people who abuse the privileges that so many of us enjoy. I fully support the assertion that mentally ill or violent people should not own firearms, that’s just common sense. There’s no reason that either of these groups should enjoy the same liberties as responsible adults.

      You have yet to tell me exactly what you want to see implemented that is not already in place, so the only conclusion is that you don’t actually know what you want. You just know you don’t like guns and wish to legislate away everyone else’s right who does.

      To your question: “‘What are the specific issues that guns (and only guns, not knives, baseball bats, violent people, mentally ill people, etc.) directly cause in society?’ You are asking this question on a blog article about the shooting death of one of our Presidents.”

      Yes. I am asking that very question. Whoever killed the president was obviously a very violent person. It is he or she who should be punished, not the tool with which the deed was done. Believe it or not, my guns (some of which I’ve had for decades) have never killed anyone and they’re left alone to conspire quite frequently.

      To your point: Effective gun controls will help to diminish the amount of gun violence in America.

      How? How do you see this working? I, and others, keep asking and you have no answer. If your response is “It will just work”, then I encourage you to start a commune somewhere and try it out, but don’t play “what if” with those of us who enjoy our freedoms.

      I don’t know why you have such a passionate hatred of an inanimate object, but I would guess fear of the unknown is a part of that. I encourage you to attend a firearm safety course, ask questions, and educate yourself on the good that firearms can do in the public. Those of us who are responsible gun owners certainly educate ourselves about the dangers, it is only reasonable that you consider the same holistic approach to your education.

      I would like to invite you to the range with me sometime if you’re willing. I’ve taken many friends, coworkers, and other individuals who have been scared of guns at first. They now understand that they’re no more dangerous in the hands of a responsible individual than a knife or baseball bat. In all sincerity, I would enjoy the opportunity to show you that they’re nothing to fear if in the right hands.

      Here’s some food for thought: firearms (handguns, rifles, and shotguns combined) murdered 407 people in New York State (see footnote #1) during 2012, while 1,169 people were killed in New York State in 2011 (2012 not available yet) in alcohol related auto accidents (only alcohol related accidents, not poor road conditions, not sleepy drivers, just alcohol related accidents; see footnote #2).

      When you consider that “basic gun control” legislation will fix the number of murders in this country, do you also believe that “basic automobile control” would fix the substantially larger number of fatalities associated with an already illegal activity like drinking and driving?



    • Lawrence White says:

      “I don’t know why you have such a passionate hatred of an inanimate object?

      This is the sort of absolute crap that ticks me off. I guess you, like so many others who oppose gun controls, feel you must misrepresent our advocacy. Without doing so you have no argument whatsoever.

      The truth is that the philosophy of more guns and no regulations is the greatest threat the 2nd amendment is facing. It makes huge profits for the gun makers and sellers but their total lack of any willingness to accept responsible controls reveals them as intolerant and uncaring. If you think that is winning any support outside of the most radical fringes you are badly mistaken.

    • Jessica says:

      Absolute crap? I thought this was supposed to be “a civil discussion about gun ownership and gun control in America”. I presented facts and figures, statistics to back up my point, and asked some important questions. What exactly, and please quote me, did I misrepresent?

      I’ll assume that my generous offer to take you to the range was rebutted with a silent “I appreciate the offer to educate me about responsible gun ownership so I can make a more informed argument, but I will decline because I might learn something new.”

      The outstanding questions you have yet to answer are:


      2. Please clarify for me exactly how you see ANY legislation creating a safer environment?

      3. What is the most effective way to fix this [trend of senseless gun violence and alienation by our youth]?

      4. When you consider that “basic gun control” legislation will fix the number of murders in this country, do you also believe that “basic automobile control” legislation would fix the substantially larger number of fatalities associated with an already illegal activity like drinking and driving?

      I’m all for a meaningful debate, but I have a reasonable expectation that there will be some substance on the other side.

      JimmyDThing says, “[T]here is definitely a very abstract line between being proactive and being intrusive and borderline fascist. She [Jessica]’s just pointing out that this topic is all about that line and where it lies.” and I agree. There are a myriad of opinions out there, some that advocate for a free-for-all society and others who wish to see guns abolished. The truth is most people lie somewhere in between and there has to be a happy medium somewhere that keeps a good number of guns in the hands of responsible adults and out of the hands of crazies and criminals without inconveniencing the vast majority of the public.

      For me, the gun control debate is like studying the Law of Diminishing Returns. At what level of inconvenience is it no longer worth it to continue to make hoops to jump through since bad guys are still getting guns? Then, it’s time to take another approach.

      And I’m sorry, I don’t see what is wrong with gun companies making money. They’re a for-profit company just like any other. If they didn’t make money, they’d be out of business. If you don’t like their product, don’t buy it.

    • Lawrence White says:

      When you totally misrepresent my advocacy and make false charges about what I have written don’t expect me to call it anything other than the crap it is.

      Look, I spent time in service during a war. I volunteered. I don’t need to go to “range.” You have no idea what you are talking about or who you are talking to. Get a clue.

      If you want answers to your “outstanding” (very basic) questions go to the Brady site or Mayors Against Illegal Guns. They have it all spelled out for you.

      Finally if you want to have the same level of controls on guns that are presently on cars I am all for it. But you don’t. You just make comparisons till the backfire on you.

      Profit at any cost to well being of American citizens while using our constitution as a sales gimmick is disgusting. You love it. I do not. That is difference between us.

    • Jessica says:

      In all seriousness, Mr. White, I thank you for your military service. I know it was a substantial sacrifice for you to make and I appreciate it. You fought for our freedom to disagree on this very subject and for that I am truly grateful.

      Perhaps you could clarify or consolidate what your advocacy is so I better understand your position since I have so grossly offended you. Do you have a one sentence motto or organizational mission of some kind?

      Now, I have to admit I don’t remember the last time I had to do a criminal background check to buy a car. In fact, I don’t think controls on owning a car (not on the car itself) are tight enough given the statistics we’re facing. Perhaps we could team up to push for legislation making a mandatory road test every 5 years for drivers. Not only would it hopefully make our roads safer (theoretically, bad drivers wouldn’t pass), but it would also create jobs. What do you think?

      You say, “Profit at any cost to well being of American citizens while using our constitution as a sales gimmick is disgusting. You love it. I do not. That is difference between us.” How are they using the constitution as a sales gimmick? Do you think people buy guns and then do nothing with them? No, they go out to the range, shoot up some targets, enjoy family time, and turn some money into loud noises. Would you make the same argument that adult toy companies exploit the declaration of independence by citing “the pursuit of happiness”? The argument is no different from yours but I don’t know that they would get as much support…but maybe…(I’m waiting to see how this comparison can backfire on me!)

      I’m an exceptionally intelligent young woman asking very pertinent questions of someone who claims he wants a civil discussion. I’m actively trying to “get a clue”. Help me out. I’ve been to the MAIG and Brady sites and didn’t find anything that swayed my opinion on the matter. I want YOUR answers to the questions I posed, not some regurgitated propaganda. Anyone who reads your blog posts would know you’re certainly above average in intelligence (at least your writing style and grammar indicates that to be the case). I encourage you to be original. Amaze me. Make me think critically. Convince me. Sell me on your blockbuster plan to rid the world of violence.

    • Lawrence White says:

      Here is some reading for you. Try to catch up.

    • Albert J says:

      Perhaps, Lawrence, if you spent a little more time considering very basic reality, and straight forward things like the “3 Little Pigs” and the proven accomplishments of “woodsheds”, you wouldn’t find yourself flying blind in the empty fog you generate about solutions that might, should, could, perhaps, seems like result from solutions based on propositions, hopes and wishful thinking.

      Perhaps you mght consider getting out into the world of, “alienated youth and senseless violence” (with or without firearms) to better understand which is the dog and which is the tail.

    • Lawrence White says:

      People are being shot out in the world. That is not in 3 Little Pigs. Give me a break.

  2. Jessica says:


    You make a solid point about a combined effort between reducing the number of illegal guns available AND education of young people. I’m curious, though, why you would argue for more legislation instead of stiffer punishment for those that use illegally obtained firearms or enforcement of the laws we currently have. When unqualified people try to purchase firearms, why don’t we throw the book at them and make an example of them as a deterrent to others?

    I’m sure you’re right that there was opposition to gun control legislation then, but that was 13 years before I was even born, so my memory is a bit fuzzy :-) For the record, you can still mail-order firearms, you just have to be cleared with a NICS check first to make sure you’re not a criminal. That seems reasonable enough.

    • Lawrence White says:

      Punishment is after the fact. That is too late for the victim.

    • Jessica says:

      But it’s not too late for the NEXT victim. You think we should keep giving criminals a slap on the wrist and letting them loose? All that does is give them an opportunity to do something even worse to the next person.

    • Lawrence White says:

      The SAFE Act increases penalties. So did the national legislation. Do you ever make a comment where you know what you are talking about?

    • Jessica says:

      Yes, always! Deal with me long enough and you’ll find out that you cannot deny logic. There’s a reason my friends call me “Spock” :-)

    • Lawrence White says:

      LOL. Right. Logic.

    • JimmyDThing says:

      You’re suggesting, then, that punishment needs to lie before the act? Now you have to admit that if today I can do X and tomorrow I can’t and I haven’t done anything wrong, in a way I’m being punished.

      Now I know, society can ask things of people, but the fact of the matter is when it gets down to the nitty gritty, you just don’t care about the people who you are punishing or care to minimize that punishment. You don’t care to listen to the concerns that the people you want to punish have and you’d rather just spat out emotional responses about having more sympathy for victims. I have more sympathy for all victims, sure, that’s why we have a justice system.

      When you talk about preventing crimes, it’s a touchy and difficult subject to breach. You cannot predict the future any better than I can.

      I’m still curious, you alluded to the fact that you are not for gun registration. Is that true? Why not? What are you for?

    • Lawrence White says:

      Controls and regulations cut down on the number of victims. Should we wait for a salmonella outbreak before we inspect?

    • JimmyDThing says:

      Are you referring to FDA regulations? I would say we’d be better off trusting companies not to want to self destruct by killing their own customers. But hey, that’s me.

    • Lawrence White says:

      Guns have no consumer oversight and no liability now and it is clearly not working.

    • Snicker Doodle says:

      Huh? So one victim is okay but two isn’t? (2, 2)

    • LiftUptheFlag says:

      No disrespect, and I will keep this civil, but you are very late to the party. The mail order process to acquire firearms in the manner used by Lee Harvey Oswald is much different than the system today which requires a firearm to be processed through an FFL dealer. Your comment, “tell me exactly what you want to see implemented that is not already in place” would seem to indicate that you are unaware that 33 states do not require background checks on private sales of firearms at gun shows or over the internet. I also sense you have little familiarity with the process involving a universal background check and how it would in fact reduce gun trafficking and the inventory of illegal guns in the U.S. Please save the comparisons between automobiles and guns for another time. Guns are intentionally used in over 70% of murders. Public policy concerning cars is continually assessed and used to address public safety issues, much more than gun regulation. You may be an “exceptionally intelligent young woman”, but you are going to have to prove it on this forum.

    • Jessica says:


      I appreciate the effort to keep it civil, as I am here to learn.

      I am that there are many states that do not require background checks for private party sales, including those at gun shows. States have the right, for now, to legislate the level of gun control suited to their population.

      I actually don’t understand how a UBC would reduce illegal gun trafficking and the inventory of illegal guns in the US. I would like to hear more about it since my research on how this would be accomplished indicated that it relies on legal transfers to detect unlawful owners. Firearms are a durable good, so the existing cache of illegal guns would only be affected as they are taken out of service following a crime or if seized during a raid, etc.

      Why do you ask that I leave automobiles out of the equation when we discuss the senseless deaths of innocent people? Is it because knowing that the 8,855 people who were murdered by guns pales starkly in comparison to the 33,561 killed in car accidents during 2012, despite the fact that there are roughly the same number of automobiles as guns in this country (250 million to 300 million of each)? Aren’t each of them a mechanized tool used in daily life around the world?

      Although I’m nitpicking, guns were actually “only” used in 69.37% of murders in the US during 2012, not “over 70 percent” as you cite. It’s also worth noting that NY has a death rate of 0.00210% based on population for firearm deaths and has some of the strongest background check requirements, even before the NY SAFE Act. The states of Virginia and North Dakota, both states where I have family (so I was curious about the comparability) and have no background check requirement for private party sales, have death rates of 0.00270% and 0.00057% based on population, respectively. In fact, ND’s firearm murder rate is nearly 1/4 of NY’s despite much more relaxed legislation. All I’m saying is that there doesn’t seem to be a direct statistical correlation between more legislation and a higher level of safety. Perhaps all the fresh air and cows have a calming effect? :-)

      I think I’ve done my fair share of reasoning so far, whether you feel I’ve proven myself or not. I’m in it for the duration since I have a responsibility to understand the situation and assist in finding a solution.

    • Lawrence White says:

      For the THRID time: If you would like to place the same level of regulations on guns that are currently on automobiles I am fine with it. Is that agreeable with you?

      You know, training, tests, licenses, registration, insurance, periodic renewals, license can be removed for bad practices and so on. How about it?

    • Jessica says:

      Yes. I’m totally fine with those ideas. Drivers should have to pass a background check. And, believe it or not, my pistol permit is revocable at ANY time by NYS – bad practices, reasonable cause, or not – since this state is a MAY issue state, not a SHALL issue state. The same should apply to Driver’s Licenses (or just make the pistol permits revocable with cause as a driver’s license is).

      I think insurance is a great idea. I carry it for my firearms and it’s really not that expensive, $300/year for $10,000 in coverage (they don’t ask specifics, it’s just an aggregate total). Insurance for a comparably priced car would be substantially more. Even though auto insurance is legally required, I know people who drive without it and it would, no doubt, be the same for firearms insurance. I’m a conscientious individual and try to safeguard my property, so insurance was the right call for me.

      Training and testing are no-brainers. Of course the person operating a gun should be trained. Who the heck wants someone out there who doesn’t know how to use their gun? I would even advocate for firearm safety classes in high school like they teach Driver’s Ed. My parents taught me how to drive and they taught me how to shoot. I took not one, but TWO tests to get a concealed carry permit, which is more than I took to get my driver’s license. Retesting every 5 years (and I would discriminate based on age and add that retesting be done every year after the age of 65) is a great idea. Again, bad drivers and poor gun handlers off the streets is a good thing.

      Should testing be mandatory for long guns like it is for pistols? Maybe. They can do just as much damage, although they’re much harder to “accidentally” point them at someone since they’re bigger. The opposite is true of cars, where the bigger ones do more damage; a SMART car isn’t going to do as much damage in an accident as a semi tractor trailer and that is why they require different training and testing. I can see the argument to be made and it’s a logical one that probably deserves more discussion.

      Are we in agreement now?

    • Lawrence White says:

      Thank you for your response. In many ways we are in agreement.

      However do you also agree that guns should be covered by consumer oversight just like every other product in our society?

      Cars and every other product in our society faces liability for the products they produce but gun makers do not. Do you feel that gun makers should also face liability for their products?

    • LiftUptheFlag says:

      First off, I will apologize for short answers. I just had surgery and am able to type with only one hand which is an exercise in futility. Your comparisons for auto deaths vs gun deaths cannot be done. I don’t know whose numbers you are using for auto deaths, but it appears you are using FBI stats for guns. The last year where numbers are available from the CDC for both categories is 2011, which are the most complete and accurate numbers available. Auto deaths are 34,677 vs gun homicides 11,101. But that is not even a fair comparison as the total deaths from firearms from all causes including accidental and suicide is 32,163. It is anticipated that gun deaths will surpass auto deaths in the next two years. More importantly, 11,101 of the firearms deaths were intentional, whereas very few auto deaths are intentional. And yes auto deaths are important and clearly need to be addressed, and are, but this is a gun blog.

      Regarding UBC, you claim to be here to learn, go back and look at previous blogs where I have discussed this subject numerous times. If you intend to be here for the duration prove it and don’t put the burden on those of us that have been here for months and months posting information. Ordinarily I would just pacify you and respond, but my current circumstances prevent me. One last thing, owning a gun and going to the range does not make you an expert on gun regulation. Several people on this forum have more than a passing interest in gun rights in addition to some personal experiences that motivate their involvement. If you are just here to prove how much you know about life, save it for trivia night.

    • Peter says:

      Jessica, I too invited Lawrence to go shooting but, he doesn’t need to as he already knows everything worth knowing about guns and apparently everything else. The rules about politeness also seem to not apply to Sir Lawrence, aka, Lawrence The Magnificent.

    • Lawrence White says:

      Why don’t you volunteer to go into the military. The you can volunteer to go to a war zone instead of playing gun games. Go for the real thing if you have the guts Mr. Wonderful.

    • JimmyDThing says:

      I appreciate that you served this country, Lawrence, but your insinuation that unless you’re at war, gun use is a game bothers me. I know that you don’t believe they are actually games, but you seem to think anyone who DOES use guns does feel that way.

      Until you have anything to say that shows me that you believe that gun ownership is legitimate and that people who want to own guns have just as many rights as you do, it seems pointless to discuss anything with you.

    • Lawrence White says:

      Let’s put it into context. I was verbally confronted by a blogger who insists that I go to a shooting range with them or I do not have a proper perspective into guns. My life experience renders that absurd challenge moot and I pointed it out. At the same time I challenged them to volunteer for service in the military and use a gun a defend our country. That is a fair reverse challenge to someone who appears to me dose not have foggiest idea of the real nature of guns and what their purpose is.

      Finally, until you read what I have written and base your criticism on my actual words and thoughts on the 2nd amendment and gun ownership in America, then you are right. Why should I bother trying to communicate with you?

    • JimmyDThing says:

      Fair enough on the experience side of things. And I have read your opinion on the 2nd Amendment and, as I’ve said, I’m very much in favor of legal action that encourages registration and I’m open minded to bans if the ban makes sense (fully automatic weapons).

      But every time I bring up a legitimate concern about some proposal, you don’t seem to really care. Beyond that, you tell me I don’t care because if I’m not with you then I’m against innocent children.

    • Lawrence White says:

      The weapons industry / gun lobby has spent billions of dollars to accrue rights and benefits that no other industry enjoys. This unique and unfair balance of power has allowed a flood of guns to flow into our society, particularly in states with lax ultra liberal laws. This is leading to a measurable uptick in gun violence in our country. That trend will surely continue and escalate. At some point the citizenry of our country will be so fed up with the “blood for profit” business plan of gun companies that there will be a severe backlash. My concern that is that people who oppose commons sense gun regulations now are leading to that inevitable conclusion in our future. In my opinion everything else I have read has been hype, propaganda, paranoia and a sales pitch for guns. All of it a distraction from the real problems we face.

    • JimmyDThing says:

      Yes…. and I get your concern. But that doesn’t make my concerns about proposals less meaningful.

      This is extremely nitpicky, but it bothers me. When you’re talking about legislation:

      Conservative legislation means keeping the arms of the government shorter, the laws simpler, and less intrusive. Liberal legislation means that the government is being very liberal with it’s power.

      When you’re talking about culture, it’s in a way reversed:

      Conservative gun culture means a culture where people are conservative about gun ownership. Few as possible, not out in the open, etc. Liberal gun culture would be wide spread guns carried on the hip for all to see.

      Like I said, I know it’s nitpicky. But what you want are liberal gun laws, you want the government to be very liberal about using it’s power and influence to change culture. There are real and legitimate reasons for this to happen and have happened throughout history… usually at wartime or in times of economic crisis. Now, the crisis that has been pushing this kind of action is mass gun murders. I’m not saying that there are not other problems associated with guns, but the thing that is forcing the push is this topic. So, to me, the legislation that results from that should be specifically addressing that issue.

      A lot of the newer proposals are not hiding from this, they are being open about being specifically about preventing mass murders. I just disagree with how they are going about it and think that in the long run they will actually end up hurting the spirit of what they are trying to accomplish.

    • Lawrence White says:

      Your interpretations of the words “liberal” and “conservative” are the faux definitions as the right wing wishes them to be.

      If you understand history as it is written and not as the far right filters – you would know that the Founding Fathers practiced extremely conservative gun laws. The government was in total control. Every gun registered and inspected regularly. There were harsh restrictions. The lax laws we face today are much more liberal. The government is very restricted in what it can do because of a well funded and ruthless gun lobby. Yes the gun lobby is the real threat to the 2nd amendment. If you love your rights as you claim you do – you better wake up to it.

    • JimmyDThing says:

      No, you are going by the liberal/conservative ideology structure (democrats/republicans) rather than what the word actually means.



      This has nothing to do with what some political party has defined, it’s the definition of the actual word when used as an adjective.

      So what you’re saying is that the founding fathers actually practiced LIBERAL gun control, because the government’s power was used LIBERALly to force people to adhere to certain standards. I’m not arguing with you. But how do you propose we take the spirit of those laws and apply them to today? I don’t think, at all, that the founding fathers would say we should only be allowed to have guns that can pass the standards that they had in their time. I think they likely would be all for registration, inspection, etc. But we have more complex problems now. One of the major issues is enforcing that people lock their guns up. The founders brought their guns to be inspected. This is enforceable because the registration process was meaningful and easy enough to be worth it. To enforce locking guns up that means having people enter your homes regularly, something I think the founding fathers would be fundamentally opposed to. They drew the line where personal responsibility for caring for your weapon met societies right to feeling safe at the point of: Know who has what guns and ensure that the guns are up to standards regularly. I can get behind that. I think they would say the same today.

    • Lawrence White says:

      Traditional values? Go back and look at gun control under the Founding Fathers if you want to see traditional. Now compare that to the current ultra liberal gun laws in Arizona or Utah.

      The Founders did not have to contend with a weapons industry funded gun lobby willing to use our Constitution as a sales gimmick. They would roll over in their graves if they knew it.

    • JimmyDThing says:

      You are confusing the terms liberal and Liberal as well as conservative and Conservative.

      If you want a change, then you by definition are for liberal legislation. If you were for legislation that ensured that things were not able to change in some way, that is conservative legislation.

    • Lawrence White says:

      I hope the weather is nice on the other side of the looking glass.

    • JimmyDThing says:

      This was fun. Always a worthwhile discussion with you.

    • Lawrence White says:

      I bet the readers will agree that our discussion was informative and yes, fun.

    • Tony B says:

      Informative? Not so much.

      Revealing? Not so much.

      Fun? Not so much.

      The schtick is old…………..

    • Lawrence White says:

      Another 30 Americans killed by gunfire today. So we go on.

    • Chris W says:

      I guess I’ll throw my hat into the ring now that you and jimthing have finished your sparring.

      Apparently gun crime rates are significantly lower then they were in 1993.


      U.S. population in 1993: 257,746,103
      U.S. population in 2011: 311,800,000 (USA Today estimate)

      So, we have: 50 million more people, A terrible economy, more guns then we had in 1993, more concealed carry permits issued than ever before in our nations history, and crime rates that are dramatically lower than in 1993.

      My point in all of this isn’t that more guns make us safer, but that violent crimes are complicated problems to get under control. We had an assault weapons ban, which had little to no impact on crime rates, as well as the sunset of the assault weapons ban, and in 2007 we still saw a decrease in crime.

    • Lawrence White says:

      I guess you missed out on the conversation about this Chris. Wait. No you didn’t. You were right in the thick of it. Oh well let’s go over it again and maybe it will sink in, but probably not.

      The FBI report for 2012 clearly shows an increase in total firearms murder from 2011 to 2012. In fact the graph on your link shows an uptick in 2011. The Department of Justice report (page 2, table 1 link below) shows that fatal and nonfatal firearms violence has risen every year since 2009. So even if firearms violence HAD been on the decline in the past, the the phenomena of panic buying of firearms since Mr. Obama became President, much of it in states with super lax ultra liberal laws, means that the carnage from many of those guns is yet to be realized.

      So before you start crowing about only 30 dead Americans a day you might think of the millions of family members of the thousands of victims killed each year by gun violence how they feel about it. You won’t but I thought I would offer the challenge anyway.

    • Lawrence White says:

      Submitted on 2013/11/26 at 2:32 am
      Sir Lawrence, I am pretty sure the military will not take me back on active duty. I have 21+ years both Army enlisted (one year in Vietnam 1969-1970) and then, after law school, I went back as a Navy JAG and retired as a LCDR. Then, I joined the NY State Guard where I am currently an infantry major but, health reasons stopped my doing drills in 2003. 35 years of service up to 2003. Youngest son is a Navy helo pilot with 7 combat tours since 9/11 attacks in 2001. He is a better shot than me and has that fighter pilot vision where he can read a road sign before most folks can see that there is a sign. Fly Navy, Peter

    • Lawrence White says:

      35 years of service. Thank you (and your son) for that Peter. You certainly earned your retirement.

      But here is what puzzles me. Somewhere in all of that time you must have seen what these powerful guns can do to flesh and bone. So why on God’s green earth would you ever want to see that kind of firepower in the hands of civilians? Guns being sold in states with lax ultra liberal laws? Why would want to see America turned into a virtual battle zone for the benefit of the weapons industry profit? Why wouldn’t you strenuously object to the gun lobby using our constitution as a sales gimmick?

      This is particularly true now that we have seen the report from Connecticut concerning the slaughter of school children and their teachers at Sandy Hook School. Clearly Mrs. Lanza was experienced with guns. In fact she was a gun rights advocate who thought that guns would be good therapy for her child. Give him a sense of confidence and focus. In fact her’s were the same words I read on this blog continually from anti gun control bloggers concerning guns for the depressed. They seem to feel a gun is the cure for anything.

      My experience was that it took one time seeing the damage, pain and horror of gunshot wounds to realize that guns were much more of a responsibility than my teenage conscious had been aware of even after the assassination of our President.

      I can understand someone with limited experience being all gung-ho for guns because they do not have the perspective. However someone like you who has experienced so much and is still gung-ho for guns does not make sense to me.

  3. BigSol says:


    Lawrence, is that you or did someone hack your account? Is it April 1st already? Not for more gun laws?! Do you read your own blogs? You would love more laws, most people are for for more effective gun laws, you I do not consider one of them. You support the SAFE Act 100% correct? Even though FBI/DHS studies show it will have little to no effect on shootings/crimes. I am in support of common sense gun laws, which include BGC’s, and want laws that would actually have an effect on stopping/reducing gun crimes. I also read your response in 1.3, so you chastise her and your answer is the extreme opposite which is okay? C’mon now

    • Lawrence White says:

      It is hard to find any piece of legislation that you can agree with 100%. However …. is the SAFE Act a huge improvement over the previous ultra liberal laws? You bet.

    • Chris W says:

      “However …. is the SAFE Act a huge improvement over the previous ultra liberal laws? You bet.”

      What ultra liberal laws did we have?

    • Lawrence White says:

      Oh man. Where have you been all your life? Did you drop from the sky? What gun laws did we have? Do the research. Don’t ask me to do it for you. Then you can ask intelligent questions or at least some that have some relevance.

    • Chris W says:

      You know, I think, that I am well versed in what our gun laws were vs what they are now. I also think you realize I am challenging your assertion that our previous laws, presumably the ones that were changed by the safe act specifically, were ultra liberal.

      For example did you find a 10 round magazine limit ultra liberal?

    • Lawrence White says:

      I found the law allowing high capacity magazines and assault weapons to be too liberal. Particularly with the lax background checks that used to exist at gun shows. No more.

  4. Chris W says:

    Jimmy thing, and Jessica, tried to get you to address specific points. You more or less ignored them, then attacked. Jessica tried to talk about how laws are usually not followed by criminals, you sarcastically responded. She didn’t say she doesn’t respect the rule of law, she pointed out that perhaps laws alone will not solve our nations problem with murders.
    JT tried to talk about the law abiding gun owner, you blew him off calling his point myopic.
    Are you able to admit the vast majority of gun owners are safe with their weapons? Lets base it on this fact, there are over 300,000,000 guns in this country, and there are just over 8,000 murders committed with guns annually. In comparison, this is a comparison not a declaration that the goal of ending gun violence has been met, our country had approximately 14,000 murders with a gun in the mid 90′s, we are now closer to 8,000. The sun has set on the assault weapons ban, more people have concealed carry permits then ever before (maybe that’s helping to lower the amount of people murdered?), the evil internet allows people to find and buy guns much easier then during the mid 90′s…. What has changed? Why are things different? Your fixation on the instrument doesn’t address the problem. You fall for the symptom instead of treating the problem.

    • Lawrence White says:

      Why would I waste my time answering questions that have been answered dozens of times in my blog articles. Do the research. Don’t ask me to do it for you.

    • JimmyDThing says:

      Because they haven’t been answered. You just create a cyclical argument until people give up.

      “A civil discussion about gun ownership and gun control in America.”

      That’s what it says at the top of the guns blog. Not a one-sided lecture about “These are the facts and there’s only one clear answer.” The blog “mission statement,” if you will, explains in a single sentence that this issue isn’t simple and yet every time someone has a point, you treat it as though this is a very simple problem with a very simple solution.

      A civil DISCUSSION. But I don’t see you discussing. I see you backing yourself into corner after corner and resorting to petty statements that insinuate those who disagree with you are pawns, or worse, unsympathetic or even criminals.

      And this is what I’m talking about, you are so confident in your simplistic point of view that you push around every person who has displayed the potential for actual discussion and halt any hope for progress. Until you are ready to understand that your concerns are not the only concerns, you will never be able to enact any meaningful change; something I very much would like to see.

    • Lawrence White says:

      Simplistic view?


      Give me a break.

    • JimmyDThing says:

      …You think that any company associated with food is going to want their brand associated with disease, or worse, death?

      The internet has changed things. If one person gets sick from something, the world will know. It’s in the best interest of the business to inspect it’s own food.

      Want to hear a true but sad story? It would be hilarious if it weren’t so scary. The FDA won’t even SELL it’s inspection kits to companies that want to do their own inspecting. Who’s hurting and who’s helping?

    • Lawrence White says:

      So now we can get rid of food inspection as well. Brilliant.

    • Snicker Doodle says:

      @JimmyDThing, I think it just gets old going round and round with the same arguments. If you read through the several blogs, you will see these very same questions have been addressed, answered and beaten to death. Meaningful change is exactly the point. Some fresh opinions and meaningful conversation would be welcomed. Got any?

    • Tony B says:


      This is a civil discussion about gun ownership. But you have ‘electronic canvasing’ going on. And that’s fine. To be expected. Foolish to not use the Internet and blogs to spread your political or corporate agenda. Especially in the TU, our state capitol’s paper. How many local blogs do you cover per day? I think I’ll check out blogs in Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo. See if I can find your writing style, and your completely innocent objective. “Hey, I’m just trying to learn.”

      You think you are playing a game of ‘rope a dope’. It is not working.

      You are polite. And extremely transparent. Just be honest. Who are you working for?

    • JimmyDThing says:

      To Tony B: HAHAHAHAHAH. And I’m the paranoid one. You’re right, anyone who’s tried to have an actual conversation is part of some elaborate plot. Kudos on your detective work. Good luck.

      Snicker Doodle: Check out my comments on the past 5 or so blog entries. I have tried to have actual discussion with Lawrence to no avail. It always ends the same ways.

      Lawrence: I didn’t say that. But I think it’s important to note that just creating an agency that’s responsible for inspecting food doesn’t make that agency necessarily responsible or helpful. That was just an example of just such a situation.

    • Lawrence White says:

      You indicate that food inspection is superfluous and advocate for self policing. I respond. Then you say that you did not say it in the first place. Finally you go on and say it again.

      This is your version of the civil discussion? Yeah, I get it.

    • JimmyDThing says:

      Nah. What I did insinuate, though, is that self-policing and personal responsibility are far more effective.

    • Lawrence White says:

      And I said that a society that relies on self policing and not laws and regulations soon falls into anarchy. It is not a leap to say that may be the goal of those who oppose laws.

    • JimmyDThing says:

      Why is anarchy a four letter word?

    • Lawrence White says:

      In a civilized society, yes. You had to ask?

    • Jessica says:

      Wait, am I to understand that you think JimmyDThing is a transplant from some ultra conservative blog because he makes a good point? That’s quite the compliment!

    • Lawrence White says:

      To me it does not matter. You guys are sinking your own ship anyway.

    • Tony B says:

      Yo Jimbo:
      I know about electronic canvasing. I know about the strategy conference calls. I know lobbyists. One lost his job when the Bush administration left office. He lives in Old Towne. One works for Boehner. Lives in Arlington. You are not sophisticated enough to be a lobbyist on that level. You are either state, or corporate.

      I have a kid who was the press secretary for a gubernatorial candidate. Since you are here to learn, would you like to know how all of that political and corporate stuff works? You’d have to be pretty naive to think that lobbyists do not use blogs. And even more naive to think people fall for the ‘clog and jam’ tactic.

      And you are just so polite! Here to simply ask questions. Questions that have been answered 482 times. You use a technique of repeating points over and over to get your message across.

      You can laugh. You are not talking to someone from Beeswax, KY. (That really is a town btw. They have a typewriter repair service, and they sell fishing bait, for trolling).

    • Tony B says:

      JimmyDThing wrote:

      Hey! That’s what Greenspan said about banking. Huh. How did that turn out JimmyDThing?

    • Lawrence White says:

      It is all code for: sell more guns, make more money.

    • LiftUptheFlag says:

      For the record, there were 18,253 firearms homicides in 1993 and 11,101 in 2011 according to the JD using CDC data. I would expect a rise for 2012 based on an increase of 2.3 reported by the FBI numbers, which are known to be underreported. As I have mentioned over and over, the spike in gun sales in the past few years can be expected to translate into a rise in gun violence. Just because an increase in the amount of guns took place, there is no plausible reason to believe that the proportion of guns that will be eventually used to commit crimes will reduce on its own. I am all for law-abiding citizens buying all the guns they want and hanging onto them, but that just isn’t the reality.

    • Tony B says:

      You sent me a link months ago concerning the current objection and response to gun regulations. I believe it was from Fordham University Law School. The GCA of ’68 was directly related to the assignation of JFK, RFK, and MLK Jr. Public policy has always been directly related to current social issues. Laws are required because people do not always do the right thing. It gave me some perspective on the constant ‘this is a knee-jerk response’ rhetoric so often used against the SAFE ACT and national BGC legislation. I understand LUTF, that you do not agree with the ban on the AR-15, and believe that could be overturned. I have no argument with you on that possibility. But as it stands today, that is the law in NYS.

      Please, correct any of my errors because I do not want to put words into the mouth of a man who has been a responsible gun owner all of his life. And in my book, you gots some book smart chops to boot.

      In addition, I was wondering if you could explain the NRAs role and how that has evolved, and how that impacts current legislation.

      Thanks. That’s all.

    • Tony B says:

      JimmyDThing wrote:
      “To Tony B: HAHAHAHAHAH. And I’m the paranoid one.”

      Oh my gosh. I never said you were paranoid. Jeepers. Maybe you are? Sorry. I understand mental illness. It’s very real, and it is an illness. Like cancer, or MS. Certainly no laughing mater. There is no stigma in getting help. If you require help, I can provide links.

      Be well.

  5. Johnny Ratchet says:

    Good Lord, what’s next, an illegal musket transfer between the settlers in Plymouth Rock?

    Yes, you were in Vietnam, we’ve only heard that 100 times already.

  6. LiftUptheFlag says:

    Tony B
    I just saw your question. I will get some info together in the near future. My typing is greatly affected by my lack of use of one hand following surgery. Thanks.

  7. Kalashnikat says:

    Your criticism of on-line gun sales reflects ignorance of the laws.
    In no state, and under no circumstance can someone mail or ship a firearm directly to someone who is not a licensed dealer, or a licensed Curio and Relic dealer, with the exception of black powder cap-and-ball guns or flintlocks. In all other cases, the sale passes through a licensed dealer who must maintain records, obtain identification and run background checks as if the purchaser was buying a gun from that dealer’s inventory.
    Even more stringent requirements apply to automatic weapons. Ammunition sales require identification to prove age of buyer, and at the same time provide the seller with the buyer’s photograph, name and address.

    The laws are on the books already. The US Department of In-Justice has chosen to not investigate or prosecute most of the cases where the background check revealed a felon attempting to get a gun, when they are not themselves actively releasing guns to the Mexican drug cartels.

    3D printers are the current bogey man in your nightmares, but in truth, anyone with basic mechanical skills, a drill press, hacksaw and file can build a working gun…in the Khyber pass they build working full auto AK-47′s from railroad rails and railroad ties and a few car parts.
    Zip guns can be made from materials available at any hardware store…

    It’s more important that individuals with mental problems be properly treated and if necessary committed through a sound due process mechanism than that the hundreds of thousands of guns bought by law abiding people be restricted or confiscated…you can’t un-invent the firearm…

    Firearms clearly also save more lives and deter more violent crimes than kill innocent people. Until you accept that fact (see the FBI’s crime statistics on how many folks are murdered with clawhammers versus rifles of all types), you cannot understand the issue.


  8. Ramon Lozano says:

    I do no know who the bigger fool is…Lawrence for his simpleton way of life of the rest of you for even trying to argue with him. I can not tell who the fool is at that point…

    “remove the gun from gun violence and you still have violence but not to the killing degree we do now..”… REALLY? by your own rationale, LEAVE the gun and take the VIOLENCE out of gun violence and fix the problem all together. same impossible fantasy world! idiotic!

    ” Lawrence White says:
    November 23, 2013 at 12:02 am


    show me where on the CONSTITUTION it says you have a RIGHT to a car! you already know where my right to a firearm is….and it is NOT to be enfringed!

    here is a great idea though. youre right, i will give you credit. regulations on guns do work…they work great! why we havent tried to regulate and criminalize drugs all this time i will never know! i bet you dont even see what just happened there!

    • Lawrence White says:

      Show in the constitution where you have a right to a guns that are not “well regulated.” I will not hold my breath waiting for your reply.
      In fact the courts have stated over and again that restrictions and control of guns is entirely legal. You just don’t like to hear it.

      The Founder themselves practiced strict gun controls. So strict in fact that you would not pleased if they were re-instituted today. Unless you are ready to enlist in an official government militia, have your gun registered and regularly inspected. I bet you are not. Yet far right gun romantics tell us that gun ownership was free and without responsibility in the colonies. Baloney. When the Founders wrote “well regulated” it is clear as a bell what they meant if you know history and do not have your head stuck in the denial hole.

      Prohibition of all alcohol did not work. Prohibition of all recreational drugs has not worked. Prohibition of all guns will not work either. That is why we call for controls, restrictions and regulations to control those guns that are allowed into our society.

      After reading your comment I think we have finally figure out who the bigger fool is. Thanks.

  9. Lawrence White says:

    Big Sol
    I am not going to post your link because it is off topic for this blog piece. However I will quote from the last line of the link you sent as an answer to your question:
    Police maintain that the Good Samaritan who opened fire was justified and broke no laws.

  10. Lawrence White says:

    Tony B and JimmyDThing
    Please refrain from any more back and forth against each other. Thank you.

  11. Lawrence White says:

    I posted your comment in the proper thread.

  12. Peter says:

    Thanks as I did not know how to put it in proper thread. I trust my fellow citizens with arms to defend themselves, me, you, and all folks. Some bad guys will misuse guns. However, we have a track record of bad government misusing guns against their own people and other nations. Some people misuse guns, some governments do too. It is like power sources. Oil. coal, nuclear, wind, etc. all have good and bad points. Given all that, I side with trusting the people. You appear to side with trusting the government. We differ but, please have a happy, safe, and thankful Thanksgiving. Peace, Peter

  13. Lawrence White says:

    The people are the government. Happy Thanksgiving.

  14. Peter says:

    The people are the government. It is when government employees get arrogant or rule anal that we have trouble. I hate smoking. But, some city in California wants to ban it inside homes in case it might leak into next house. I can’t even get the local cops to stop my neighbor from excessive wood burning. When he has his wood stove on and there is no wind, my home stays cloaked in smoke smog. So, I, you, all of us, want some regulation. How much is the problem. Your position towards guns is rational to you and, I can see the logic. My position is counterintuitive. I am old and broken and, honestly, even when I took martial arts I was very good on the swim team. Even young and slender(relatively) I was not graceful on land in any sport. For some reason I can shoot well and, that is pretty much my only way to defend myself especially now. Having helped to incarcerate hundreds and do other nasty(but legal) things to other folks, I have enemies. If I was rich like Bloomberg I would hire bodyguards. Instead, I have hired myself and trained frequently and, so far safely. God willing I will never actually shoot at a human for the rest of my life.

  15. Lawrence White says:

    The proposed California law you are complaining about would prohibit smoking inside all multiunit residences, such as condos or apartments, where housing units share walls, floor, ceilings or ventilation systems. Like most hotels, B&B’s and motels are now.
    Free-standing homes, which make up about two-thirds of all residencies in the state, would be exempted from the ban.

    You see this is problem Peter. The propagandists take an issue, end of life counseling for instance, and turn it into a “death panel.” OR that common sense gun control means “they are coming for you gun – quick buy more” This a transparent attempt to convince us it is evil and must be attacked. Their motive is to ultimately convince us to distrust our own government and trust them instead.

    If you do not like what is happening in your government you can petition, get out the vote or run for office yourself. That would be impossible in the corporate world the propagandists are working towards. If you want to mistrust someone – mistrust those who would lie to you to take your rights. Not the entity that protects them.

    BTW – smoking tobacco kills over half million Americans a year. About 10,000 of them do not smoke.

  16. Peter says:

    I have read that second hand smoke is not harmful but, I think it is. If I can smell it, then it can enter my lungs at some strength. Berkely (wasn’t that the city Lawrence?) wants to, as you say, ban smoking in common wall or floor apartments. Even though I hate smoking and hate breathing other folks second hand smoke(like by the doors of NY State buildings), I believe you should be allowed to smoke in your own apartment even if it has common walls, floors, etc. Now, if by poor ventilation design or otherwise your smoke noticeably leeks into a neighbors home, the neighbor should be able to force you to take remedial steps so they can avoid your smoke. Remedial can stretch from no smoking at all in your own apartment, to you installing some sort of vent system (perhaps like the net part of an oxygen net w/out the oxygen) that sucks up your smoke and vents it safely somewhere. Think of the money some engineer can make by designing an effective easy to use smoke eater. If you do a Berkely law, how do you enforce it? Do you want police doing no knock searches for smoke residue? Not every good idea can or should be a law. If my neighbor is curing me into smoked meat, suing his arse might get his attention rather than criminal law. Any ideas folks? Also Lawrence, someone like me who has numerous criminals hating me, how do I defend myself? I handgun qualify with the police every year but, I am not currently a police officer. I cannot afford a security guard. I used to teach use of force to the police. Your thoughts Lawrence and others.

  17. Lawrence White says:

    You are right about second hand smoke. Particularly with children. It is a ghastly killer.

    The law in Calif as I understand it will be enforced much like it is in hotels. If there are multiple infractions of the rules you can be asked to leave. Frankly any drug (and nicotine is a drug) that hooks and then kills a half million Americans a year really does not get my empathy for special consideration anyway.

    As for multiple people hating you, I am a pro gun control blogger. Hello? My philosophy is to do what I believe in and tell the truth as I know it. I can live with that. There are two big words start with ‘f’, fear and freedom. I choose freedom over fear particularly the freedom to express myself.

    It sounds to me that you have a hand gun permit so it would appears you have protection from others. However as you well know a gun can easily be used against you as well. Take care.

  18. Tony B says:

    No Mr. White, I do nor agree. The two “f” words are fear or faith. Can’t have both.


  19. Peter says:

    Lawrence–FYI so Publish or not as you wish. After 9/11 but, before I stopped drilling with the state guard in 2003, I was asked to train some new troops in drill and ceremony. For whatever reason, the NY State Guard( not the National Guard) was essentially disarmed in the 80s. We do shoot M16s at Camp Smith but, have few weapons issued to our unit. I went out with 4 model 1917 US Enfield Rifles of WWI issue to teach drill. On top of that, the bolts were removed while I trained these soldiers so, even if someone had ammo, the rifles could not be fired. Governor Mario Cuomo or Governor Pataki probably saw the movie, “Full Metal Jacket” and got nervous. Since the guard was full of police, prosecutors, and other political leaders, most with prior active service like me, and since we all expected more attacks from extremists, you could safely assume that many members carried a concealed(legal) pistol. It would look really stupid to have a state armory attacked and the only defense being to throw chairs at the terrorists. One reason military bases are terror targets is that most folks on base, except for the gate guards and on duty MPs, are NOT armed. Look at the old westerns like “Gunsmoke”. Soldiers back then, in an age of common pistol carry, were unarmed on the show and unarmed in fact unless on duty. The ranking army general in Alaska recently (a year or so ago) ordered that all off duty military personnel could NOT carry a pistol in Alaska even though every other person (except felons, etc.) can carry. There are many places in Alaska where fishing is not safe w/out a pistol unless you plan your future as bear scat. Foolish ruling by said general.

  20. Lawrence White says:

    From what I understand Georgia O’Keefe once said that she had been terrified every moment of her life but that it never stopped her from doing anything. From that statement it appears that if you do what you believe in – it is worth it.

  21. Lawrence White says:

    When I was in service I was not tall enough to get into the honor guard but several of my friends were. Their maneuvers with their M-16′s (disabled as you mention) were awe inspiring. Not only the individual syncopation but the the group as a whole. The sounds of their boot-heels along with slap of the gunstock and crack as the butt smacked into the pavement created an infections rhythm that is now the root of so much of today’s popular music. They were athlete entertainers pure and simple and I admired their performances very much. Some of their routines required bayonets. The blade edge was not sharpened but was still quite dangerous.

    We all live in a different time now and I think that is what you are getting at in your comment. Our society does not see guns in the same way anymore. Too many have been killed. Too much sorrow. My hope is that with the advent of more conservative regulations we can come to a balance that will allow us to have a more realistic view of guns that adapts to the needs of the victims and responsible gun owners. However since the gun-lobby/NRA blocks even the hugely popular BGC legislation, laws on plastic and even replica toy guns it appears that the ultimate backlash will be much more severe than if the gun-lobby/NRA would simply stop focusing on profit alone. If that radical advocacy continues middle ground will evaporate, the laws will be very strict and you will be even more frustrated. I believe that is the choice we face. Be realistic now or be much more extremely regulated in the future.

  22. Albert J says:

    If we could get off this never ending, monotonous, unsubstantiated carousel obsession about firearm manufacturer profits, Lawrence, allow me to correct your slanted observation; it’s the “CONCEPT” of effective BGC regulation that enjoys wide public support, not necessarily the legislation that was proposed.

    I don’t fanticize being able to speak for “our society”, so I wouldn’t speculate on what way “guns are seen today”, any more or less than firearms have always been regarded. Too many have been killed and too many injured and rational, responsible regulations to positively affect those problems would be beneficial.

    I would suggest, however, the necessary level of rational regulation is far better determined by an open review of the specific causes of the problems and a thorough evaluation of all suggested solutions that focus, specifically, at root causes rather than convenient and misguided “quick fixes”, determined by an “elite few” who have neither the experience, nor the courage, to deal with the unpleasant realities of the actual causes or the political fallout from facing them.

    As we’ve had more experience, than we’ll ever need, dealing with other “quick fixes”, that usually accomplish far less than advertised and are designed to serve different agenda, that actual cause, it might be a reasonable notion to rivert back to the practice of open and thorough discussion that has served our needs to develop workable solutions that last.

    Whenever we are willing to accept and settle for an ineffective, haphazard solution, we can ALWAYS get one FAST. Workable, practical and thorough, unfortunately, usually takes a little longer.

  23. Lawrence White says:

    What an active imagination you have. The BGC legislation had 90% national approval yet gun lobby politicians blocked it. Brazenly done in the bright light of day without a care for the consequences. Profit over life, pure and simple.

    BTW – a 20 year effort to have legislation like the SAFE Act passed is hardly a “quick fix.” Of course you weren’t paying attention for all those years so it is easy to see why never noticed.

  24. Albert J says:

    Despite your considerable effort, you just can’t spin straw into gold. There is no question there was, and is, considerable support for strengthening and expanding BGC functionality. Suggesting the defeat of the legislation proposed was the result of some sinister cabal is pathetic DENIAL in it’s purist form. Your whining about “Profit over life, pure and simple” is simply a lot easier to hide behind that face the reality that the legislation simply couldn’t pass muster.

    As for NY SAFE, your suggestion of a “20 year effort” is as pure a fantasy as possible. As trumpeted at the time, the objective was simply a covert effort to be the “first and the toughest” reaction to a tragedy, an overly ambitious Governor saw as an opportunity to try an leverage a tragedy into a political gain to prop up a career with eyes on 2016.

    Thankfully, it failed as all the hype and BS didn’t cover the naked effort at political one-upsmanship intended.

  25. Lawrence White says:

    There is reality, then there is Albert. Your bogus excuses may work in the world through your looking glass but we all know what happened with the BGC legislation. Profit over life, pure and simple.

  26. Sentinel says:

    What a shame it is that Albert wants the equivalent of extreme wealth without having to put forth any effort.

    Albert, you long ago became annoying. Now you’re simply irrelevant to this conversation. Everything must be proven to be effective before any attempt to legislate anything, at least in your worldview. And that my friend, is true madness.

    Edison didn’t just pop up with a working lightbulb, he experimented until he got it right, which he did. One of his ancient lightbulbs has been burning brightly in a firehouse continuously for more than a 100 years.

    The point is, you have to begin somewhere and make improvements along the way. If some flaw is found in the new universal gun control laws, they will be modified to be more effective.

    How do you manage living in this world? Your philosophy is bizarre. To offer an analogous situation, zHow do you ever manage to step outside your door? I mean, you have no proof beforehand that you will return safely, but yet you leave and indeed have returned.

    To delay taking action is not only foolish, but it has deadly consequences. Sometimes one has to take action with the hope their decision is the very best tact to achieve the goal one is seeking.

    We cannot throw our hands up and do nothing, as you would have us do while claiming to support such meaningful legislation as universal background checks for all firearms purchases.

    Get on board Albert, you are delaying the change you claim to seek.

  27. Albert J says:

    Be still my heart, I guess I’m just going to have to trudge on without your blessing, Sentinel. Why do you insist on exerting so much effort with really silly and ridiculous “cheap shots” to criticize what you consider irrelevant? It would seem being irrelevant to a conversation you’ve initiated would be a positive reference.

    If you want to buy into the secret cabal and grand conspiracy nonsense by some evil gang of lobbyists, that’s your choice. I prefer the simple logic that the BGC legislation recently failed, simply because it couldn’t gain enough support to pass. I am somewhat disappointed that the proponents couldn’t get over their damaged egos, find out what parts of the legislation created the opposition, determine if the necessary adjustments could be made and resubmitted a revised proposal.
    You’d be surprised, but getting the wrinkles out beforehand actually works a lot better than “Ready-FIRE-Aim”.

    Your astute observation, “If some flaw is found in the new universal gun control laws, they will be modified to be more effective” sounds eerily similar to the equally brilliant suggestion, “if you want to know what’s in the bill, first you have to vote for it”. Sounds like Forrest Guump was correct, “Stupid is as stupid does”.

    I’m not sure exactly where Thomas Edison, or some imagined pursuit of extreme wealth all figures into your babble, and please don’t spend any additional effort on my part trying to connect all those dots, it’s really not worth the effort. I can’t begin to imagine where you were trying to go with, “How do you ever manage to step outside your door? I mean, you have no proof beforehand that you will return safely, but yet you leave and indeed have returned” No question, your choice to use the word “Bizarre” was spot on.

    Am I correct in understanding your position as, don’t waste a lot of time figuring out how to do something RIGHT, just do something fast, and then fix it over time? I don’t believe I’ve ever suggested doing nothing, although I do think the faster you stop doing things wrong, helps minimize the unnecessary mess that has to be cleaned up.

    You’ll have to forgive me, Sentinel but I think I’ll pass getting on board wherever you’re thinking of heading. Although you can never get truly lost, when you have absolutely no idea where you’re going, you’ll never know if you’ve ever arrived either. When arriving somewhere really bad is the alternative, being a little lost doesn’t sound so terrible.

  28. Lawrence White says:

    Change is inevitable. You are right, those who oppose it can slow it down. The truth is that they can not stop it. It is like gravity or the tides or the sun passing over head. You can howl at the moon. You can not stop it from moving.

  29. Tony B says:

    That is life.

  30. Sentinel says:

    Feeling a bit apprehensive…

    I’m awaiting Albert’s response where he’ll argue the sun doesn’t pass overhead, that gravity is non existent because no one can explain it and reassuringly will affirm that the tides don’t effect lake water.

  31. Sentinel says:

    Pardon me while I digress to respond to Albert, who wrote, “Be still my heart, I guess I’m just going to have to trudge on without your blessing, Sentinel.”

    What on earth makes you feel I’ve offered you my blessing, Albert? Why would I do that? That we’ve put up with your adolescent behavior as long as we have is the only blessing you’ll get. And you’ve wasted it.

    You’re insensitive to the very real pain of loss so many have experienced that you’re ignorant of.

    Your conduct has been disgraceful and your incredibly disrespectful of those who have suffered from gun violence who’ve posted here.

    Your humor is misplaced in such a deadly serious discussion between adults and you should be ashamed of yourself.

    It’s no wonder you don’t see the point… it’s the exact same point you’ve been crying about forever, to come together and put the very best legislation together before launching and then we’ll have some meaningful and comprehensive gun control laws possible, agreed upon by consensus.

    The point is Albert, to do it quickly but thoughtfully with the hope and belief that it’s the best possible legislation achievable and to see how it works out and then improve it if it’s found to be necessary.

    That you feel this to be stupid is as stupid does shows you aren’t up to having an adult conversation.

    Glad to learn you’re not climbing on board, Albert. You’re dead-weight and you’d only slow us down.