- This topic has 167 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Ubiq
I’m not sure how to respond about Heller. I tell you it’s obvious in the context of history. You tell me that it wasn’t obvious until 2008 and Heller was decided. But don’t we say yeish brerah that the supreme court upheld it was obvious since the constitution?As part of my original argument about limits
Many pro-guns (not the idealistic lunatics) would be willing to have a discussion, but the obvious dis-ingeniousness on the left prevents it. If they would agree to certain stipulations there would be more compromise.
Isn’t taxes a similar example? The left always wants to tax more, but without saying what the upper limit are (if you left it to bernie sanders the upper limit would be 100% tax rate)
If they wanted more cooperation there first needs to be a discussion on what they agree would be the most someone could be taxed and then compromise from therementch
“he obvious question on my philosophy that …”
The more obviosu question is why do you need guns in the first place?
ITs absurd to argue that owning guns falls under neccesary hishtadlus but trying to prevent mass shootings doesnt.
Now as to whther ths could havebeen prevented, sure thats debatable. But to invoke “Ratzon Hashem” only when it suits your argument is disingenuous.” Stories (not in the main stream press) of using weapons to save yourself happen quite often. I know 2 people personally with such stories”
And as of sunday you know 59 stories of people that had the opposite outcome.
mentsch1: If I accept your absolutist view about fate , then why have policemen? why have armies? why flee from gunfire? why not cross the road into oncoming traffic? why not ingest arsenic? after all, if the Almighty wants me to stay alive, nothing will change that. This is a red herring . I do not have the answer how to understand and synchronize the concept of bechira and the fact of the Almighty’s will but I will certainly do everything in my power to avoid danger and avoid being killed. Yes, clearly, the Holocaust ultimately was part of the Almighty’s plans but I also believe that Hitler YEMACH SHEMO was the most evil person to have lived and that anyone who tried to evade his clutches could have survived. In the same way that you maintain that anyone who dies is part of the Almighty’s will ,why can’t you also accept that The Almighty gives people the bechira and the opportunity to save oneself when tried.
NE
You may have missed my post with an apology and reference to the rodney king riots as they posted my posts out of order. Please read it.
Since what I believe you are asking is, assuming that we could implement the exact same policy with the exact same results (and I wasn’t preaching, I was simply pointing out that it doesn’t seem likely) what would be the right thing to do. My answer would be to implement the UK policy, obviously. But I also want to point out that your position is one made from living in a safe environment, but if society broke down, as it does during times of stress on local police forces, of immediacy (no cop there to stop a robbery) and during war, you would be praying for a gun.
we now get into the question of personal vs community rights. Do I have a personal right of protection as opposed to a perceived public hazard? Personally I see this as a halachic/hashkafic issue and as i pointed out already, I dont believe halacha or hashkafa demands such a policy, I Believe rather that hashkafa would actually push toward individual rights bc the bigger picture is decided by G-D.Berlin
everyone who survived was meant to survive, those that were meant to die did. Hashka 101. You didn’t read history books and see people who tried to escape and didn’t, or who lived through the war and died when ingesting a piece of chocolate from a concerned GI?
You can’t ingest arsenic bc you can’t demand open miracles, same for the others, you also lose divine protection (ie you can change your fate) when you engage in risky behavior (chagiga, conversation between the malach hamaves and a tana).
PERSONAL Hishtadlus is required. You can not change the fate of those 59, that’s not Personal hishtadlus. Their fates were sealed, by bullets or bus, this is basic.Mentsch1: yekke and others
There are obviously inyanim of hishtadlus hereWhich therefore renders your point moot. The minute you acknowledge that leaving dangerous things in the hands of dangerous people based on trust in Hashem doesn’t work, you acknowledge that leaving guns in the hands of people likely to shoot humans with them is impossible.
Yekke
and by extension of your argument then we need to keep trucks out of peoples hands bc they might mow people down
At most, you can make the hishtadlus argument to keep the guns out of the hands of people with mental issues/domestic history etc.
and I would agree with that, I do support gun control as I have now said several times
But your point is not valid bc it extends to all dangerous items, including trucks, knives etc. Yet for some (emotional?) reason you don’t seem to take the point to it’s obvious conclusionOverall the question of public health policy and hishtadlus is an interesting question
Most recently the question comes up with the anti vax crowd. Can you demand that someone do something for the sake of the community?
surprisingly, the shiurim I have heard on this goes contrary to public opinion (which tends to be emotional). Halacha decides things on probability principles. And since the risk is so low right now, then a person can not be forced to vaccinate since his chance of hurting others is not significant l’halacha.
Wouldn’t this apply to guns? The individual risk of a gun owner hurting someone is so small then we cant / shouldn’t compel someone to give up a tool that does have a valid function.
On the other hand Yekke and others
If you are dealing with a high risk situation (mental/domestic issues) then you can/should force complianceMentsch1: Actually, you can transfer a gun. My father died and i transferred ownership to myself.
Mentsch1
Last post before yom tov. No, I do not agree that it is an absolute that all who had to die died and all who had to live lived. I do think that we have bechira and that we are subect to our own actions. You find plenty of gemoros telling us not to be someplace (bemokon sakkonoh) or not to do certain things that will influence our lives “venishmartem es nafshoseichem). As I said, I do not have the answer to this question of the Almighty’s will and our bechira. But everything in our tradition points to the fact that we should try to avoid danger and preserve our lives.mencth
“I’m not sure how to respond about Heller. ”Yes I know, because it disputes the narritve that you invented that isnt grounded in fact.
“I tell you it’s obvious in the context of history. You tell me that it wasn’t obvious until 2008 and Heller was decided.”
Exactly! you provided vagaries about historical context” and I provided concrete law decision
” But don’t we say yeish brerah that the supreme court upheld it was obvious since the constitution?”
Um no. Since that would mean it is ” obvious since the constitiution” taht Seperate but equal is both allowable (Plessy v Ferguson” and unallowable (Brown v Board of Ed) that limiting contributions by corporations is allowable (Mcconell V FEC) and not (Citizens nited v FEC) among many many others.
“Many pro-guns (not the idealistic lunatics) would be willing to have a discussion,”
Many isnt enough. We can discuss it until the next inevitable mass shooting. Nothign will change. We need congress to discuss it but the Evil NRA who are “idealistic lunatics” have the GOP under their thumb. and they have the nerve to call themselves pro-life.
“Isn’t taxes a similar example? The left always wants to tax more”
Um no. the left doesnt “lways want to tax more” where do you get this stuff from?
“PERSONAL Hishtadlus is required. You can not change the fate of those 59, that’s not Personal hishtadlus. Their fates were sealed, by bullets or bus, this is basic.”
hogwash.
Scenario 1
John Smith is one of the victims of the next inevitable mass shooting (if current trends continue) he will will be shot by a person with schizophrenia who has a warrant out for is arrest due to past violent crime. This person is on his way to buy a gun at a gun show in a state which doesn’t require background checks. John so desperately wants to live so today he is lobbying his congressman to close the “gun show loophole”Scenario 2
Jane Smith (no relation to john) will get her home broken into by an intruder next week. she wants to go out and buy a gun to protect herself.Please explain to me, why in scenario 1 john pushing for common sense legislation is a lack of bitachon but Jane’s case isnt..
Mencth1
“all guns are technically registered, forms are filled out and filed with the authorities. ”this is incorrect.
“Yes there are loopholes in certain states and reselling,”
Wait, so you knew your statement was incorrect. wh ywould you make a knowingly incorrect statement?
Mw13:
If there was a magic button that rid the planet of weapons, i would push it, but there isn’t – we need Mashiach for that. There are more guns than Americans in this country, and there is no way, at this point in time, to confiscate all arms Without starting a second civil war. The sad truth is that there are weapons smuggled into this country every day, and needless to say, they are not sold to the type of people who have the ability to pass FBI background checks and purchase guns legally. Ironically, the same people who constantly try to take away the rights of Americans to own firearms are also the ones who fight against securing the borders, through which illegal arms are smuggled across and into the hands of criminals in the US. That being the case, the constitution protects the rights of citizens to defend themselves. Disarming the good guys doesn’t prevent the bad guys from obtaining illegal weapons and using them against us. If this psychopath was not able to obtain his weapons legally, he could have done it just as well in an illegal form, or just used a different kind of weapon like a homemade dirty bomb. That’s why it can’t be prevented.Additionally, reports said it took 72 minutes for police to reach the madman in Vegas from the moment of the first emergency phone call. Granted, there was no armed civilian in the hotel (a “gun-free zone”) that was able to be proactive and stop the guy, but my point is, the police are not always there to defend you when C”V evil attacks. The right to self-defence is God-given and the Second Amendment is there to protect it. For these reasons, disarming the good guys is viewed as a bad decision by much of the country. To specifically use a tragedy as a tool to push a political position that is known to be controversial and is especially aggravating to much of the country is insensitive and divisive at a time during which national unity is needed more than anything else.
But your point is not valid bc it extends to all dangerous items, including trucks, knives etc. Yet for some (emotional?) reason you don’t seem to take the point to it’s obvious conclusion
You’ll notice I didn’t make a point. I responded to your point, which mixed in Hashem’s control. If you are using HKB”H as an answer, your point makes no sense, as you agreed. I did not get involved as far as balancing public danger and issues of freedom and liberty.
Anon
Are you talking about weapons defined under the recent NYS safe law?Rabbi Berlin
Sorry
As I’ve said several times , the gemarah specifically points to putting yourself in a dangerous situation as an exclusion . You risk changing your destiny by doing something risky. Otherwise, life is ordained . No one in ww2 could have altered their fate by any means.
This hashkafa is one I am well familiar with having grown up in an MO young Israel. Plenty of members wore kippas with “never again ” on it. Or they were members of kach or jdl. It’s an improper hashkafah.
Plenty of my MO relatives still talk about the gedolim of prewar Europe as being complicit in the slaughter bc they didn’t tell Jews to get out. It’s kefira.
See my next postUbiq
Let’s look at the torah for hashkafa .
When it comes to personal circumstances and responsibility the torah implies choice. We are given a mitzvah of self defense. We have an entire mesechta (makkos) which discusses personal responsibility and declares that when engaging in dangerous behavior (example; going down a ladder) you better act responsibly or you are liable.
Which is why I am pro gun control and feel there should be mandatory training to avoid personal negligent choices.
On the other hand I don’t believe gun control will help what you are trying to control which is death in the broader sense . We have no control over that.
The bigger picture is controlled by G-d . See the meforshim(or art scroll) on mishlei 21:1. Hashem controls the thoughts of leaders and people to move pieces were he wants them. This is why rabbiberlin and my relatives are wrong. The prewar rabbis didn’t tell there congregants to get out bc hashem wanted them there to die. Those that got out had thoughts put into them to allow their survival . It’s not a narrative. It’s well founded hashkafa.
This is why I keep saying that you can’t stop those people from dying . If it wasn’t a bullet it would be a bus. Hashem uses evil people (who are responsible for their actions like pharaoh ) to accomplish his aimsWe know from the Torah that the sword is the tool of Eisev, not Yaakov.
Mentsc
“Which is why I am pro gun control”
Great so we are on the same side!
” Hashem uses evil people (who are responsible for their actions like pharaoh ) to accomplish his aim”
Yes but that in no way absolves us from responsibility to put safeguards in place. If the Senate senate were to debate allowing drunk drivers to get behind the wheel of a car wouldnt you support lobbying to get them not to make that bad decision.
why is ugun contrl different?Furthermore you state you are ” pro gun control to avoid personal negligent choices” why if those people were to be harmed by negligence then how wil lthey be saved by “mandatory training”
also you have yet to explain (Ive asked this 3 times) why why you limit the bashert part to gun victims and not owners. PArticularly when you consider As Joseph says the Torah says Hayadayim yedei Eisav, leave the guns to Eisav, and if your time is up no gun in the owrld can save you.
why the double standard?“the gedolim of prewar Europe as being complicit in the slaughter bc they didn’t tell Jews to get out. It’s kefira”
That isnt kefira, though it is silly.
IS it kefira to say the Nazis were complicit in the slaughter?Joseph
Not sure how that is relevant
There is a mitzva of self defense
The Torah commands us to kill on numerous occasions.
We should spend our days learning and not fighting yet clearly Hashem feels there are times when the reverse is true.
Hashem could have swept the 7 nations away with a flood yet he commanded us to battle them for decadesmentsh1: well, we shall have to agree to disagree. There is bechira and people make decisions to kill or be saved.”mokom sakkkohnoh” is not the only exception (see ibn Ezra on jotzei millchomo) but you have just driven a mack truck through this loophole. How can “mokom sakonnoh’ be judged an exception as-according to your shittah- it also circumvents G-‘ds will?
I find it sad for someone to contemplate restrictive action based on a narrative from a government muad to lie, and which is currently regarded with derision in the vast alt media. (many of whom also have credibility issues but not all) I find it sadder still that this has not been raised in this company of refined minds until page two. I am retreating to my succah for a mood lift.
I’m becoming more convinced everyday, as far as motive, that “59 reasons to ban assault weapons” was the reason and motivation of the shooter, and probably the quote he had in his head as well. Especially taken into account the killers profile, demeanor, and the really staged (fake) way his room appeared in photographs.
So at least some of you appear to be on the same page.As far as I’m concerned the Second Amendment should be repealed.
Joe – So who should have the guns – just the criminals?!?
Read up about England when they tried – no guns, even for Coppers!One thing is for sure, Health: You shouldn’t have a loaded weapon in your home.
Health: I’m assuming when you say ‘Read up about England’ you’re referring to the fact that Britain has a very low level of gun violence. If your point is that only the criminals have guns, that’s simply not true. There are armed police, but they’re called upon when needed. There’s enough around to respond quickly in the event of an emergency, or for specific operations. And there are very few criminals with guns. It’s simply not worth it for them. Getting hold of one is more likely to get them arrested than most things, and even if they do get one, they’re extremely expensive, outdated and in poor condition. But more importantly, there’s just little cause for your average criminal to carry a gun. Criminals mainly carry guns to protect themselves against rival criminals, ot very rarely police or members of the public. If their enemies haven’t got guns, they don’t need guns either. So the gangs in London and elsewhere carry knives. The strict gun laws mean that even the few guns it might be possible to obtain are just not worth the trouble it’d take to get them. And when the police carry out a routine traffic stop, a stop-and-search, an arrest for a petty crime, they don’t have to worry whether the person they’re dealing with has a firearm, which makes everyone safer. And that’s without counting the fact that mass shootings are incredibly rare in England.
In the USA, there are already probably too many guns around to effectively police them anyway, so I’m not saying there’s comparisons to be made. I’m just saying that as far as guns are concerned, the UK is an example of the right way to do things. So if you’re bringing them as an example, I’m assuming it’s a positive one. Because suggesting otherwise would just be stupid.
NE -“There are armed police, but they’re called upon when needed. There’s enough around to respond quickly in the event of an emergency, or for specific operations.”
That is exactly my point!
What if in England had No guns, not even for Coppers?!?If no criminals had guns, then the police wouldn’t really have much use for guns. They could use tazers against knives and the like, as they indeed do. It would be a much better world.
If your point is that only criminals would have guns… I have no idea where you’re going with this. Nobody’s proposing that law enforcement shouldn’t have access to firearms. If that’s what you’re arguing against, it’s the strawman to end all strawmen.
NE -“Nobody’s proposing that law enforcement shouldn’t have access to firearms. If that’s what you’re arguing against, it’s the strawman to end all strawmen.”
Funny that’s exactly the law in the UK.
From Wikipedia:
“In the rest of the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers do not carry firearms; that duty is instead carried out by specially-trained firearms officers. This originates from the formation of the Metropolitan Police Service in the 19th century, when police were not armed, partly to counter public fears and objections over armed enforcers as this had been previously seen due to the British Army maintaining order when needed. The arming of police in Great Britain is a perennial topic of debate.”“One thing is for sure, …: You shouldn’t have a loaded weapon in your home.”
An unloaded weapon isn’t very useful against a sudden attack.
A loaded weapon in the home is a danger to innocents. More people die from accidental gun deaths than intruders killed by lawful gun owners.
“A loaded weapon in the home is a danger to innocents. More people die from accidental gun deaths than intruders killed by lawful gun owners.”
Accidental gun deaths are fully avoidable by proper education, storage and usage.
We don’t ban cars because they kill more lives than they save.
Health: Oh, come on. Law enforcement in the UK, as a collective, have access to firearms if and when they’re needed. The majority of police officers do not carry guns, as we all know, but a minority do. The ones who carry guns are also members of the police force, they’ve just had special weapons training, and access to firearms when necessary. A certain percentage of patrol cars carry guns. Not all police officers in the UK have guns, but the police in the UK ‘have access to them’. I was responding to this statement:
What if in England had No guns, not even for Coppers?!?
Random capitalization aside, that states that there are ‘no guns’. That isn’t the case, never has been, and nobody is saying it should be. In fact, in response to the increasing terror threat, they’ve encouraged more police to take up weapons training, to expand the number of trained firearms officers. If you’re trying to make a coherent point, please do, because I’m mystified as to what you’re trying to get at.
“We don’t ban cars because they kill more lives than they save.”
no, but they are heavily regulated you need a license to operate one
need to pass a test
airbags
seatbelts
shatterproof glass
Acceptable blood alchol levels prior to operating one
etc
etc“Accidental gun deaths are fully avoidable by proper education, storage and usage.
We don’t ban cars because they kill more lives than they save.”
Require certification of proper gun education and storage facilities prior to permitting gun ownership and/or usage.
A driver’s license requires a driving test be passed. A firearms license (surely) should be required with the aforementioned prerequisites, as well.
As an aside, a separate point I would like to make is that hunting for fun (not food) should be outlawed.
But then only the good tasting deer will be hunted, and there will be a lot more bad tasting deer hit by cars.
Can we please stop talking about cars?
Cars perform a useful function beyond destruction. There’s a clear difference between a necessary, regulated activity and widespread weapons ownership for increasingly spurious ideological reasoning. Whatever. The analogy to cars just doesn’t work on any level, so whatever side of the argument you’re siting on, let’s avoid using it.
It’s like asking why we don’t ban knives, because they’re probably the most frequently used offensive weapon. Because knives are an integral facet of the way we live and conduct our business, from eating to manufacturing, as are cars. Guns are not of positive use to society at large. So just stop using this analogy.
NE -” that states that there are ‘no guns’. That isn’t the case, never has been, and nobody is saying it should be. In fact, in response to the increasing terror threat, they’ve encouraged more police to take up weapons training, to expand the number of trained firearms officers. If you’re trying to make a coherent point, please do, because I’m mystified as to what you’re trying to get at”
Don’t be so mystified!
Before commenting, you should have gone to that article!
They don’t have a lot of guns in England.
They need more! If some civilians had them – maybe the Terrorists would start being scared!
“As of 2005, around 7% of officers in London are trained in the use of firearms. Firearms are also only issued to an officer under strict guidelines.”Health: Oh, okay. So you’re not making any coherent sociological argument in favour of increasing the number of firearms officers, or the effect of gun ownership on criminality and terror. You’re just beating the drum for legalized gun ownership with no logical rationale. Which, to be fair, I can hardly claim to be surprised at. I’ll respond, but I think I’m done with this particular discussion until there’s some actual sense being spoken on both sides.
The obvious response to your fallacy is that if more civilians had guns, then the terrorists would have guns too. Which would make the whole country a lot more dangerous. Criminals would get hold of guns, which as I’ve explained for the most part isn’t the case at the moment, and then police would have to be fully armed too. Which means a country when shootings are so rare they’re usually national news when even a minor incident occurs, would see an increase in the terror threat, criminality, and deaths of police, civilians, and criminals. Basically, the same country just with more suspicion, violence and death. HIlarious.
Why are guns special?
NE -“Basically, the same country just with more suspicion, violence and death. HIlarious”
STOP with your liberal fantasy!
No one knows the future.
Guns would’ve stopped the Westminster massacare!
From the Telegraff:
“22 MARCH 2017 • 11:45PM
Five dead including police officer and London terrorist
40 hurt after being mowed down by car on Westminster Bridge
Attacker shot by police as he rushes at Palace of Westminster”Here I am not a liberal, but I don’t want other people to have guns if I’m not allowed to have my weapon of choice, which is not a gun.
Health: I’ve never been accused of being a liberal fantasist before. I’m merely a conservative libertarian who isn’t wedded to ideology over plain common sense. And perhaps being bought up in a country where guns have no cultural significance or legal baggage has given me a different perspective. And I know this comes across as arrogant, but I’m once again left feeling as if I’m holding up the sensible end of this discussion on my own. I’m not suggesting that there’s no reasonable points to be made on the opposing side of the debate, merely that those arguments aren’t being coherently made. Or to put it more simply, I worry I’m just talking into the ether.
But, due to some unfathomable desire I have to continue this masochistic cycle, I’ll respond the the point you made. Guns did stop the Westminster massacre, and there wouldn’t have been any fewer fatalities had there been more guns around. Even had there been enough people in the vicinity with firearms, they would have not been able to stop the speeding car as it mowed down the first four victims, and the officer who was killed would not have survived had he been armed, he was taken by surprise. A nearby armed officer killed him. In an example of a reasonable balance, key sites like the Houses of Parliament are protected by armed officers, and armed response officers are common enough to react promptly and efficiently in the uncommon event of an attack.
And, although this is so painfully obvious it shouldn’t require saying, if there were more guns around in the UK, it wouldn’t have been a car ramming attack with 5 fatalities, but a mass shooting with far more casualties. Obviously. If you’re looking for an example that makes the case for legal gun ownership, an attack where guns would have made things immeasurably worse is a hilariously poor one to choose.
But once I’m again concerned I’ve been too verbose. So I’ll try keep things simple with the summary. Do you think a country, as a whole, is better and safer with widespread legal gun ownership? Because that sounds like what you’re implying, which sounds, frankly, ridiculous.
“Do you think a country, as a whole, is better and safer with widespread legal gun ownership?”
Do you think a country, as a whole, would be a better place to live if speech that offends or disturbs anyone were outlawed?
Do you think normal people speak using guns?
“Do you think a country, as a whole, would be a better place to live if speech that offends or disturbs anyone were outlawed?”
I think objectively unambiguously offensive speech should be outlawed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.