- This topic has 22 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
so in two separate incidents here in the north east there were attacks on defenseless law abiding citizens.
in the supermaket in jersey city , the attack was stopped by the thankfully swift arrival of ARMED law enforcement.
in the mosey attack, tha attack was not stopped untill the murderer decided he had enough.
meanwhile down in texas a gunman opened fire in a crowded hurch , the attack ended 6 seconds later when an armed citizen in the room shot the attacker dead, effectively ruining his further plans for the day.question ,
is the takeaway from here that we will be safer by making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to be armed?
or perhaps just maybe we would be safer by making it easier for people to legally get guns?If one is willing to trust their life, literally, to the benevolence and competence of your local mayor, governor and president, you should support gun control, knowing it means that you are relying on police to protect you from harm. Anyone who has doubts about the greatness, abilities and love of Yidden on the part of Mayor De Blasio, Governor Cuomo and President Trump (any of them), probably should have second thoughts about proposals that would in effect ban most frum Jews from owning guns.
Gun control has not and will not work. You don’t have to like guns, but do you trust people like “no bail” Deblasio to protect you? Is training important? Yes, of course. However, look around a vast majority of places with gun control. People get attacked, and they can’t do anything. Guns are the great equalizer. The smallest, weakest person with a gun can defend themselves from the biggest thug who is trying to hurt them. All these attacks in NY- you think that people would randomly punch yidden if they knew they would be killed over it? The chapsem worked, and concealed carry works even better. Even if you don’t like guns, and don’t want one, you have no right to make it illegal for those who want to protect themselves or others.
Gun Control: Being able to draw, fire, and get 5 rounds on target.
in the mosey attack, tha attack was not stopped untill the murderer decided he had enough.
Not according to this week’s Mishpacha.
(He didn’t have a gun, though.)KY
“in the supermaket in jersey city , the attack was stopped by the thankfully swift arrival of ARMED law enforcement.”Not quite. It was stopped after a several hour long gun battle. It is a bit silly (at best) to think It took the police hours to stop the bad guys. but if I had a gun it would have ben over right away
“in the mosey attack, tha attack was not stopped untill the murderer decided he had enough.”
and you want to make it EASIER for him to have had a gun????
“the attack ended 6 seconds later when an armed citizen in the room”
from what I understand he was a security guard. Is this not the case?” However, look around a vast majority of places with gun control. People get attacked,”
This is not true and has been studiesd over and over.
On the national level, on the state level more gun control (generally) leads to less gun deaths. sure there are exceptions like Switzerland but when you deny facts you weaken your position“Not quite. It was stopped after a several hour long gun battle. It is a bit silly (at best) to think It took the police hours to stop the bad guys. but if I had a gun it would have ben over right away”
True, but they where already barricaded in the store when the police came. You can certainly argue that had the cashier/customer been armed and immediately confronted the shooters the outcome in Jersey City could have been more like Texas.“and you want to make it EASIER for him to have had a gun????”
I don’t think any rational person is arguing that a schizophrenic with a criminal record should legally be allowed to own a gun.““and you want to make it EASIER for him to have had a gun????”
I don’t think any rational person is arguing that a schizophrenic with a criminal record should legally be allowed to own a gun.”You’d think that but sadly you’d be wrong
Obviously nobody is showing up and asking “Hi I’m schizophrenic can I have a gun please”
The ONLY way t o stop a schizophrenic with a criminal record from getting a gun (a measure that thankfully you support) is to require EVERY gun sale to be done with a background check. While background checks are generally required, they are not always required. Many states allow private sellers to sell without a background check. The so called – gun show loophole . A schizophrenic with a criminal record can go to a gun show in a neighboring state like CT where he can buy a long gun or a bit further to RI where he can get a hand gun from an unlicensed dealer with no background checks
while a vast majority of Anmericans DO oppose this, including a vast majority of Republicans, and of Gun owners included. The NRa does not, and thus the GOP (as a party) does not.
They do in fact want to keep it easy for schizophrenic with a criminal record to get guns.” However, look around a vast majority of places with gun control. People get attacked,”
This is not true and has been studiesd over and over.
On the national level, on the state level more gun control (generally) leads to less gun deaths.Ubiquitin, what you write is not true at all. Further, even if it were true, it’s dishonest to segregate gun deaths from other deaths; dead is dead, and where people are able to defend themselves they are at less risk of being killed. That is a fact.
Requiring private sellers to run a background check on their buyer has one big problem — private people are unable to do that. And the reason is obvious: You would not want anyone to be able to run a check on anyone, at any time, without a good reason. So the background check system is only available to dealers.
If I have a gun to sell, and I find someone to buy it, making me run a check means effectively telling me I can’t sell it. I would have to go find a dealer who is willing to run the check for me, and who will charge me whatever he likes for the service, which adds significantly to the price I have to charge the buyer. And if the check doesn’t come back immediately, what am I supposed to do? I don’t have a store that the buyer can come back to in a few days.
And all of this is completely unnecessary, since the background check system for dealers is a complete failure. Ask yourself why people whose checks come back negative are NEVER prosecuted for attempting to buy a gun illegally? The most obvious reason is that almost ALL negative results are false negatives, so there’s nothing to prosecute.
What most people tell pollsters they want is irrelevant, because most people have no idea what the current law is.
” and where people are able to defend themselves they are at less risk of being killed. That is a fact.”
Nope sadly more guns leads to more homicide as has been shown over and over (and isnt at all surprising)
At the national level Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-8
and at the state level Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002; 92:1988-1993.
” has one big problem — private people are unable to do that.”
This is a problem that has been solved in Several states including NY
“You would not want anyone to be able to run a check on anyone, at any time, without a good reason”
Some would argue that preventing a schizophrenic with criminal history from getting a gun is a s good a reason as as it gets“If I have a gun to sell, and I find someone to buy it, making me run a check means effectively telling me I can’t sell it. I”
If that is the price we have to pay to ensure criminals cant get guns, its a small price to pay.According to news reports, which may not be accurate, the two individuals killed in the Texas church were both members of the church trained in security. They guy who took out the shooter, used to own a firearms range, and was a trained marksman.
The Jersey City’s female murdering accomplice didn’t have a criminal record as far as I know. Some of their guns were allegedly purchased by her. Gun checks can only do so much, yet still I’m torn.
Ubiquitin, what you wrote is simply not true, and quoting a bunch of liars doesn’t make it true. When you adjust for demographics the US is very far from the lead in homicide rates, even if you artificially limit your inquiry to “high income countries” (and why would you do that?)
Further, you can’t really compare homicide rates across countries which have different definitions and cultures. For instance, in Japan where there is no stigma on suicide they are much more likely to classify deaths as suicide rather than homicide.
And no, the problem has not been solved. In NY private sellers are at the mercy of dealers because they have to get a dealer to run the check for them. That is a big problem.
Are you really claiming that in order to prevent a schizophrenic with criminal history from getting a gun you would be willing to let anyone run a criminal check on you, for any reason they like?! Because if you’re not, then how do you suggest private sellers of guns get access to background checks on their buyers?
And the fact remains that there are NO prosecutions of people whose check comes back negative, which is very strong evidence that the overwhelming majority of such cases are false negatives, and the check system is a massive failure.
Another point: Imposing background checks on private sellers will do nothing to satisfy the gun-grabbers. They are already demanding and introducing legislation to require checks for any transfer of a weapon, including lending it to someone, or just having someone hold it while you tie your shoe.
” what you wrote is simply not true, and quoting a bunch of liars doesn’t make it true. ”
I know you are but what am I?
Seriously, data please.“When you adjust for demographics the US is very far from the lead in homicide rates, even if you artificially limit your inquiry to “high income countries” (and why would you do that?)”
you would do that becasue obviously homicide is governed by many factors not solely gun ownership. Obviously a society with no police force (or an ineffective one) would likely have more homicides (as chazal tell us). Additionally poverty plays a role. Thus by limiting ourselves to high income countries, we control some of those factors.
” In NY private sellers are at the mercy of dealers because they have to get a dealer to run the check for them. That is a big problem.”
why is that a problem? let alone a big one?“Because if you’re not, then how do you suggest private sellers of guns get access to background checks on their buyers?”
Easy, we can have the buyer have to provide consent for the background check.
and right back at you, assuming you support background checks at all, Are you really claiming that in order to prevent a schizophrenic with criminal history from getting a gun you would be willing to let any gun dealer run a criminal check on you, for any reason they like?!
either you support background checks, and any obstacle that can be overcome by licensed gun dealers can be overcome by unlicensed gun dealers. Or you dont support background checks, proving my original point in bringing this up in response to bk613 incorrect assertion that “I don’t think any rational person is arguing that a schizophrenic with a criminal record should legally be allowed to own a gun.”“Another point: Imposing background checks on private sellers will do nothing to satisfy the gun-grabbers.”
thats a silly, point If background checks are a good thing we should impose them if not, then we shouldn’t, worrying about what would and wouldn’t satisfy gun grabbers is not a logical way to make decisions.KY
“Had someone in Monsey had a gun in the room it would now be” the dead guy who tried to attack with a machete. ””Unless of course the guy who had the gun was the killer… which is my point
“If there two scum knew that any Random citizen may be packing heat, they may well have thought twice.”
Seems doubtful. they knew the police were after them, they werent planning to come out alive .
and again, Im not opposed to the store owner, or anybody else for that matter having a gun. I’m opposed to making our already to lax gun control measures looser
The obstacles to gun ownership are weak enough at the present time – and I am talking about New York. If Jews want to arm themselves, current – or even tighter – gun controls are not the problem. I don’t know whether it’s going to be a net benefit to synagogues to have more members packing, and frum shuls will need very secure lockers to hold pistols from Friday night to Saturday morning, unless there are rabbis who opine that carrying weapons on Shabbos is ok.
And, most important of all, will it help to have bullets flying in a synagogue? It’s hard to say.
Here are some facts about gun violence I haven’t seen mentioned: 2/3 of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides. The majority of rifle use outside of the military and hunting is self defense. The majority of violent crimes with guns are done with a semi-automatic handgun. Scary looking assault rifles are easier to use, while it can make mass shootings easier, it makes self defense easier too. Most untrained civilians would be more of a danger to other civilians and themselves if they are in a situation that would require them to use a handgun against a active shooter. They would be able to defend themselves much better with a assault rifle like the AR-15. These facts should be considered when discussing a gun ban.
LOTR92, an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It’s an ordinary semi-automatic rifle like any other.
The main advantage of an AR-15 for self-defense is that it’s recoilless, which means women, smaller men, and children can handle it much more easily.
If you live in the Frum world requiring background checks for private sales or transfers seems a no brainer. Imagine this scenario, (forget halacha for a minute) which happens countless times all over America.
Yanky and Shimi live next door to each other for 20 years and are Chavrusas in Kollel. Their kids go to school together. They’re always at each others house.
Every year, Yanky goes hunting with his chevra in Montana.
He’s catching a 6am flight Sunday morning. As he’s checking his gun Motzei Shabbos, he sees something he doesn’t like. Should he be able to borrow Shimis gun? There’s no place to go to do a transfer before the flight. So basically Yankys big trip is ruined because Shimi is not sure if Yanky may be a criminal so he can’t transfer his gun. This and similar situations occur all the time. A rich doctor and lawyer who collect guns, everytime one wants to sell one to the other they need to drive 30 miles to town to fill out paperwork and pay a fee? That’s the problem people have with requiring background checks on private transfers.I don’t think children should have guns.
Millhouse “AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It’s an ordinary semi-automatic rifle like any other”
An Ar 15 is in fact an assault rifle. now granted it depends how “assault rifle” is defined,
here are the webster definitions
1) any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire
2) a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fireAn Ar 15 is an assault rifle under, certainly the second definition in that it resembles a millitary style weapon.
There are of course other definitions as well, such as the presence of a pistol grip or flash suppressor, both of which are present on a standard Colt AR -15that said Lotr’s post was silly as every single one of his points (even if true) is unrelated to this thread
first an AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle until you assault someone with it. so that also goes with anything like an assault hammer, assault knife, assault pizza, (what ever).it seems everyone here has a liberal mind set when it come to the AR. so, now guns come in two categories toys or tools (bear with me) people get the AR because its fun to shoot (especially with a bump stock and a 90 round P mag) and it happens to be a great self defense rifle(see no assault there). for a tool a simple Glock 19 or Colt 45 (1911) with a after market 2 1/2 pound trigger pull will suit anyone just fine. don’t believe me check out jerry Michalak on YT.
P.S. whats with gun owners and talking to the press they come off as psychopaths. anyone agree?
I think everyone should just send thier kids to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. ( magic wands were never banned anywhere). Another good option is to arm everyone with laser blasters (star wars). If both of these genious ideas dont work, your last option is to pleasantly freak out.
ubiquitin: How are those facts not relevant? This is a discussion about banning guns, or controlling guns, including what guns can someone get, it is important to know what type of gun does the most damage to innocent Americans. As to whether what I said is true, I got this from a video I saw of a congressional hearing. I don’t think people lie in front of congress.
“This is a discussion about banning guns,”
no it is not“including what guns can someone get”
no it is not” I don’t think people lie in front of congress.”
Lol!“This is a discussion about …controlling guns, ”
That is true .but your comments are STILL irrelevant
“2/3 of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides”
All the MORE reason to control guns!“The majority of rifle use outside of the military and hunting is self defense.”
A very questionable claim, and any way so what?” The majority of violent crimes with guns are done with a semi-automatic handgun”
true, but so what?I’ll second that LOL.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.