- This topic has 78 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 5 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I am genuinely confused by Americans who have tried to explain why gun control is not the correct response to hundreds of mass shootings a year:
“It’s a mental health problem, not a gun problem”
“We need good guys with guns to stop the bad guys with guns”
“Taking guns away from people won’t stop them killing in other ways”All you have to do is look at ANY OTHER Western nation, and these arguments fall apart.
What, the UK, Germany, or Australia don’t have people with mental health issues? France, Spain or Israel don’t manage to stop the bad guys with guns without giving guns to every citizen? Ireland, New Zealand or Holland have the same number of people killed in mass casualty events as the USA despite far fewer guns?Do Americans not look at other countries and think, “gosh, gun control actually does work?”
Please enlighten me!
I can’t speak for those people. But After dozens and dozens of conversations I think I get it it comesdown to 3 things:
1) Denial
2) Individualism
3) PoliticsDenial is self explanatory.
Individualism is more nuanced. I’ll elaborate. In the US a great emphais is placed on the individual this plays out in many many ways. for example healthcare, a broader safety net, duty to rescue laws and gun control.In all these cases you need to weigh the needs of an individual vs society. My health care is taken care of by my company, I have a job etc etc. Sure it is nice to give charity to someone who doesnt have a job. but that isn’t OUR obligation. Its every man for himself .
In Europe more of an emphasis is placed on the group WE all need to take care of each other we need to ensure the group has access to health care.
If I see someone in danger, in the US the view is sure I should help but that’s if I want to I shouldn’t be obligated to. Thus there is no duty to rescue law (of course there may be a moral duty to rescue that is a separate issue) In many European countries (eg France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, the Netherlands, Italy, Denmark, Russia, Norway, Romania, Turkey, and Hungary) there is suche a duty IF you can rescue someone in danger you MUST do so. you cant choose not to.
This plays out with guns. I won’t kill anybody. so even if we are all better off with stricter gun control , why should I give up MY gun ?
See PEw research study “The American-Western European Values Gap” specificly on Individualism and the Role of the State.
THIS is in my opinion THE main reason. Other arguments falling back on the second amendment, cherry picking data are fluff. The crux of the issue is role of individual vs collective
3) Politics also doesn’t need much elaboration. The NRA focusses on this specific issue both on the political front and on the public perception front. Thus any measure of gun control (even when there is wide public support such as expanding background checks) is politically risky.
truth2power – I have no interest in the gun control fight and I don’t know or care enough about the politics. I think you are needing enlightenment on a seperate issue which is something I work with and fight for.
Number one – more of an aside – my brother lives in a place where everyone carrys. He said there is much less crime because everyone knows the risk of putting your hands on someone elses stuff. He said you can leave your truck full of expensive equipment unlocked because nobody is stupid enough to risk their lives to touch it.What I wanted to bring up is your misunderstanding of what people mean when they say mental illness. You are going on about how it can’t be mental illness because other countries also have mental illness etc.
That isn’t what we are yelling about. We are talking about the lack of structure, support, treatment and guidance for those with mental illness. If a person has a stroke in a random hospital, his outcome will be different than having a stroke in a hospital that is a primary stroke center. If someone has mental illness and is not identified, treated, appropriately cared for and supported, watched/monitored etc then bad things can happen. To them, their families or community.
We even had some ignorant comment on here about how you can’t tell the difference between someone who is suffering from serious mental illness vs someone who is having a bad day. If that is the level of ignorance around those suffering, I can’t be surprised that they just get worse.Criminals refuse to follow the gun control laws, therefore all that you do by”banning” guns is making it easier for the criminals to shoot non-criminals. All the Democratic proposals for banning guns include no mechanism to disarm criminals, and a law that de facto limits gun ownership to criminals is counterproductive.
The reason why it is safer in other western countries is because people do actually own guns, regardless of what the law is
Because like many other topics there’s more than one issue at hand. In a lot of cases these shooters have been tipped off to the FBI and police and not much was done to stop them. There’s a mental health issue not addressed. It isn’t only a gun issue. Chicago has all kinds of gun control laws and police and it doesn’t do enough to address the problem. There aren’t many mass shootings in Alabama.
OP
In the 1970’s 50% of homes had guns now it’s around 32% (google it . Source NYT so hardly right wing)
So if access to guns is dropping while shootings are increasing, is the problem guns?
These types of shooting were unheard of in the 1970’s.
I have drawn the conclusion that our society is rotten.
How can we only discuss gun control without acknowledging the need to govern speech and hate?Assault weapons should be outlawed.
No politically viable gun control law will result in elimination or substantial reduction in mass shootings. However, at the margin, some of the proposals (more detailed background checks, limits on assault weapons and high capacity magazines etc.) would likely result in materially fewer shootings and lower “body counts” where such attacks occur. Its never been a binary choice and never will.
there’s a constitutional right to bear arms but not to bear gun powder or bullets. Illegalize them.
It seems that whether gun control is right or wrong, neither way is the perfect answer. I don’t think that these shootings will stop whether we outlaw guns or give everyone guns.
There is an underlying issue with the education and value system of this country which neither political party wants to address. Instead, when we demand of our politicians to do something about the violence, they say, “Oh, we’re trying to ban guns” or “Oh, we’re trying to get rid of gun control”.
Through turning this into a shallow partisan issue, they try to distract us from the heart of the problem which they are to lazy to deal with.
I am not denying some insight from these comparisons, but Europe literally consists of people who during last several hundreds of years preferred to stay in their current condition rather than taking a chance and hopping on a boat to the New World. Either they were very rich and comfortable or did not dare. No surprise these people don’t want to own their self-protection! Note that most of them had no problems killing lots of people as long as they were doing it as part of a large group and under orders.
If your scared about mass shootings buy a gun, learn how to use it and protect yourself instead of trying to ban everyone elses guns.
The idea of the constitution is that everyone should take care of themselves instead of relying on the government to take care of youUnlike pure republicanism, Judaism believes that the establishment must care for the individual. Including mandatory tzedaka donations (maaser, gabbai tzedaka, etc.) and safety measures (even banning certain animals).
Frum Yidden should definitely support the giving up of private rights for the greater good. (This is NOT to say that gun control is necessarily the greater good. That is up for debate.)
[Think about this example: The town elders were responsible that every visitor would be given food and escort, and if they neglected this responsibility and the visitor died – it was as if THEY KILLED HIM (רש”י דברים כא, ז). That doesn’t sound very republican to me…]
It’s very simple.
The Constitution unequivocally grants the right of citizens to own firearms.
For those who say it’s that gunpowder isn’t included, that’s simply ridiculous.Even if it would be true that society would be safer without guns, that still would not justify revoking and undermining the 2nd amendment.
There is indeed a price for freedom.
This same mindset is what led to the ridiculous lockdowns during corona which destroyed jobs and robbed Americans of so many of their basic rights.
All in the name of public health.But since when is public health an excuse to take away ones GD given rights?
And even if it is the case in select circumstances, who is wise and unbiased enough to only restrict rights in the most dire of circumstances.So again, even if it would be true that less guns would lead to mass shootings, that doesn’t justify taking away guns just like banning cars in the pursuit of eliminating car crashes would be considered ridiculous.
Katonti
none of these gun control threads get anything done, so come here if you wana hear opnions, not what should or will be.
Menachem shmei
So your point is that America would be better off transitioning from a democracy to a Sanhedrin based theocracy
I agree
But sounds a little unrealistic to me.
In light of the fact that we are a constitutional democracy with an enshrined second amendment, let’s propose realistic solutions instead of pipe dreamsReb eliezer
Notice how the media keeps referring to the weapon used as “ar 15 style”
I don’t like commenting without facts and the truth will eventually come out but this “style” word combined with Illinois strict laws leads me to believe it wasn’t an “assault weapon” but a standard semi auto rifle (possibly a mini 14)
And if I am right then this only proves what the anti ban people have been saying for years; there is no functional difference between an ar15 “assault rifle” and a standard semi autoWhy are the options to do only one or the other suggestions above?
Do them all !!!!!! Now!!!!
Improve mental health, ban assault weapons, ban bullets, destroy the NRA etc …
Why in America does a Jewish child go to a July 4th parade and come home a yasom?Why in America where they just banned abortions do they do nothing to protect tzelem Elokim’s already living outside the womb?
America’s history is different. A large number of Americans come from backgrounds where they didn’t trust authority. Many early Americans arrived in chains (the blacks had been kidnapped, many of the Brits were offered an alternative to coming to America that involved hanging by the neck until dead). Many if not most Americans were fleeing governments that were oppressive. This is not a background to inspire respect for police. It is interesting to note that among the groups loudest in attacking private ownership of guns, there is a correlation with groups that also are the loudest in denouncing the police. Even among our own people, one needs to remember that people like us are for all purposes excluding from the police and in recent historical memory we recall how it was police who often supported violent anti-semitism (e.g. during World War II, the German army was busy fighting a war and it was the police who did most of the killing in the holocaust).
Katonti’s
your comment perfectly illustrates my pointYou quote the constitution as if that ends discussion
It isn’t simple at all.You say “The Constitution unequivocally grants the right of citizens to own firearms.”
1) This is debatable, that was not the interpretation of the constitution for well over a century (as I pointed out with sources in other threads)
2) Even if it was, the constitution can be reinterpreted. in 1973 the court said the constition grants right to abortion,. in 2022 they changed their mind. In 2009 the Court said the constition grants an individual the right to own firearms in 202? 203? they may change their mind
3) The constitution can be amendedThat is putting the cart before the horse. If you think allowing guns is a good idea say so. If you don’t saying well the constitution ties our hands is nonsense
what you really believe is EXACTLY what I said here are your words : “But since when is public health an excuse to take away ones GD given rights?”
Of course Halacha believes an individual must give up rights for the tzibbur, as other posters have pointed out. But I grant America is not a halachic country. Putting the individual over the collective is EXACTLY what I said was the reason
“just like banning cars in the pursuit of eliminating car crashes would be considered ridiculous.”
As you may know cars are very regulated
you need a license to operate one
They need to be registered
There are limits how/where you can use them
You need insurance
If A Doctor deems you unsafe to drive can get your “right” to drive revokedThese are excellent ideas to enact with guns
YOU compared gun ownership to cars. I agree that would be great.forgot reason #4 why the constition argument is silly: (this belongs in my pending comment)
4) Even the most ardent supporter of the new interpretation of the 2nd amendment concedes that some limitation exists. No-one (as far as I’m aware) says the second amendment guarantees the right to own Bombs (nuclear or otherwise), grenades, tanks, even automatic weapons/machine guns are uncontroversial restricted. The only question is what regulations are allowed and what are too restrictive. but all agree the some measure of limiting the right to bear arms exists
Akuperma,
Are you explaining how we got to the situation in 2022 that mass killings in America are an hourly occurrence or are you saying that it is historically for our benefit so we will just have to continue dying ?
Jackk, try to respond without hysterics to my points.
There is a greater threat than assault weapons. and one that is ignored. Yes, massacres using AR 15s are horrific but far more people are shot and killed each week by illeagal handguns. Just this past July 4th weekend, 68 people were shot ( 8 killec ) in Chicago and 21 more ( 3 killed) in NYC. That’s in just 2 cities and not a whole week. And these shootings and killings happen every week, is virtually all black on black shooting and is virtually unreported because of the commonplace frequency.
The recent overturning of NY’s strict concealed pistol carry law sent our Governor and Mayor into panic attacks. They claimed our streets in NY would become the Wild West when in fact they’ve been the Wild West for a long time. Do you think all those criminals I shooting and killing people have legal guns and carry permits? Of course not. Compounding the problem is that if a person is arrestred carrying an illegal gun, they’re often released without bail.
If the Democrats in Albany are truly serious about gun control, they have make illegal gun possession a major felony,l with a 10 year sentence, and ban the current practice of local DA’s of lowering the charge to a misdemeanor if the gun wasn’t fired.
Once criminals start realize that possession equals imprisonment, they’ll stop carrying and there will be a reduction in shootings and killings. That fear of arrest and conviction is what made stop and frisk work.
Unfortunately, the progressives in Albany , who think our current system is great, will never do it@mentsch1:
Even without a sanhedrin, Jews always believed that the community has a responsibility to care for each other.
You are obviously correct that there must be a balance. Therefore I stressed that Judaism doesn’t believe in PURE republicanism.
There are aspects of republicanism which we accept and aspects of democracy which we accept. Possibly even some aspects of socialism and communism. That doesn’t mean that any of them are the right way (especially the last two, obviously), but no single package perfectly adapts Torah’s view.
For that we’ll have to wait till Moshiach comes.Ubiquitin makes an excellent point by comparing guns to cars.
Instead if banning guns outright, the solution could be to require casualty insurance for anyone who wants to own a gun. The insurance company will have underwriters who evaluate the risk. Depending on the risk level, the underwriter can rate them up or reject them. If the prospective gun owner is rejected, they can try to find a different insurance company who is willing to assume the risk. It would be similar to casualty insurance for cars: X amount per victim, Y amount per incident. Each state would decide what levels of insurance are necessary – just as they do with car insurance.
“you think that the Netherlands or Australia has significantly better mental health support or police activity? Highly doubtful. ”
so basically you have no idea if their healthcare is better or different, thus effecting the outcomes. You just repeat the claim and say “doubt it” and then continue as if it’s a non issue.
That, sir, is called having an agenda, not a discussion
No halacha says the tzibur needs to help someone who is capable of helping themselves and chooses not to. So if you are scared of murderers go buy a gun and protect yourself. The tzibur doesn’t need to protect you if don’t care enough about protection that you don’t protect yourself
jackk: Restricting non-criminals from gun ownership (what the Democrats are proposing) will in no way hamper criminals. Similarly, disarming or abolishing the police (another focus of much of the Democratic policy) will not result disarming or abolishing criminals. American culture is a function of 400 years of immigration policies which recruited large number of criminals (flee arrest/execution in their homelands) and rebels fed up with aristocratic societies (such of those in Europe) in which the elites had a monopoly on power and used it to ripoff everyone else.
Gun control would probably work well in countries with a long tradition of people accepting their place in society and being content to be ruled over by an elite which has a monopoly on power including gun ownership. For the most part, those who wanted to be rid of being ruled over have long ago packed the bags for the “wild west” of American, and left their sheepish cousins behind.
The bottom line is you can’t undo 400 years of cultural evolution by legislative fiat, and the US should accept its gun culture as something that can’t be easily changed and concentrate on disarming criminals and mentally ill persons and follow the “red state” solution (usually ignored in left wing media) of allowing armed citizens to shoot would be mass killers before they can do much harm.
@Rava: If someone is pumping lethal gases into the air in your city and people are dying left and right, I assume you agree that it is the responsibility of the tzibur to shut it down.
Will you say, “If you’re scared of lethal gas, go buy yourself a gas mask and wear it constantly”?
I don’t think so.Now, I’m not sure if guns are the same. Is owning a gun a definite prevention of gun violence? That is up for debate. I don’t know the answer.
But you can’t make a blanket statement that any time a person could theoretically help himself (especially if much effort, money, skill and inconvenience are involved), the tzibur is not obligated to get rid of the danger.You are asking for my right to defend myself be taken away because you are not interested in investing in your own protection, and you want the big brother government taking care of you and your security. Why is this a Jewish idea?
Rava,
You have police in the town, county and state where you live. They are ” big brother “. (We actually do not need to reference “1984” in this discussion.)
The country you live in has a military. They are ” big brother “.
They protect you.
Jews in countries with strict gun laws rely much more on ” big brother”.The Jewish idea is to be mispalel bshlomah shel malchus and if a county descends to ish es rayahu chayim blao to leave it.
There is absolutely no jewish idea that every citizen must have assault weapons. If you can find me a source , I would be happy to hear it.
The core motivation of the 2nd amendment is not crime protection, but against invaders and tyrannical government. These possibilities are remote but their consequences are hard to revert.
Gun ownership obviously is not an only safeguard. If you look at countries in the world, the most stable ones are former British colonies – ahead of French/Spanish/German ones. This seem to include both countries with majority settlers (US, Australia..) both also countries with local majorities. Either Brits were good at real estate or there is something in their legal/social system.
One thing to add to all of this: gun ownership is very goyish. It’s about toughness, and hunting. The idea that you can protect yourself and don’t need the police. It’s not a Yiddishe mehalech.
As for all those people who are unwittingly repeating the NRA motto, “If you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns” that’s wrong too. Guns are widely legally available in most states in the US. It’s extremely easy for a criminal to get one, even if they have a record. And if someone already owns a gun and decides to commit a crime, that crime just got a lot worse. Contrast that to a country such as Australia where gun ownership is extremely rare. Criminals simply have a very hard time finding guns so there aren’t a lot of gun crimes.
What the Constitutions talks about is irrelevant. It’s a document written with the express purpose of changing for every generation. In this generation, I think it’s clear that the 2nd amendment is causing far more harm than any good.
YS > It’s a document written with the express purpose of changing for every generation.
… with express provisions on how to make these changes.As it is a contract – albeit a long-term one, the rules of contract should apply. How would you feel if you sign a contract, but the other sides starts re-interpreting it due to changed conditions? Logically, in a case of doubt, the best way is to get agreement of all sides to re-negotiate the contract so that it appeals to everyone. Sneaking in changes through courts leads to a decrease in respect to the overall contract, weakening the country.
And guns are the last resort of defending the contract.
> In this generation,
What about next generation? Do you know? Americans conducted a social experiment for 250 years that worked well (comparatively). OK to propose changes, just respect what worked so far. As we discussed “chcichma b’goyim” – when their ideas are based on evidence rather than superstition, ok to listen.
If other means were as deadly as guns, the mass shooters would probably have gone for those in the first place.
YS > gun ownership is very goyish
And what are you trying to convert them?! The famous Roman charge of discrimination in Jewish law was that Jew pays 50% for animals grazing, while non-Jew 100%. The reason is non-Jew has no mitzva to be pro-active in keeping his animals erliche. So, here, if non-Jews came up with an idea of universal gun ownership to protect their freedom in general, and property in particular, are we going to insist that they institute a beisdin instead and have a death penalty al pi shnei kosher eidim?!
@Always_Ask_Questions I am far more scared of a bunch of yokels running around with murderous weapons than I am of our government turning on the people. And so should you.
The idea that the government would turn on the people is based on the assumption that it was at some point on the people’s side.
Truth
True it is boring.
We have all the usual arguments.
Jackk thinking it’s not Jewish to own weapons-ignoring every chapter of tanach
All the others ignoring the reality of the Supreme Court decisions .
The reality is
Gun ownership has become enshrined.
The term “assault weapon” ignores the lethality of similar weapons
Real believers will not give up their weapons without a fight
Access has gone down while shootings up – pointing to societal issues as the root cause
So pointing to other countries is a pointless exercise that ignores the realities . Stick in the realm of what is possible.I grew up MO
Many in the local YI had kippahs with “never again” written on them. I believe that statement is koach v’otzam yudi
But to all those arguing gun ownership isn’t Jewish or we should point to other countries. How does that help us as Jews in the post holocaust era?
I’m sure the Jews in prewar Germany also thought there was no issue. I’m sure they pointed to the safety of western countries
How do you ignore the increase in attacks on Jewish institutions? We have had ponway, Philly, Jersey and just this past shabbos.
Just 2 years ago the discussion in all the shuls in Brooklyn is if you should have armed misspallilm.
Rav Bender trained his staff to carry arms.
Are you living in reality or just hoping for the best?M1,
“jackk thinking it’s not Jewish to own weapons-ignoring every chapter of tanach”
Sorry, I learned TaNach and some Talmud and history too.Explain these.
1)Avraham Avinu thrown into the Kivshan Haesh.
2)Avrohom and Eliezer against the 4 Melochim. The miraculous dirt which turned into arrows.
3) Yehoshua against Amalek .
Vki Yadav Shel Moshe Osos Milchama ?
4) Moshe against Sichon and Og
5) Yehoshua against Yericho and Ai. Achan’s sin
6) David and Golyas
7) All of Sefer Yehoshua and ShoftimIt was never about weapons.
It was always about Closeness to Hashem.
When Hashem was close the Jews won.
When they lost the closeness, they lost the wars.
Aycha Yirdof Echad Elef ?“Rav Bender trained his staff.”
That is a proof against your opinion.
Did all of Rav Bender’s talmidim suddenly purchase guns and carry them wherever they go?How do you ignore the fact that a Jewish girl is a orphan from both of her parents on July 4th because of an assault style weapon ?
How do you ignore the fact that other Jews were permanently wounded from the shooting on July 4th?
Be Mispallel bishloma shel malchus, or else , Ish es Rayahu Chaim Belao.
Carrying a gun will not protect you against a AR15 shooter wearing protective gear or even a small group of attackers.Mentch
“All the others ignoring the reality of the Supreme Court decisions .”
nope not “ALL the others” I gave no fewer than 3 reasons why the reality is that that argument is completely irrelevant (I gave 4 reasons though in responding to this point the first 2 work together)
“Gun ownership has become enshrined…Real believers will not give up their weapons without a fight”
so had abortion. Arguing that people won’t like their “rights “taken away and may/will get violent Is not a compelling argument
If gun ownership is a good idea argue for that if not this is irrelevant
These arguments are examples of the “fluff” I referred to earlier
they sound substantive, but they aren’t after thinking about them for a bit
Ditto for the Holocaust argument. the Polish and French Armies were better armed than the most liberal and expansive interpretation of the second amendment would allow . Both armies fell rather quickly it is a bit silly to think oh my AR 15 will hold back the US army should they attempt another Holocaust. There were many armed uprisings NONE of them succeeded in stopping Holocaust. Sure a few individuals may have saved themselves (probably at the expense of numerous others killed in reprisals, though I don’t think that makes their act improper)
but again this feeds back to my point namely weighing the indivual vs the collective . THAT is the real question at hand .
constitution, Supreme court those are distractions
Alos worth noting
nobody (unless I missed a comment) in this thread suggesting banning guns.
The only ones who suggested that were those making “pro-gun” arguemnts (eg Akuperma “all that you do by ”banning” guns i” and Rava “instead of trying to ban everyone elses guns.”)all that was suggested was “gun control” making it harder to get gun , and limiting access to some people
Katontti made the excellent excellent argument of treating guns like we do cars. An argument I largely accept (as mentioned above)arguing that bans won’t work is another example of the fluff I referred to
Ubiq
The tanach argument is fallacious. Bottom line they were armed. I’m not arguing that they also had to daven., of course they did. But they all had weapons. ALL OF THEM.Jackk
As I have said earlier in other threads it makes sense to make it harder to get weapons. Especially since goyim can’t be trusted.
But your understanding of guns is limited if you think banning ar15 will solve the problem. As has been said before the assault rifle term is one that is cosmetic. You would have to ban all semi automatic rifles of 9mm caliber or larger to really remove military grade rifles from the population.
In todays climate that is not going to happen.Ubiq
Your comparison to roe is limited at best. Roe was bad law with no constitutional backing.
The second amendment does exist and logic is on the side of private ownership.
But feel free to pack the courts with liberals who overturn the second amendment sometime in the next 50 years. By then we will have another 200 million guns in the hands of Americans. Then what?
I think we can all agree on some measures. Especially mental health and background checks. And I fault the NRA and states for not implementing these measures.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.