- This topic has 89 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Regular gun shootings in the US is absolutely horrible, both of Jewish people and in general. It’s very sad that none of us can think of a single decent idea to help reduce unnecessary gun violence. Does anyone here have any ideas? I’m especially hoping to hear from people that are generally very pro-guns.
IMHO, the best way to prevent future violence is to ban the larger guns capable of shooting multiple bullets in the span of a second or two. Smaller guns (pistols? I’m not really sure of the correct terminology) should be available to law enforcement and civilians as a means of protection as long as the gun owner has had extensive background checks and met with a psychologist to determine their mental fitness. Having a gun is a huge responsibility and shouldn’t be taken lightly
Confiscate all guns and make possession of it illegal for non-law enforcement/non-military.
If there where to be at least one undercover licensed gun holder in every establishment. This would be a huge deterrent to gun violence.
And I say undercover so as, 1. not to be easily identified and targeted by potential shooter 2. As 1 will deter cowards from even thinking of shooting up the place.Statistically speaking, guns are used in more crime prevention incidents per year than in committing of a crime. This is a fact according to the majority of studies except a single statistical outlier study that is frequently quoted by anti-gun groups.
Classifying violence based on the instrument of choice used by perpetrators of a violent act rather than based on the psychosocial factors that cause high levels of violence is nonsensical. Would you similarly suggest that violence in the form of suicide bombings is high in some Muslim countries because fertilizer and other explosive components are prevalent and easily accessible? I would hope not.
Luna.. You do realize that “larger guns” and “smaller guns” legally available to the public both shoot at the exact same rate right? No offense to you, but it’s hilarious how people with admittedly zero knowledge of firearms think they can and should provide an opinion on which firearms should and shouldn’t be legal.
All of the massive gun shootings in America is a very recent occurrence. In the 1980s when there were many less gun restriction laws in America there was not nearly as much of an issue than what’s going on now. The US already has curtain laws set in place to make sure wrong people don’t own guns, such as a mandatory therapist check up, back-round checks, etc. The issue that needs to be fixed is not gun restriction, it’s the people who commit these shootings that need serious mental help. For example, in the Florida school shooting we know that the kid who committed it was depressed for a few months before hand and had made several death threats before hand including on social media and nothing was done about it. I don’t think it’s the gun restrictions that need to be improved it’s the police enforcement of the laws already in place that needs to be fixed. Chicago is known to the most restrictive guns laws in the country; but, South Chicago is also still the capital of deaths from shootings in the US.
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I actually agree 100% with Joseph about something.I know it’s Adar, but it’s NOT Purim yet!
@Luna Lovegood – Size of the gun has absolutely ZERO to do with the firing speed. In most cases, the size of the gun is purely a cosmetic thing and has nothing to do with speed of firing. A pistol can fire at about the same speed as an M16 or an AK47. Only difference is the caliber size. To top that off, automatic guns are already illegal in the US.
@Joseph – You realize what you’re propagating is the same kind of stuff as Stalin, Mao, and Hitler?Curiosity- I’m referring to the difference between a handgun which can hold fewer bullets and therefore hurt fewer people as opposed to a larger assault rifle type guns which can hold much larger magazines and have the capacity to hurt more people
Correction to my first post:
“Would you similarly suggest that violence *including* suicide bombings is high in some Muslim countries because fertilizer and other explosive components are prevalent and easily accessible?”
My point is that there would be violence in these places whether or not explosive components are accessible.I don’t think the problem is with the guns. First, let’s look at the actual numbers- out of the 30,000ish deaths annually involving guns, roughly 2/3 are suicides. That’s not a gun problem, it’s a suicide/mental health problem. People commit suicide in all kinds of ways, and no one is discussing banning bridges or razor blades, because we recognize that suicide, not the tool used, is the issue. Then, once you get around 10,000 murders with guns, realize that around 90% of that is gang murders. That’s not a gun problem, it’s a gang problem. Is 1,000 deaths really a national issue of horrific significance? Obviously, it’s not good- but it is overblown. Don’t join a gang or commit suicide, and you are more likely to die from flu or in some sort of accident. As for banning certain types of guns- all the guns I have heard proposals to ban function the same as any other gun. Additionally, good luck confiscating 300 million guns from 80-100 million Americans. Also, I don’t really understand how you can offer an opinion on this without knowing anything about it. You wouldn’t join a discussion about yeshivos if you didn’t know the difference between Beis Yaakov and BMG, so how can you join a discussion on guns without knowing anything about them? Luna- those “big guns” you talk about shoot at the exact same rate as pistols. Not to mention the fact that millions of people around the country depend on them for hunting and defending their farms from coyotes, groundhogs, and other pests. Also, rifles (the big guns) are used in around 1% of crimes committed with guns.
M – to answer your question, I personally believe there are auxiliary psychosocial issues in American culture not directly related to firearms which contribute towards a culture that tends towards violence. This includes things like substance abuse, fatherlessness, and the glorification of gratuitous violence. I think if you study the trends of these factors you will find a correlation with violence. If you curb these trends you will also curb all forms of violence, including violence involving guns.
I don’t think an obligatory psychological evaluation for firearm purchases will prevent gun violence. This is because in order to prevent an individual psychologist from violating the rights of others, the test will have to be standardized and not subjective. Once it’s standardized, people can just learn to answer the questions correctly. Also, psychologists aren’t mind readers.
One thing you might find interesting is that license-to-carry holders in Texas are extremely less likely to commit a violent crime than those who are not licensed, and psychological evaluations are not a prerequisite for licensure here.
Obviously, there is no solution that will eliminate gun shooting, and there are different opinions on how to reduce potential gun violence.
However, I believe that there are a few components to this discussion, one would be on a macro level and the other on a micro level.
For instance, having stricter gun laws might or might not have an impact on potential gun violence. Yet we can also have a discussion about what if you were to be caught up in an active shooter situation, what would be the best mechanism for you as an individual that would increase your survival probability and also possibly eliminate the active shooter threat from creating further damage?
What if you or someone near you would be carrying a legal weapon and be trained on how to effectively use it, would that reduce the shooters potential for further damage?
@2scents – Yes it would. I strongly believe that in most shuls there should be dedicated individuals who have guns to protect themselves and their peers. In fact most shootings happen in “Gun Free Zones” where law-abiding citizens are unable to carry, while criminals have no issue with that fact at all (shocking as that may be). I strongly urge those who are able, to go out and get a license to carry and a gun. It may just save lives.
“Confiscate all guns and make possession of it illegal for non-law enforcement/non-military.”
And following this “logic”, to prevent stabbings, confiscate all knives with blades longer than 2.5 inches (that is all the blade needed to cut a thick steak!) and make possession of longer knives illegal.
We can cut our food with safety scissors (rounded ends).
Make it a felony to possess these prohibited knives !
That would work – really?!
It is the same logic as preventing car accidents and fatalities by lowering the speed limit to 5 mph. No one dies. Hardly any accidents. But the drive will be slower than joggers passing you.
Oh – they did that in NYC (lowered speed limit to 25 mph)…never mind.
My Hiddush: The government should enact a law prohibiting criminals from owning guns and to make it illegal to use a gun in commission of a crime.
in a perfect world banning all guns might work, but it won’t because guns can be gotten illegally. Once someone has a gun and no-one else in the area has a way to stop him\her until the cops come. 5 minutes later. By that time there are quite a few dead people. Banning guns just won’t work. Jail time if found with a gun isn’t that scary. Death by a random armed person at the crime scene would ensure a lower casualty rate, if there is one at all, because of a immediate reaction time, and is much more frightening than anything else. That wouldn’t necessarily stop the problem, but it would majorly slow it down.
M, what if yes? Would that make the argument any less true?
However, gun laws are different, because the only people whose guns should be taken away are the bad guys. The law is only for people who are already breaking other laws.M – the obvious fallacy in your comparison is that there are perfectly legitimate and productive uses for legally purchased firearms, but there are no legitimate, productive uses for heroin and cocaine.
“My point is that there would be violence in these places whether or not explosive components are accessible.”
curiosity, so would you argue to make explosives more readily accessible?
“but there are no legitimate, productive uses for heroin and cocaine”
This is of course a dodge. Many drugs have quite legitimate uses. Narcotics are in fact vital to society. We of course keep it well regulated. Guns too, should be “well regulated” as the constitution calls for. The ease of buying a gun is absurd, and doubtlessly contributes to our high gun death rate.
Joseph and ctl: how would you respond to people that you are limiting their second amendment right?
Actually, the regulation of drugs has less to do with the drug itself and more to do with racism.
@Funnybone
I consider any member of a well regulated militia (government regulated that is) to be military and they would be allowed to have guns“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
So, if you bear arms for other reasons and the government says no, it is not an infringement of your rights.
IMHOUbiq – You totally missed the point of the explosives conversation. Your 1st question is irrelevant to my conversation with M.
Also, M was talking about legalizing already illegal recreational drugs, not about pharmaceuticals. You missed the point there, too. Before you pluck half a sentence of what I wrote out of context and start attacking me for “dodging,” please try to follow the logic of the conversation.
Let me try to connect the dots for you:
Step #1) It is already illegal to be in possession of a firearm during a crime, to smuggle guns across the border, to carry guns in certain locations, and for felons to purchase guns. Making ownership of guns illegal for everyone doesn’t take guns out of the hands of people who already illegally own and traffic them, but it will prevent law-abiding citizens from owning them and using them for legal uses such as self-defense, hunting, sport, and security.Step #2) Many potentially harmful drugs are currently illegal to own for anyone other than medical entities. Making them legal means anyone can now buy cocaine and meth at his/her local Wal-Mart. Yes, those who deal drugs illegally will do so despite the current law, but the law-abiding part of society who isn’t currently interested or addicted to drugs would be severely harmed by having free access to legal temptations which can destroy lives. There is no benefit to society since there is no productive use for these things OUTSIDE of the medical realm, in which it is already legal. Therefore, this is a poor comparison to guns.
Under the traditional American definitions (somewhat modified from the British), the “militia” consists of all free persons. In 1789, that excluded women and slaves. In 1775, in England, it additionally excluded members of religious and political minorities, including Jews (though in the American colonies, most of which were populated by dissidents and undesirables from Britain, they were less fussy).
If you believe the government is inherently benign and that we can always trust our security to state, there is no logical arguement to support private ownership of weapons. American Blacks certainly don’t trust the government, and while the current government under Donald Trump is one we can certainly trust, there is no guarantee what the future holds. We should remember that it took only a generation for German Jews to go to highly assimilated, well respected citizens of the Second Reich, to pariahs and outcasts under the Third Reich – and disarming Jews was among Hitler’s first anti-Semitic laws.
M -“Does anyone here have any ideas?”
Buy a machete. It’s a lot cheaper than a gun.
Regardless of the law interpretation I believe that if anyone just happens to be caught up in a active shooter incident, they would prefer that there be a law abiding individual that is well trained and can effectiy eliminate the threat at that same incident.
In Israel this has happened numerous times and has clearly limited the scope of damage of these attacks.
2scents
“In Israel this has happened numerous times and has clearly limited the scope of damage of these attacks. ”
Israel has very strict gun regulation
If we were to enact SOME of their restrictions that would be fine.akuperma
For the first 200 years of its existence the 2nd amendment was not understood as applying to “the people”
As Warren Burger said “that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime”you say
“If you believe the government is inherently benign ”how does this work? Tax day is coming up I think taxes are tyrannical do you support my right to defend my property from the tyrannical IRA when they come a’knockin?
Is there any armed rebellion uprising that you support in the past 228 years of the 2nd amendments existence?
how does this work exactly?curiosity
“You totally missed the point of the explosives conversation”
I didn’t, you were repeating silly talking points that get repeated over and over again .Yoour next 2 steps are equally silly (for example “Many potentially harmful drugs are currently illegal to own for anyone other than medical entities” is pure nonsense.
Lets keep the steps shorter and accurate:1) Drugs are harmful, they do have benefits so we keep them regulated. For example You need a prescription to get them (It is not illegal for a non-medical entity to own, Oxycodone, morphine, fentanyl etc I’m not sure hwere you got that idea from ) .
2) Guns are harmful, they do have benefits so we should keep them regulated
The one true statement was “Yes, those who deal drugs illegally will do so despite the current law” Yet you correctly realize that just because their are criminals is not a reason to make their criminal lives easier. similarly just because criminals will get guns (or explosives) even if they are regulated is not a reason not to regulate them
“There is no benefit to society since there is no productive use for these things ”
Says you! why kind of big brother are you to decide what is of benefit to me! some think there is benefit to having a gun in their home, others think being able to get high is a benefit. You do realize that their is a reason why people like cocaine right? IT isn’t because their “is no benefit”“Israel has very strict gun regulation
If we were to enact SOME of their restrictions that would be fine.“I was not debating the law or scope of regulations concerning individuals that are not law enforcement carrying weapons.
My point was simply a statement that I believe a lot would agree to.
2scents
“My point was simply a statement that I believe a lot would agree to.”Fair enough. But to use Israel to justify our (largely) free for all approach to gun ownership is disingenuous at best
from Wikipedia:
” In 2018, Israel significantly loosened firearms restrictions, allowing all citizens who had undergone combat training as a combat soldier in the army, to apply for a license. This only applies to those who have passed infantry rifle training”
Yet, my point was not that gun laws in Israel are not as strict as in the US, my point was that the net result in Israel seems to be that there are a significant number of civilians carrying firearms which in numerous occasions limited the damage of the shooting attack.
While most are focused on preventing the shooting in the first place, I think there is a component that is not really being looked at, which is the ability to defend yourself from an attack and ability to limit the damage of the attacker.
Found online from CNN: (seems like the change of gun laws was based on the very same reasoning I have raised)
“Israel has relaxed the country’s restrictions on gun licenses, in a move that could make up to 500,000 more civilians eligible to carry firearms, provided they have a certain amount of military or security training.
The new regulations allow veterans of Israel’s infantry units to more easily obtain licenses, as well as allowing officers and commanders who have completed their reserve duty to keep their weapons. The regulations also allow emergency responders and former police officers to obtain gun licenses more easily.
The change could potentially quadruple the number of civilians in Israel who have gun permits. Roughly 145,000 civilians currently have gun permits, according to Israel’s ministry of public security.
The changes went into effect Tuesday, with Israeli minister of public security Gilad Erdan saying more armed civilians increases the chances of stopping attacks and preventing injuries.
“Trained citizens who hold weapons in the public sphere contribute to the feeling of security,” Erdan said in a statement announcing the new regulations. “They are an important line of defense against ‘lone wolf’ actions and are used in a sense as a temporary force multiplier, thereby strengthening public safety.””
Lol
“allowing all citizens who had undergone combat training as a combat soldier in the army, to apply for a license. This only applies to those who have passed infantry rifle training”and those are the recent “Loosened restriction”
and from the CNN quotes “provided they have a certain amount of military or security training”
Again these are the recent “loosened restrictions” Could you imagine trying to introduce these loose restrictions in the US?
Additionally there are limits on how many guns can be owned, guns are registered, every gun purchase needs a background check, I believe there are psychiatric tests that must be passed“which is the ability to defend yourself from an attack and ability to limit the damage of the attacker.”
The argument that there are so many gun deaths, so lets arm more people, Reminds me of my patient whose medication list included both colace and Imodium. He explained that after surgery he was constipated so started colace. now things were the opposite so he added Imodium.ubiquitin: actually there is no limit on gun ownership and there is no psychiatric test.
Shutting down Hollywood would be a good start.
The mainstream media gives a spotlight to these people. These killers do it for attention. The news outlets shouldn’t show the murderers faces.
Video games has a bad influence on people.“: actually there is no limit on gun ownership”
there is :
“It is also rare for a person to be authorized to own more than one firearm, ”
source: Times of Israel, Israel dismisses NRA’s claims about guns laws 12/24/12” and there is no psychiatric test.”
There is :“The law, drafted by MK David Tsur (Hatnua), requires that a person undergo psychological assessment before he or she can get a gun license.”
source: KNESSET TIGHTENS GUN CONTROL WITH NO OPPOSITION Jerusalem Post 7/23/14These are but two examples of plenty of restrictions that Israel places on gun ownership.
I was referring to the US.
It’s a moot point comparing Israel to the US. US has a second amendment, Israel does not. End of story.
Ubiq. I hope you don’t prescribe cocaine and heroin to your patients. I clearly wasn’t talking about the useful drugs you mentioned. Additionally, getting high and addicted to drugs is not a use that is beneficial to society or to individuals. If you believe otherwise, you should consider giving back whatever medical license you have. Your usage of intellectually dishonest debate tactics make conversing with you highly unpleasant. Good night.
“I was referring to the US”
Then I’m not sure why you addressed that comment to me, I was talking about ISrael. And why comparing The US to ISrael on gun violence is silly.
“It’s a moot point comparing Israel to the US. US has a second amendment, Israel does not. End of story.”
No not end of story. hHaving a second amendment is not a n excuse for having crazy policies. amendments can be changed (that is the very definition of theterm) When people woke up and realized that prohibition was crazy the response wasn’t “US has a nineteenth amendment end of story”
Furthermore, the second amendment calls for it to be “Well regulated” and from its existence in 1791 until 2008 in Heller it was not understood as applying to an individual’s right to bear arms, so it is a constantly changing story. There is no reason to “end” it now
curiosity
“Additionally, getting high and addicted to drugs is not a use that is beneficial to society or to individuals.”Says you. And I do agree. Just because people like doing something owning something that is bad for society doesn’t mean they should be allowed to do so.
and even things that all agree are beneficial like morphine we agree should be highly regulated and not readily available.
The fact that some will not follow the above rules is not a reason not to have them.I’m not sure where it is that we disagree.
I am just pointing out flaws in the silly lines you are repeating from Hannity. That is not being intellectually dishonest.
Look the bottom line is if you think guns are a right and even if we have the highest gun death in the world as a result, since you enjoy guns or feel manly or safe or whatever. fine I get that. That is a point we can agree to disagree on.
Just try to stop repeating these absurd talking points comparing guns to suicide bombs and d rugs, and trying to use that to argue that guns should NOT be well regulated is just nonsense. And me calling you out on it is not intellectually dishonest, though I do get why pointing out the absurdities of your position is highly unpleasantUbiq., please show me where I said guns should not be well regulated? This is your assertion which you slyly attribute to me – not my opinion…. Dishonest debate tactic #1.
Calling an argument a “talking point” without directly addressing its content is dishonest debate tactic #2.
Linking someone’s original opinions to a famous figure who may not be viewed as a fair, unbiased person by others (Hannity) is dishonest tactic #3. I do not listen to his show.
Regardless of how much you think you know about me or my position, you clearly know very little, since you have to rely on manipulative tactics and baseless assertions to get your viewpoint across. This is why debating with you is highly unpleasant.
Ubiq: You forgot to state the other half of the amendment…” the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Per English rules, “A comma marks a slight break between different parts of a sentence”. The second amendment allows a militia and people to bear arms.
Nicely stated, when the government tried to infringe on people’s rights, like to prohibition era, organized crime increased. The majority of gun violence is with criminals, not upstanding citizens, so restricting the citizens rights based on a minority of criminal is asinine. Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws, it is still known as one of the deadliest cities.
“please show me where I said guns should not be well regulated”
nu nu so we agree, mazel tov shalom Al yisorel!You are throwing me off though with some of your other lines “This is why debating with you is highly unpleasant.”
Are we debating or not ?regarding your other complaints. your comparisons of Guns to suicide bombings and rugs isnt a logical one . I did explain why above. These “arguments” are not original. The same silly talking points are brought up over and over (they also loves “cars kill more people than guns should we ban all cars” , these arent logical arguments, and I did explain why for example the comparison to drugs is silly.. Sean Hannity loves them. The fact that you feel uncomfortable coming up with the same arguments as he does (as you should) says more about your arguments than about my bringing him up
The truth is that the amendment was not written well and whatever it was supposed to mean, the writing obscures the meaning.
anon
“The second amendment allows a militia and people to bear arms.”nope, not necessarily that is not the way it was understood for over 200 years of its existence.
Even according to you, why is the first clause there, did the ink just spill on the paper forming those words, and they couldn’t bother to erase them?The example used last time (I think it may have been with Curiosity) suppose the constitution said ” A healthy breakfast being critical to start the day, the right of the people to eat cereal shall not be infringed”
would this guarantee the right to eat fruity pebbles?” Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws, it is still known as one of the deadliest cities”
well yes, guns are easily purchased in neighboring Missouri (47th place in gun regulation and as expected 6th in gun deaths) , So on the city level it might not hold as trueOh and FYI Illinois 8th in gun control and 31st in gun deaths so all in all a safer place to live than Missouri
“Nicely stated, when the government tried to infringe on people’s rights, like to prohibition era, organized crime increased”
fine, so make THAT argument. (which has been addressed above) but arguing that “US has a second amendment, Israel does not. End of story.” is not a reasonable argument
Ubiq -“Oh and FYI Illinois 8th in gun control and 31st in gun deaths so all in all a safer place to live than Missouri.”
People don’t live in states per se, they live in cities. Chicago is the number 7 on the list of murders, in cities with the population of over 500 thousand.
“guns are easily purchased in neighboring Missouri”
That’s not the problem. If these perps wouldn’t get it there they would get it elsewhere!
There’s a problem in the US with illegal guns – it not just drugs.I grew up with guns, both handguns and long guns. I had a carry permit for many years when I need it and spent many hours and $ on the range to sharpen my skills. It would take a rather skilled combat shooter to step up in an active shooting situation and take out the criminal without wounding innocents. When one trains for a carry permit you learn not to shoot unless you have a clear shot. For a civilian in a situation with elevated adrenaline levels this may be impossible. Defensive shooting comes with other drawbacks. How does LE accurately determine who the good guy with a guy is in a matter of a split second. Combat veterans may have these skills. Non combat veterans may not. Headlines show us the number of LE who react too quickly and erroneously when it comes to shooting civilians.
FWIW I no longer need to have a carry permit and keep a classic Rossi .22 single shot long barrel for target shooting.
Ban kitchen knives. Look up the stats on homicides using kitchen knives.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.