- This topic has 138 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Infringing on the rights of 300 million people is not something to be taken lightly, yes, even to save lives as harsh as that may sound.
Yes, that is harsh.
Why not restrict cars from being capable of travelling more than 25mph everywhere at all times? Thousands die every year in car accidents.
Comparing the benefits of high speed travel to the benefits of allowing almost anyone to buy guns is just ludicrous.
“Whether we like it or not, the second amendment exists, and states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Infringing on the rights of 300 million people is not something to be taken lightly, yes, even to save lives as harsh as that may sound.”
that isnt just harsh that is crazy. and incorrect.
IF you think the benefits of gun ownership outweigh the downsides fine. but this idea that 230 years ago people thought it was a good idea so no matter the consequences we are stuck with it. IS absurd, and false. There is an amendment process, if it is a bad amendment we can get rid of it.
(that is of course aside from the fact that it is debatable whether the amendment protects the right of 300 million people to bear arms. the supreme court recently ruled that way but for most of its histroy it was not understod that way. This is a side issue though since even if it WAS meant that way argiung that “like it or not” we are stuck with it is crazy and incorrect)
BTW yungerman
“Why not restrict cars from being capable of travelling more than 25mph everywhere at all times?”Cars are heavily regulated
If we treated guns the way we treat cars that would be fantastic.
– You need a license to own/operate one. Need to renew license every so often
– All guns must be registrerd and Re-registered every few years
– safety inspection they need to be equiped with safety features (safety lock?)
– maybe we can start requiring mandatory gun insurance
– If physician thinks you are unsafe s/he can report to DMV and possibly have license revokedThese are just some of the requirments for car ownership
you were the one who compared guns to cars so tell me do you support the above measures for gun ownership?
It may not be a bad idea to limit car speeds to something like 100 mph.
As a general theme throughout shas, gezeros were not passed that the chachamim saw the olam would not be able to keep
I have already pointed out a 95% non compliance rate with the recent NY Safe law registration requirements. I have logically assumed that a gun ban/confiscation would be met with worse results. To assume otherwise is a pipe dream, and to pass such a law would cause tremendous hardship on millions of currently law abiding citizens.
If that isn’t the definition of govt tyranny, I don’t know what is.
Now don’t get me wrong. I think it should be harder to get any gun. Age requirements background checks should be the norm.
But I am very liberal when it comes to our judiciary system I feel our country has committed tremendous crimes in constantly putting non violent offenders in jail with gangs and violent criminals. The “liberals” in this debate are promoting to cause a huge percentage of our population to be felons. I can’t abide such tyranny for politics.The ultimate proof that the assault rifle term is a political term is the fact that it applies only to the cosmetics of the rifle not the lethality.
A .22 caliber bullet, which is the smallest bullet, used for plinking cans and killing squirrels, is part of the ban. If you have a .22 rifle with a pistol grip you can go to jail. This despite the fact that no military in the history of time has used this caliber as an assault rifle. No mass shooting has occurred with such a small bullet. Yet the bans are indiscriminate.
Again. I said this after Vegas. Compromise can happen. But it requires both sides. And the intellectual dishonesty is coming from the left.Arguing about gun legislation is a moot point when you consider the deaths in this country by vehicular accidents and medical malpractice far FAR exceed the number of deaths by firearms, even if you consider suicide by firearm which is the largest chunk in the pie of gun related deaths. All you do by arguing for gun control is further harp on a highly divisive issue of culture and tradition for Americans and further divide the country. You can save MANY more innocent lives by enacting safety regulations for transportation and medicine. Beating the gun control issue is appealing to the average American who views mass homicide without the lens of hashgacha, thinking that “if only” guns were banned their child wouldn’t be dead. While it should be treated as a sensitive subject due to the emotions of those affected, in reality it doesn’t fit into Jewish hashkafa of hashgacha. Banning guns. Won’t save people. In terms of hishtadlus, focusing on the more prolific killers such as vehicular accidents, mental health, and medical malpractice is more significant.
In the 90’s I saw an article written by a secular Jewish Hollywood exec. Needless to say he was liberal and anti gun. Until he and his wife were caught in the Rodney king riots. He came to the realization that the police can only help you when they are there.
All those who are completely anti gun , imagine a scenario where someone is threatening your family. Wouldn’t you want the ability to do something?NYC residents don’t really have the right to bear arms.
Mentch you don’t like the definitions. So what definition would you like? Are there certain guns you would ban? Or is your whole issue about definitions irrelevant since you don’t want any guns band? Btw anyone else could answer this question too since a few people have made similar comments.
Explain why we shouldn’t restrict vehicles to 40mph? Do you deny that it will save hundreds, if not thousands of lives each year? Restrict driving privileges to only 25-65 yrs old…
And surprisingly, I am in favor of gun control, but only common sense gun control. I would require background checks, psych eval, and mandatory training in the use of a firearm.
Just banning a particular model bec it’s scary looking is silly. No less than banning the type of vehicle that has been in the greatest # of crashes bec wild teens like to drive it.Because we all like to get places fast.
” I would require background checks, psych eval, and mandatory training in the use of a firearm.”
Great then you are on the right side. The NRA though opposes your ” common sense gun control. ”
you say “And surprisingly,” why is that surprising? Isnt it far more surprisign to favor arming people with histroy of deomestic violence, psychatric disorders etc.?Curioisty
“Arguing about gun legislation is a moot point when you consider the deaths in this country by vehicular accidents and medical malpractice far FAR exceed the number of deaths by firearms”And those arent ignored. As yo umay know cars come with airbags, seatbelts.There are speedlimits among other regulations In the medical field we constantly have M&M’s trying to detrmine what went wrogn how to improve. We dont say “thats just the way it is. We work to try to make it safer.
And even if they were ignored. I dont understand the logic of well people die from car accidents so who cares abotu guns. A few people made this point I just dont get it.” even if you consider suicide by firearm which is the largest chunk in the pie of gun related deaths. ”
why on Earth wouldnt those be considered?
“All you do by arguing for gun control is further harp on a highly divisive issue of culture and tradition for Americans and further divide the country. ”
If a tradition is stupid and dangerous we should get rid of it. If its not dnagerous then go for it. but arguing well thats the way it is, isnt logical.
“You can save MANY more innocent lives by enacting safety regulations for transportation and medicine”
Are you serious?
We do
can anybody just buy a car? Can anybody just practice medicine?
waht are yo utalking baout?“. Beating the gun control issue is appealing to the average American who views mass homicide without the lens of hashgacha, ”
you have that backwards. The Torah forbids having a dangerous item in your home. I’m not saying thsi applies to guns per se. But this idea of whatever happens happens is antithical ot Torah.
“Banning guns. Won’t save people. ”
so neither will owning guns. right?
“In terms of hishtadlus, focusing on the more prolific killers such as vehicular accidents, mental health, and medical malpractice is more significant.”
We do. constantly.Ubiq – If you don’t believe people die at the exact moment they were supposed to, regardless of whether a gun was the cause, then nothing anyone says will help you.
Also, Americans can argue that the Jewish traditions and way of life (shchita, milah, etc) is stupid and dangerous. You can’t just waltz in and say, “it’s a stupid way of life, get rid of it!” as you do above. This is also ignoring the fact that the anti-gun lobby has yet to prove the harms of firearms outweigh the benefits, both in terms of safety and with respect to the idea of an armed society keeping its government from straying towards tyranny, which was the whole initial premise of the 2nd Amendment according to many. It also ignores that the vast majority of legal gun owners never shoot anyone and are significantly less likely to commit crime.
Lumping suicide by gun into statistics as the anti-gun lobby does when arguing the severity of gun violence is disingenuous since most suicide is not committed with firearms. Therefore a logical premise is that those who are suicidal enough to kill themselves would just as easily intentionally overdose or throw a toaster in their bathtub; instead of saying that if only guns were outlawed there would be no guns, and if there would be no guns, there would be no option for suicide for these people.
Hishtadlus towards your self protection by carrying a defensive weapon is VERY different than saying that your hishtadlus to get the government to ban a particular type of weapon will save anyone’s life. If you don’t believe me go ask your LOR (Emphasis on the “O”.) If you don’t want to ask your LOR, you are also being disingenuous.
the benefits, both in terms of safety…
What safety benefits? If you don’t believe people die at the exact moment they were supposed to, regardless of whether a gun could have been a defense, then nothing anyone says will help you…
If you don’t want to ask your LOR, you are also being disingenuous.
In case you want to know what daas Torah says about gun control, I found this in a Hamodia article:
In the sefer Masores Moshe, Hagaon Harav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, is said to have wondered at the fact that there occurred so many acts of murder. He asked with astonishment, “How is it that they allow people to buy pistols in America, something that probably no other country would permit? Most murders are done with them, not with knife-stabbing! It’s only the wickedness of some wealthy people that doesn’t allow the government to ban them.”
Curiosity, the whole armed populace keeping it’s government from tyranny thing was already attempted. We now call it the Civil War. Their reasons were wrong, but that is still what they were doing.
Curiosity
“If you don’t believe people die at the exact moment they were supposed to, regardless of whether a gun was the cause, then nothing anyone says will help you”Please dont change the subject. You are using this argument to oppose gun control. I am asking why not use the same argument to oppose gun ownership?
“Also, Americans can argue that the Jewish traditions and way of life (shchita, milah, etc) is stupid and dangerous”
Right. and if we were to reply. “Well thats the way we do things” we’d be wrong. So prepare a better argument, than well thats how it is, incase that discussion comes up.
“both in terms of safety and with respect to the idea of an armed society keeping its government from straying towards tyranny”
Please explain to me how that works. I dont like paying taxes do you support my right to use my guns to defend my property from the tyranical IRS. Who decides whent eh givt is tyranical? one person a neighborhood what about a state? Which armed uprising in over 230 years of US history do you support Whiskey rebellio? the confederacy? Branch davidians? where any of these groups right in fighting a tyranical (in their view) govt?“Therefore a logical premise is that those who are suicidal enough to kill themselves would just as easily intentionally overdose ”
While logical, that isnt the case.
“and if there would be no guns, there would be no option for suicide for these people.”
Nobody said that“Hishtadlus towards your self protection by carrying a defensive weapon is VERY different”
How ?” If you don’t believe me go ask your LOR (Emphasis on the “O”.) If you don’t want to ask your LOR, you are also being disingenuous.”
Although I wasnt unsure, out of curiosity (hi!) I asked him anyway. He said no thinking person could reach the conclusion you did, and that you are trolling. (Is he right?)
There is so much ignorance here. Widespread ignorance.
There is no such thing as an assault rifle. AR does not mean assault rifle.
If you do not know this most basic fact, you should be talking about high power anything, or the best weapon for home defense, or bump stocks, or rapid fire, or anything.
Seriously. Tzei u’limad.
Who cares what they’re called? Seriously.
Also, it’s not true that there’s no such thing as an assault rifle. For example, the M4 is an assault rifle.
Seriously. Tzei u’limad.
Curiosity, do you believe that Hashem gives parnassa? If so why do you work or seek some other form of income. In fact, it is not universally agreed that a person cannot be killed before his time. See Or haChaim haKadosh on Bereisheet 37:21. See also Mishlei 13:23.
DY, I don’t believe that Rav Moshe said that. He certainly knew that in Israel it is permitted and fairly common. He also certainly knew that some people need them for self-defense.
Avi
My understanding is that in Israel, you need a license to purchase gun, pass background checks undergo regular psychological exams, guns must be registered and you cant just stockpile weapons. IS that not the case??
Kudos AviK for the ohr hachaim reference. And bc i’m Intellectually honest I will mention that the ramban there seems to say the same . Though the current model of hashgacha pratis seems to side with the opponents.
So hashkafically gun control advocates have a leg to stand on.
That said.
No one has answered my points about implementation. What gives the right to turn millions of people into criminals?
Also. I get why you think getting rid of “Assault rifles” might help, after all they are disproportionately used in mass shootings so there must be a direct link. But for those of us that know guns, we know that any high powered semi automatic rifle can be used to the same effect. After all the military weapon known as the m16 replaced the m14 during the Vietnam war. The AR ban won’t include the m14 ( known as the ruger mini 14 currently sold and popular) bc These bans only reference the handle on the rifle and not the lethality of the weapon .
So why do you believe that mass shootings will stop.and even if you ban all semi autos why do you think pistols and shotguns won’t be used?
Remember you are guessing and since your guess isn’t logical and since it will make criminals out of millions why isn’t it tyranny?Hashkafic question
We can point to a parallel between the rise of LGBT rights and the increase in mass shootings
They occupy roughly the same time frame. So is it possible to say that with throwing gili arayis out the window we have also thrown out shficas damim?Then there is a machlokes in daas Torah since ALL the LORs I have consulted support gun ownership as proper hishtadlus.
I don’t enough time to educate you on all these issues. If you sincerely care to listen to the opposing point of view go listen to conservative thinkers like Ben Shapiro. My point was you can debate this issue from a religious perspective and from a democratic perspective, but you shouldn’t conflate the two arguments.
The gun rights crowd is composed of very nice people, and statistically the least likely to commit a violent crime. However, if the government tries to violate our rights, we will fight back, just like we would if they tried to eliminate freedom of speech or religion. I do vote for the politicians who support the policies I do- pro gun Republicans (who usually receive funding from the NRA because they are pro-gun).
mentch 1
“They occupy roughly the same time frame. So is it possible to say that with throwing gili arayis out the window we have also thrown out shficas damim?”not really, because other countries with similar (and worse) gilui arayos do not have the shooting rates we do.
Curiosity
“Then there is a machlokes in daas Torah since ALL the LORs I have consulted support gun ownership as proper hishtadlus.”Do they oppose said gun ownershp being “well regulated” ?
“f you sincerely care to listen to the opposing point of view go listen to conservative thinkers like Ben Shapiro.”
I have.“My point was you can debate this issue from a religious perspective and from a democratic perspective, but you shouldn’t conflate the two arguments.”
Was that addressed to me? You were the one who brought up the religious perspective and it doesnt make any sense as I pointed out since it can easil be used either way (though perhaps easier used to support gun control.) Keep religion out of it particularly as you say “Then there is a machlokes in daas Torah” Though I am quite skeptical that there is any “daas torah” that supports selling guns to those with a history of domestic violence and for that matter I am skeptical there are many LOR’s with guns.
“
NOYB, who says the Founding Fathers were referring to guns and not swords or crossbows?
The bottom line is they can not Ban guns but they can and should make it much MUCH more difficult to buy one. Also only the most simple guns should be available for sale. Anyone who owns a more advanced gun can keep it but need to re-certify for it every year and pass a mental/psychological tests in addition to showing capability to use it safely and accurately (ie. someone who is going blind doesnt need an automatic gun…).
@RebYidd23
The founding fathers owned advanced (for their time) weapons themselves, and wrote about the importance of everyone owning arms. They had rifles (the girandoni air rifle) that had magazines, were accurate for decent distances, and were semi-automatic.Rebyid
Thats just plain silly, and an example of the disingenuous side of the debate2qwerty
I actually agree to some extent. Keep in mind that even professionals (LEO) somehow manage to shoot themselves while cleaning their weapons, so ordinary owners should keep refreshed on safety . In lakewood, one of the ranges makes you watch a safety video every time you come.
BUT
It cant be managed by the government. It should be local ranges that certify. Otherwise it’s an obvious governmental precursor to confiscation.
It also still doesn’t address the issue of compliance if not accepted by the gun owning community.
After the NYS ban, I know several frum people who didn’t comply. I don’t want these people going to jailNOYB, I’m not denying that they had guns. But since they knew what guns were, why did they write about the right to bear arms rather than guns specifically? Why protect guns over other weapons?
Ubiquitin, you are correct about all but the last two, about which I do not know. I do know a couple of civilians who carry military weapons and several who carry handguns (and it is legal to conceal them). I do know that a few years ago the requirements were EASED in the wake of several terrorist attacks and in Jerusalem teachers in Chareidi schools were allowed to carry guns (male teachers in secular and NR schools are generally eligible as reserve IDF officers). As for daat Torah, after the Har Nof attack Rav Asher Weiss ruled that those members of his shul who have licenses should bring them.
@RebYidd23
If I had to guess, I would say to include canons and whatever weapons might develop in the future.I would include many weapons, but maybe not cannons, because they are heavy, and while the right to keep arms may apply to them, the right to bear arms probably doesn’t.
FF -“is-there-any-way-to-prevent-mass-shootings”
The title of your topic is disingenuous! It sounds like you belong to the “Gun control” people. You could have written – is there anyway to prevent mass bombings?
And the answer to both is NO!
But you could prevent school violence. All you need is one armed security guard & a metal detector.
I’ve been in court many times and they have Many armed guards and metal detectors.
I guess Americans care more about Judges & lawyers, than they do about school children!@RebYidd23
Bearing a cannon could mean using it, not literally carrying it.Helath
“And the answer to both is NO!”
You are wrong my friend. You fell for an Onion headline “No way to stop this says only country this happens in”
Mass shootings are not a part of life in other countries as they are here. There has to be a way to be more like them in this regard“But you could prevent school violence. All you need is one armed security guard & a metal detector.”
Oops wrong again. The school in question had an armed security card, as you may know it dint stop the attackNOYB
So do I have a constitutional right to bear grenades? Tanks ? Cruise missiles? and nuclear warheads?@ubiquitin
What I meant was personal weapons, which the founding fathers could not possibly anticipate. They made room for future developments.I’m sorry NOYB I dont follow.
I have some grenades. These are my personal weapons that I keep in my pockets. I enjoy lobbing them at deer. I also need them in case the evil IRS comes to collect my hard earned money.
Do I have a constitutional right o own these personal weapons for sport and to protect myself from a tyrannical government?
1. There are some loose cannons here in the CR.
2. Gun ownership was more prevalent in the US fifty years ago but there were no schools shootings. Perhaps the social causes should be examined.
3. The FBI was warned about Cruz. They were also warned about several others including the 9/11 terrorists. It is high time for a house cleaning.Gun control never works because the animals who want to kill people go EXACTLY to the places where there are no guns.
Think about it and you will know I’m correct!!The ONLY think that will help is ARMING people more!
Ubiq -“Oops wrong again. The school in question had an armed security card, as you may know it dint stop the attack”
You have to read my whole post before commenting! I wrote -“All you need is one armed security guard & a metal detector.” The word “and” is not instead of “or”!
“Mass shootings are not a part of life in other countries as they are here. There has to be a way to be more like them in this regard”
Your obsession with Gun control didn’t let you begin to understand my point!
We don’t need to be like Europe with their liberalism to the Nth degree!
Go visit a court house and try to bring in a weapon.
Every school should be like courts with their tight security!edited
Though in an ideal world schools shouldn’t need security, doesn’t Health have a point?
After all in Liberal Europe with all their gun control laws, aren’t the Jewish schools protected by soldiers carrying assault rifles?
High value targets need to be protected.And AviK
I don’t know if gun ownership was more prevalent. We certainly have more guns on the street now. But you are correct. As I stated a while ago, mass shootings are on the increase since 2011. Thinking that tackling the issue of whether or not guns with pistol grips need to be banned as the sole cause is just foolish.
The answer to frum Jews is obvious, teach religious values, but that’s not going to happen.Health
“Your obsession with Gun control didn’t let you begin to understand my point!
We don’t need to be like Europe with their liberalism to the Nth degree!”got it!
Just to be sure I understood you correctly, youre saying We have to accept that mass shootings are just a way of life in the US, (“is-there-any-way-to-prevent-mass-shootings…And the answer …is NO!”) and are worth it to avoid being “like Europe with their liberalism”We on the English side of the water don’t get it’ll you ban guns people’s desire to kill can’t be fulfilledSurely it’s that simple Society has the obligation to defend every citizen and if that means gun lovers losing out so be it. Get something less dangerous to enjoy your hobby with. But don’t put a stumbling block in front of the blind. Surely it must be all our responsibility to be too cautious so that no one or fewer people die. Where people make dangerous decisions society has the obligation to step in and protect its citizens. A situation which can not be entirely controlled must not be tolerated. The rights of society out ways the right of the individual. Guns must be very strictly controlled. Or better still completely banned . That’s how you prevent mass murder
The school in question had an armed security card, as you may know it dint stop the attack
I’m pretty sure I read that the shooter entered the school through a back entrance. What good is an armed guard if there are other ways to get in?
Ubiq -“Just to be sure I understood you correctly, youre saying We have to accept that mass shootings are just a way of life in the US, (“is-there-any-way-to-prevent-mass-shootings…And the answer …is NO!”) and are worth it to avoid being “like Europe with their liberalism””
The topic of these posts I presumed was about schools shootings. But my statements are correct!
Europe is Much Worse than here with their constant threat of Terrorism!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.