Mass shootings, and non mass shootings, must stop.

@americanyeshivish

Better the shooter is dead at the beginning of an intended shooting spree, having killed him/herself,

Take all guns away in the USA unless the possessor is a member of the National Guard, law enforcement or corrections (our well organized militia, satisfying the 2nd Amendment).

@ctlawyer

I fully agree with you. I was just commenting on participant’s idea of torture for shooter which doesn’t work well for people who are already dead.
Personally I think 2nd Ammenment should be abolished. It’s totally outdated.

Ct, so you want to take away people’s ability to defend themselves? Yeah, that’ll end well.

That won’t stop the Chicago and los Angeles gun crimes where there are already tight measures.

1. A gun store that sells a weapon that is later used in a crime is subject to a mandatory closure and full investigation
2. Ban all guns that hold more than five shots.
3. Ban all calibers greater than .22
4. Each individual gun a person buys requires that they show a reason why they need this gun and it must be approved by an impartial anonymous political committee. Turning in an old gun for an upgrade is taken into account.
5. Limit the production and sale of guns based on the size of the local population. Gun stores in a zip code cannot carry more than X weapons where X is the population size in that zip multiplied by a factor of no more than 2

In some areas of Japan, people leave plastic bottles filled with water outside their house. When asked, most people will just shrug and say “This is what you’re supposed to do”. When pressed, some people will talk about how water bottles scare off cats (but won’t be able to explain why they want to scare off cats, if it actually works to scare off cats, or if there are even any cats in the area to scare off). But everyone does it, so it’s ingrained in the culture so everyone else does it.

That’s what guns are to some states in the USA. Everyone has guns. Few people can give a good, coherent reason why they need so many guns. Self protection? Hunting? Sport shooting? It’s fun? But since it’s such a massive part of the culture, logic has ceased to be a factor in this question a very long time ago. Everyone needs guns because everyone has guns. It’s as simple as that. And as long as these people are fighting tooth and nail to ensure that an archaic outdated law remains on the books, criminals and mentally disturbed people have easy access to weapons (legal and illegal) that allow them to commit harm on a much larger scale.

To add to what I said in my previous post: many criminals who commit gun-related crimes aren’t yet technically felons at the time they legally purchased a gun. So to with the mentally ill. It can take months, or even years, for a mental diagnosis (if one happens at all) during the whole time the individual is perfectly capable of purchasing a murder stick.

CT
As I have pointed out before all these comments are pretty foolish but it doesnt take into account numerous realities
If tomorrow the second amendment is abolished, what percentage of people will comply and what will be the consequences for non compliance
Certainly we can assume there are millions of unregulated weapons. But what about the registered ones. Do you assume everyone will just hand in there 400 million or so weapons?
Or as history has shown, will they be more likely to ignore the govt, and all you have accomplished is making millions of citizens into criminals
what is my proof?
the NYS safe act that required registration of “assault weapons” and according to Forbes was disregarded by 95% of owners
That was just registration. can you imagine confiscation?
civil war is a more likely scenario than compliance

As far as I can tell, chazal never banned weapons even though it would be used to kill
why must the individual give up his rights ?
if you say for the greater good (which has theoretical logic) then lets take it a step further
hashkafically, can we actually control the number of people that die annually? Does taking away guns save someone from premature death?
what about cars? 46,000+ deaths a year. Lets go back to horse and buggy.
Rav Shimshon Pincus said if he had a sanhedrin he would have banned cars (ironically he was killed in a car accident)
I am not a baki in shas but chagiga 4b addresses this, the only way to die prematurely (acc to that gemarah) is if you are engaging in risky behavior. So from what I can tell you can label driving risky behavior and ban it.
But being shot isn’t a risky behavior on your part. So if someone is meant to die he will die in a mugging or getting hit by a bus, what is the difference?

1) Some guns are a necessity for some areas of the country.
2) And a frivolity for certain neighborhoods.
3) Certain guns have no use outside of a combat zone.
The abolishment or containment of guns should center around the third sentence.
But what use is good sense when it comes to talking policy for our diverse melting pot of a free-thinking media-parroting partisan/independent gentleman’s shouting match?

Commas were edited out as a form of evidence. -1776

@mentsch1 “Fun” isn’t a good reason for stockpiling dangerous weapons. Sports shooting falls under the category of “fun”. I fail to see how a single low caliber low capacity gun isn’t enough to fulfill the requirements for hunting and self protection. None of these are coherent responses to why gun nuts stockpile dozens of dangerous weapons whose only purpose is to kill many people as quickly as possible.

And yes, other things kill people. Take cars for example. Perhaps you’re right, we should treat guns like cars. Ridiculously expensive to the point where the average family can only afford one or two. Require a long period of training and a license to use that can be revoked at any time due to misuse. Regular inspections and clear identification of ownership. The understanding that, although they are fun, society still needs good ways to go about without them and should be designed so that people don’t need need cars (busses and trains are fine too).

Hashkafically, there are sources that say that a person can die before his time if he were killed. Guns kill people.

Yserbius
Your arguments actually are the reason it will never happen
First everyone here with their heads in the clouds are ignoring the fact that the second amendment is only becoming more entrenched in law
Second the reason why the NRA continues to be popular and is allowed to fight tooth and nail on every “infringement “ is Bc every nra member is convinced the left is coming for their guns, and therefore they dig in their heels.
If the left compromised a little bit. I firmly believe you’ll see compromise on the other side.
If the left agreed to not fight the second amendment and try stupid illogical laws like so-called assault rifle bans, I think we would see the right, willing to compromise on mental health checks and waiting periods etc

Ubiq
Ignoring the obvious lack of logic in the comparison (might as well have said “since everyone murders anyway , do you support….”)
But as I have said many times I only support jail for violent offenders
But there is more than one form of governmental tyranny
I’m less worried about dictatorships and more worried about millions of law abiding citizens being persecuted for something that is currently legal

This Democrat NRA narrative is trash. None of these shooters are members of the NRA.

“Take all guns away in the USA unless the possessor is a member of the National Guard, law enforcement or corrections (our well organized militia, satisfying the 2nd Amendment)”

Typical rich boomer democrat answer. Every old Russian Jew I know would laugh at your detachment from reality. Why is it those with privilege feel like it’s imperative the unwashed masses shouldn’t have privileges or rights?

Yserbius
If only we could wave a magic wand, but alas some of us live in the real world
And some of us have mentioned some real world initiatives but alas the left always prefers emotional band aids that look good in front of the press

Ubiq
you will notice i stayed away from historical and theoretical arguments
But my statement is fact, each new supreme court ruling further entrenches it, whether or not you agree with the arguments or “reinterpretation” is irrelevant to the discussion
and abortion is at a disadvantage in that there is no amendment guaranteeing it
but none of this interests me
all that interests me is how the govt can possibly go about removing guns without creating a massive violation of the civil rights of gun owners (and without causing a civil war)

and as i already said, i would not support jail for abortion
as for passing the legislation that created the illegality in the first place (rolling back roe vs wade) I am of two minds. The religious answer is obvious (and not at all comparable to guns, bc gun ownership is not immoral). As for my practical answer i would have left it on the books. Partly bc of the noted problem of people ignoring it and partly bc of other reasons.

“But my statement is fact, each new supreme court ruling further entrenches it,”

absolutely. It is a fact Ive said many times. no argument at all
but the same way courts can entrench it, courts can dislodge it.

“As for my practical answer i would have left it on the books.”
thanks for the reply
Kudos on the consistency

Kriger
“I live in the town of Beitar, Israel.”
guns are very regulated in Israel. If we enacted their regulation Id be fine with that.

“America feast on violence,”
this isnt the answer. Europeans have the same violence Japanese movies have more They simply don’t have the same number of mass shootings as we do. This theory doesnt hold water

Yserbius
I’m not sure you would count me in on your side of the discussion. After all to quote my wife “I have way too many guns” so I am probably more like the mountain men of krigers former life in that respect.
“Gun culture” is growing in the frum world. One of the popular gun ranges in Lakewood is now Jewish owned.
But I am not sure how to define “gun culture” partly bc I’m not sure why it makes people more nervous when someone has 10 guns as opposed to 1. I am no more likely to become violent Bc I have more than 1 gun. So the logic escapes me.

@mentsch1 If someone thinks you have too many guns, you have way too many guns. “Gun culture” is like any other hobby, collecting, talking about, using, trading, buying, selling, etc. and in general being very “into” a particular thing. The only problem is over here is that this “thing” encourages the mass production and sale of deadly weapons that allow criminals to commit murders on a much higher rate than they would otherwise do.

Am I nervous that the nice well-adjusted guy down the block from me owns more guns than fingers? No. But I am nervous that because of that guy (and many others like him) people who are less than well-adjusted can just as easily acquire these weapons.

The idea that owning multiple dangerous weapons (when at most one or two would suffice) is somehow a human right has to die. Period.

Yserbius
I don’t believe were that far apart
I happen to be pro gun control. I happen to believe that, at least in America the presence of a gun in the house is more likely to cause a problem then solve one. Certainly carrying a gun all day long is more likely to lead to an act of rage than to end up protecting somebody. In my 50+ years of walking in the street I can’t think of one instance that carrying a gun would’ve helped me.
Now the other side of the story is of course, every now and then it might be necessary. And perhaps if somebody has a job in a dangerous area or a synagogue needs to be protected , or you live in the middle of the mountains, then maybe it does make sense. I personally advise people against purchasing guns. But being a maven if they are going to do it, I certainly guide them through the process.
And as I’ve said, I think there’s room for compromise. But the compromise will not happen if the left insists on being soft on crime and if the left will not put it into writing that they won’t go for complete confiscation.

@Kuvult I am also unclear what you need four guns to defend yourself. You have a single .22 pistol that can shoot five times without reloading. Either the person your defending yourself against backs off when faced with a gun, or they don’t and are shot. Unless you live out in the sticks with a lot of wild animals?

@AvirahDeArah .22 .9mm shmumty shmoo, who cares? Yes, people who are anti-gun generally have less knowledge of guns. Just like frum people have less knowledge of what bands are playing at Coachella. Guns are extremely dangerous. The 2nd Amendment has allowed gun nuts and gun companies to ride roughshod over the USA and put literally over a billion guns readily accessible to any meshuggenah some legally some illegally.

My point is that no one average person needs so many guns and so many bullets. You want self protection? Even with a .22QFB (or whatever it’s called) will cause an intruder to back off. If the intruder is armed, you carrying a gun won’t make any difference, except cause the bad guy to be more likely to open fire.

Yserbius
So I just fumbled my way into another thread on mashiach
Not being aware of the rambam on moshiach I reached an improper conclusion
But now that I’ve read it, and it’s a problem. Bc the rambam speaks about klal Yisroel going to war
How can we possibly do that armed with .22’s ?!?!
Do you realize you are literally standing in the way of moshiach?!?!
Admittedly a possibility: when the time comes he will break open the armories for us. Or perhaps we will get magic weapons, but I still think the rambam wasn’t pro gun control

Yser,
A 22 usually does not have enough stopping power to end the threat. I don’t like a lot of recoil so I have a full size 9mm loaded with +P Hollow points in the standard 17rd mag. I grab my gun & a mag & I have 35rds (17+17+1 in the chamber) with only 1 reload. I hope I would never need that many rounds but since I’m a law abiding citizen why shouldn’t I be allowed to have what makes me feel more secure?