Mass shootings, and non mass shootings, must stop.

I also agree with strict background checks, continuous renewals of licenses, requires training, and requiring guns to be biometrically locked.. If they could develop a scanner which can read blood alcohol levels, I’d support that too.

But permitting self defense in the most effective way, i don’t see.

There is already alcohol scanner for the cars. I think it takes a court order. I wonder whether responsible people should install such in their own car, just in case.

Yserb, i didn’t say to throw in the towel. I meant that you can’t drain all of the guns from law abiding citizens while criminals will continue to have them. Limiting future manufacture makes sense, and down the line, you can start limiting sales, while keeping the ratio between legal guns and the availability of illegal weapons equal.

You don’t want a situation where criminals run amok terrorizing an unarmed civilian population. The reason why rural areas have less crime is because people are armed.

And it’s not NRA propaganda: many, many invasions are prevented by gun ownership. And the possibility that the home owner is armed is a powerful deterrent. The amount of break ins in Texas, is not the same as new York City, and there’s a good reason for that.

I do agree that it’s rare that there’s a hero who stops a murderer because he was the good guy with a gun. But that’s because not all that many people carry guns; if more did, it would happen more often.

Not that i think everyone should do that; just explaining the numbers.

And again, you’re falling back on the “big scary gun” talking point. I suggest learning a bit about firearms first. I did, because i found the gun rights debate interesting. A 9mm Glock pistol is every bit as deadly as a rifle. Just one is longer and scarier looking.

Yserb, i personally don’t see a need for more than one gun per person, because I don’t believe in hunting. But Americans do, and a firearm for self defense isn’t ideal for hunting, according to those who engage in the barbaric activity – and goyim are allowed to do so under the 7 mitzvos, so it’s not something we have to fight against.

One can ask why a person would need more than one set of kitchen knives, too; i don’t know if it’s a fair law in practice. I don’t know of a correlation study between the amount of guns owned by an individual and the propensity for violence.

I agree with lowering the amount of guns overall, and theoretically limiting the amount one can own will do that to an extent, but not a large enough extent that would justify the precedent of the government limiting people’s ownership of legal items…we don’t have such a law anywhere else, and it can be a slippery slope.

Now if it can be shown that ownership of many weapons increases the chances of violence, then maybe i can support it. But a lot of the motivation seems to be because “big scary gun” goes together with “big scary arsenal” and “big scary magazine”

I don’t think those things make much of a difference.

A mass shooter really could do the same amount of damage with a glock and a few magazines, as he would do with an ar-15.

Actually, i think rifles are safer than small guns, because they can’t be concealed; theres a reason why laws regarding long guns are far more lax than handguns…while used in mass shootings for some reason that probably only psychopaths understand, thats about the only time they end up hurting people; handguns account for over 90% of all gun violence, because they’re concealable and portable.

but i think that regulation should come from the top down; limits on shops and manufacturing, but in terms of what a consumer can own…it seems like an overreach.

@AviraDeArah A slippery slope towards what? Not being Somalia? Then let’s go skiing!

yserb, i was wrong about Texas; they have high gun ownership and a massive amount of burglaries, the most in the nation.

But Texas, despite loose laws, only has a 35% gun ownership rate

Other states which have a high number of gun ownership of over 50%, Including vermont, Maine, Alaska, have fewer burglaries.

So it’s not clear; you can find some states with more guns and more burglaries, others with fewer burglaries.

But the states with the highest percentage of gun ownership do seem to not have more burglaries than the average.

@AviraDeArah The government already regulates how much of anything you can have in many instances. Generally when the thing is something potentially very dangerous, you need special licenses and approval for each one you want to buy. That is something I would like to see applied to gun ownership. Just like you can’t build a slaughterhouse on private property without a host of licenses and regulations for each slaughterhouse you build. So too with guns.

Yserb, that’s zoning issues, I’m talking about commodities. Items that one can buy legally. We don’t have laws which mandate how much of a given item you can own.

The only thing i can maybe see comparable is that some locales have limits on pet ownership.

Yserb, what other dangerous items are limited in quantity? Knives, lighters, matches, bows and arrows, electric appliances, flammable gases, propane, legal fireworks… All can be dangerous. But US law doesn’t impose any bans on them.

And my example of pets isn’t very good, because in that case, it’s due to animal cruelty laws

Always ask questions: what if you ring someone’s bell by mistake and get shot, it was useful, is it what you are going to say? This violence is inside people who are getting on the edge. Go away troll!!

@Always-Ask-Questions I question your logic whether that would lead to a slippery slope. The US has the most unrestricted gun laws of any major country in the world and yet you don’t see Australia or Spain telling people they can’t own three microwaves.

@Meno Anyone who thinks that the current American Culture (TM) of the “right” to own as many guns as can be purchased is a normal, logical, not dangerous, in line with the Torah, thing, is not thinking clearly.

Meno’s point on purchasing surges based on political affiliation of those in office is true. I know many non owners who bought for the first time after a democrat came into office or after a mass shooting. They were afraid their options would be limited so they ran to get something.
Interestingly enough. In discussion of the insanity of the illogic to many of our laws; NYC “forced” me to purchase a gun. I applied for a license due to the turmoil of a few years ago. By the time I got my license the turmoil had died down so I didn’t feel compelled. But NYC revokes your license if you don’t purchase one immediately. Go figure.
As I have said. There is room for compromise but there needs to an acceptance of reality.

Mentsch, how many hunters eat what they kill? Very, very few. I do agree that hunting for food is perfectly moral.

“we have seen time and time again, that armed civilians do little to stop mass shootings”

Have we? How many mass shootings failed to be stopped by armed citizens?

“So why don’t we start by banning anything that isn’t small?”

Because it’s impossible, and also it would violate the second amendment

Nu nu, that’s why I gave my other answer. It would be impossible. The number of guns in circulation is so high, and is constantly increasing. Banning guns only potentially removes them from the hands of law-abiding citizens, it doesn’t make them disappear. It’s a losing battle.

Avira
Acc to google 95%
But I know plenty in the Monticello area and they all do
I know one guy that was homeschooled till 10. He told me that when he finally went to public school he realized that unlike in his home, most people don’t actually eat venison for breakfast

Yserbius, in the last century Weimar Germany overrun by thugs; several Eastern European countries occupied by Soviet tanks; others having local dictators for decades. Several countries now border Russia and have part of population that might join occupiers. In all of these cases, having well-armed and trained population would be an asset in support of democracy.

Again, we might not support such a system were we represented in the Continental Congress by a couple of Chachamim. But as far as the system exists, let’s use it, and mitigate problems, rather than fight something that has a healthy tzad. So, if you propose changes that lead to more safety without threatening the pro-gun population, you have a chance of progress; otherwise you are just working overtime to support Dem party contribution pitch. This is silly.

@Always_Ask_Questions You and the others keep circling back to the “What if the country turns against us?!”. I’ll repeat what I’ve said before: a bunch of hunters holding guns are no match for the combined might of an organized military with modern equipment. So the argument holds no water since allowing people access to weapons does absolutely bupkis in terms of arming them against evil governments.

I have no issue threatening the pro-gun population anymore than I have issues threatening the pro-LGBTQIAS2SX11MNE population. I am proposing that we encourage small measures that are baby steps along the path to getting rid of the dangerous gun culture that plagues the Goldeneh Medinah. And I am proposing that the oilom should stop standing in the way of such measures with silly arguments like because it “supports the Dem party contribution pitch”.

This is mamesh pikuach nefesh. And we aren’t fixing the issue today, but it is imperative that everyone take a stand to at least start acknowledging that there is an issue and that it can be fixed.

@mentsch1 I was just responding to the other poster who was worried about actions that would “threatening the pro-gun population” with a comparison to a different part of anti-Torah American culture. Baruch Hashem, at least there’s a huge growing movement to fight the pro-gun culture of the US. We should support it and not stand in its way.

Yserbius,

“I don’t think it’s impossible, just very difficult and it would take a long time”

It would require so much legislation that would be met with so much resistance. While all that legislation is being worked out, the manufacture and sale of firearms would go through the roof, just exacerbating the problem. Then let’s say they actually do manage to put bans in place, imagine the logistical nightmare of getting people to give up hundreds of millions of guns. Imagine how many people won’t go down without a fight. The country will tear itself apart.

Of course all this is assuming you can repeal the second amendment, because otherwise none of this even gets off the ground.

It’s virtually impossible, and it would take forever. Keep fighting for it if it makes you feel better, but it’s a bad idea and it will never happen.

@Meno We at least agree on one thing, that American culture is messed up that pushes everyone to own guns which allows too much gun crime to happen. Seems to me our only disagreement is whether more legislation would help or it’s a lost cause and we should just accept gang wars, school shootings, and armed muggings as a fact that will never go away.

Mentsch, rav belsky told me explicitly that it is assur to vote for a candidate who will support toevos, etc..

And when both candidates support it, he told me not to vote.

Avira
He was a minority in this. Most rabbunim take other considerations into account. For example, There are cases where democrats have helped in situations of pikuach nefesh and these rabbanum, due to hakaros hatov, will then lend their support to these candidates.

I am not saying that we all need to join NRA. Just that this is not the most disturbing part of American culture. Again, if you have ways to minimize problems in a ways of peshara, I am also for that. But if you just start supporting one-sided measures then you won’t achieve anything and make enemies from people who might be friendly towards us otherwise.

@Always_Ask_Questions Once again, you are pushing the “What if the government turns against me?” argument in another suit, “What if we’re invaded?”. It’s silly. For one, the logic requires the the US military is completely subdued by a foreign invader, yet held off by rednecks with rifles. One reason the US lost so bad in Afghanistan was their unwillingness to kill civilians (which they failed miserably at). I doubt an occupying force here would have the same hold ups. Another reason it’s a silly argument, is that it’s so extremely unlikely it’s barely even worth thinking about. The very real dangers that so many guns poses to Americans today far outweighs any potential benefit they may have in a very hypothetical situation.