Mass shootings, and non mass shootings, must stop.

@Always_Ask_Questions I disagree. The system in the US regarding guns is completely farkakt. It’s difficult to fight, but Baruch Hashem there is a huge rising tide of US citizens trying to change it. It affects us very deeply because it means that the streets and our homes and schools are not safe. We need to support the people fighting against the 2nd amendment and stop defending NRA talking points.

Next they talk about banning A.R. 15‘s. There’s nothing special about an A.R. 15. It is the same as any rifle. So when you say A.R. 15 you really mean rifle. Rifles are responsible for a very very small minority of gun deaths and overall a tiny number of deaths annually. bending rifles will not have a meaningful change in gun deaths. If I remember correctly, Hammar’s cause more deaths than rifles, so if one is really worried about the number of rifle deaths, you should ban hammers first.

In summary gun violence in this country is mostly suicide that is miss characterized. Nearly all the rest of the gun violence is from gangs and drug dealers and similar known criminals in bad areas. I would suggest that before the police disarm law, abiding citizens, they disarm the criminals first. Realistically, there is a solution. The solution is That there is a relatively small number of people who are responsible for the majority of violence. The police know who they are. The DAs can prosecute them. Violent crime is largely a phenomenon of democratic run blue cities as mentioned before. The police know who the perpetrators are. If they arrested the non-criminals, and the DAs prosecuted them, and put them in jail , the problem with largely disappear. The problem is we know this is the correct solution but the people responsible or not willing to prosecute the criminals. For those who want to take away the firearms of law-abiding citizens I think a good analogy would be that there is a small number of reckless, drivers or drunk drivers who cause accidents. we should make cars illegal and prevent anyone from driving a car because of a small number of bad drivers. Considering the number of guns in America, probably around 300 million, if guns caused violence, we would expect to see conveyance on a catastrophic level. And yet something like 99.999% of gun owners have never been involved in gun violence. The solution is to arrest, prosecute and jail. Bad guys, not take away the right of self-defense from law abiding citizens.

Yserb

To be fair, you really cannot compare statistics on a state by state basis. Crime is really not a state by state problem. It is a city by city problem. The crime level in Compton California compared to Beverly Hills compared to Mammoth Lakes are radically different. They are simply not comparable. You need to compare city by city. there are also a lot of confounding factors. I would expect crime rates are very high where people put bars on their windows. Does that mean people should not put bars on their windows to decrease the crime rate? Of course not. One is confusing correlation with causation. The bars on the windows are not causing the high crime. It is because of high crime people choose to put bars on their windows.

Strong recommendation for everyone on this chat. Get in contact with people in the community, spend time with them, and learn about firearms and hunting in self-defense. More or less all of the arguments against firearms show clear unfamiliarity with them in unfamiliarity with the Firearms community. Avira – everyone I know who hunts eats their meat. I don’t know a single person who hunts and does not make use of the meat. Hunters are the most pro environment people I know because maintaining a healthy environment is necessary to be able to continue to hunt. Every one I know, is a thoughtful steward of the environment and of the animals. they are very strict in how to hunt and want to shoot and very strict for what is humane and what is not humane. If you are not certain of a good quick kill, you do not pull the trigger. If there is a concern that the shot is not clear and the animal will run and suffer you do not take the shot. So much on this chat shows that people have thought about the process but really know nothing about firearms or the gun community or the hunting community. If one is going to have an opinion about it, I think it would behoove everyone to spend time with people who actually use Firearms. Again as previously contact Gunsite in Paulden Arizona. Take a trip and learn about Firearms. Strongly recommended.

@keith A few things:

1. Even accounting for suicides, violent deaths by deadly weapon in the USA are on par with countries like Somalia. Places France, Finland, Australia, and other countries with heavy gun control, have a percentage of a percentage of violent deaths that the US has.
2. Criminals in the US have easy access to black market guns because there are so many gun in the US. So allowing unlimited guns for law abiding citizens just puts more guns in the hands of black marketers and criminals
3. I’ve spoken with people who are into dangerous weapons. They come in all shapes and sizes. By and large one common thread is their inability to explain why people need more than one pistol with limited rounds and limited caliber for self-defense.
4. On a city-by-city basis statistics show no significant difference in break ins for cities that have a lot of guns per-capita than cities that don’t. So the idea that more guns means your family is better protected because criminals are too scared to break in, doesn’t have the data to back it up.
5. It is an issue of pikuach nefesh because (as I have been repeating time and time and time again) the more legal guns there are, the easier it is for a criminal to get their hands on one. So yes, limiting legal guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is an issue of pikuach nefesh because that would mean less criminals with guns
6. The argument that we need guns to defend ourselves against the evil US of A holds no water. If the government decides to turn against its people, we’re done for one way or another. Guns aren’t going to turn the tide on an army fighting on their native soil. Just look at the Bundy ranch and what happened when a banda meshugoyim went against the FBI. If you want to look at it from a statistical standpoint, make a cost-benefits-analysis. The current reality of gun culture continuing to take lives is a much higher cost than the small possible benefit that guns will save lives in a very hypothetical apocalyptic future.

Hi. Yserb – see responses below.

Even accounting for suicides, violent deaths by deadly weapon in the USA are on par with countries like Somalia. Places France, Finland, Australia, and other countries with heavy gun control, have a percentage of a percentage of violent deaths that the US has.
Criminals in the US have easy access to black market guns because there are so many gun in the US. So allowing unlimited guns for law abiding citizens just puts more guns in the hands of black marketers and criminals

First, if you remove suicide and remove gang on gang violence, there is not very much gun violence here. Any gun violence is bad, but the former two categories illuminate a very great proportion of gun deaths in this country. Obviously, there will be more gun deaths here as compared to England or Australia, as they have no meaningful gun possession. That is not the important metric. The important metric is moderate. in this country, we see crazies murder people with guns, but in England it is knives to the extent that they are talking about outlying knives and asking people. Do they really need to have so many knives? People are people. And people murder. The overall murder rate is what is most important, not the narrower gun murder rate. In fact, London and New York have similar murder rates. London, in fact surpassed New York recently, even though there is no significant number of guns there.

I’ve spoken with people who are into dangerous weapons. They come in all shapes and sizes. By and large one common thread is their inability to explain why people need more than one pistol with limited rounds and limited caliber for self-

I have to say, I am extremely skeptical of that. I doubt you include police officers and similar in that. I have taken many training courses from police officers and soldiers. The likelihood that you will keep your cool in such a situation and accurately return fire is small. When there is a police involved shooting the majority of rounds miss the intended target and go somewhere else. And that is train police. If you have three people on a home invasion and you are as accurate as the police, you probably need at least 30 rounds. The reality is firearms and magazines. Last a very long time. The bad guys have them. No one is talking about taking them away from the bad guys. The laws that you and other people are talking about will have no effect on bad guys. Any new law will only affect law abiding citizens.

On a city-by-city basis statistics show no significant difference in break ins for cities that have a lot of guns per-capita than cities that don’t. So the idea that more guns means your family is better protected because criminals are too scared to break in, doesn’t have the data to back it up.

Unfortunately, there are no good statistics. What I mean by that is organizations that are funded to study. The subject are undoubtedly leftist. It would be like asking about the science of abortion. You would first need to know is the study funded by Planned Parenthood or from the Catholic Church. If it is funded by the first, you would expect a certain outcome regardless of the truth, and if it were funded by the latter a different outcome, regardless of truth. The media and academic centers want to disarm United States citizens. There’s no valid reason to trust their data. With that said, there are certainly many defensive gun uses. I think everyone agrees that it is very rare in a defensive can use that a gun will be fired. Usually once the criminal sees that the intended victim as a gun, the attack stops. If I am attacked, I would certainly feel more comfortable being trained, and having firearms rather than all of the advantage on the side of the criminal. I don’t understand why people want to disarm, law-abiding citizens and leave them vulnerable to criminals.

It is an issue of pikuach nefesh because (as I have been repeating time and time and time again) the more legal guns there are, the easier it is for a criminal to get their hands on one. So yes, limiting legal guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is an issue of pikuach nefesh because that would mean less criminals with guns
The argument that we need guns to defend ourselves against the evil US of A holds no water. If the government decides to turn against its people, we’re done for one way or another. Guns aren’t going to turn the tide on an army fighting on their native soil. Just look at the Bundy ranch and what happened when a banda meshugoyim went against the FBI. If you want to look at it from a statistical standpoint, make a cost-benefits-analysis. The current reality of gun culture continuing to take lives is a much higher cost than the small possible benefit that guns will save lives in a very hypothetical apocalyptic future.

Everyone wants to decrease gun violence. Everyone wants to decrease murder. There’s literally no one who speaks publicly who disagrees with that. The question is which is the smarter decision. Let’s say we have around 300 million guns in this country. They are all over. You cannot go back in time and change the past. You can only decide based on reality. Being a smart guy, what would be your prediction as to the consequence if they the government outlaws guns? Few people will turn them in. Just look at the New York State requirement for rifle registration. Nobody complied. Let’s say that you do pass such a law, and every law abiding citizen complies with it. No, not a single law abiding citizen has a gun. How does that change the matter? Obviously it does not. None of the criminals will have turned in their guns. You’ve just disarmed all of the law abiding citizens . I think it would be much more likely that they would be a dramatic increase in crime because the criminals no there will be no consequences to raping and murdering innocent people.

The authorities in California and New York have already decided largely not to prosecute crime. The obvious consequence of that is out there for everyone to see. Look at Portland. Look at Seattle. Crime skyrocketed. Don’t tell all the criminals that none of the citizens are able to defend themselves anymore.

Everyone agrees pikuach nefesh is important. It’s just that the solutions proposed by the leftists seems to me to exacerbate the situation. I think if you’re solutions were enacted, you would find many more people attacked and murdered. Not less.

Americans do seem to be more violent by gun statistics. But some observations over the time frame of US existence:
1) other nations had way bigger outbursts of violence – wars, prosecutions. French could not even do a revolution without killing each other; Germans thought of themselves as most civilized until they did not; all of the European empires brought a lot of misery to different parts of the world (together with some rule of law), while American founders ended up being friends in later years; one “minor” civil war

2) in international side, US had wisdom to stay outside of European wars until they became world wars – and then consistently ended as the leaders on the right side of the history in all major wars – WW1, WW2, Cold War …

Are these things connected to second amendment? maybe not directly, but somehow. for example, Brits write during both WW1 and WW2 that Americans came unprepared, did not listen to their sage advise, then repeated same mistakes Brits did, then made ten times more mistakes until they figured out the right way to fight and then won … Brits were both irritated by this approach but also admired the speed of change and learning that Americans demonstrated. for example, I would think that Americans had more officers to go through trying to find the right ones as they all came from gun culture and had experiencewith weapons even when country did not have a big army.

Ys, I am trying to look at a bigger picture 📸 and this necessarily involves longer time frames. It is a Jewish thing to look at history as you probably know. Chachamim yodea itim is not just about Rosh hodesh

Your examples show how we can get confused with day to day news. I am aware of effect of these on American psyche, but even taking the most anti American interpretation of these, they will still be minor skirmishes

Always_Ask_Questions,

“while American founders ended up being friends in later years; one “minor” civil war”

I’m not sure yet how much I want to wade into this thread, but the US Civil War was most certainly not “minor”. The war killed close to three quarters of a million soldiers, which, considering the population at the time, makes the conflict one of the deadliest in human history. Divisions over slavery and the balance of Northern and Southern power began shortly after American independence and roiled for decades before Lincoln’s election and South Carolina’s secession and shelling of Fort Sumter. The impacts of the war continue to affect many southern states generations later, and it is difficult to understand the United States without knowledge of the war. True, the conflict did not spill over borders into other countries, but the Battle of Gettysburg was on par with Waterloo, and the Civil War was the first “industrialized” conflict, forever changing how wars are fought.

YS, it is hard to argue about what did not happen, but one could, for example, imagine small mafia states emerging in American West, centered around religion (Mormons) or natural resources. Maybe because law & order somehow existed in those remote areas, in part because there were enough armed men there. Maybe I watched too many Westerns.

My main thought is that we tend to look at what is lacking and complain and not appreciate what exists. This is how various revolutionaries lured people in the last centuries.

Chofetz Chaim writes that one needs to appreciate how difficult it used to travel, and now that we got trains, one should be thankful for that…

@Always_Ask_Questions I agree with what @Avram_in_MD is saying. To go along with that, you’re putting out some very radical and unprovable theories about the benefits of the 2nd Amendment. If you have to get this abstract to talk about a very real and very pressing topic, I think you can say that you’ve lost the argument.

YS > If you have to get this abstract to talk about a very real and very pressing topic,

in other words, you are saying: let’s focus on what is happening right now and ignore longer-term consequences. With the same logic, we should take money from all rich people so that we can feed all poor this year; let’s eat all grain this year, not leave anything for the next year harvest, etc.

How hard is the sevorah that it is harder to subjugate armed population? I think I even brought Chofetz Chaim who used this is a moshal that when the country is in danger, they give guns to everyone (the nimshal being that in 1920s Poland everyone should try to increase learning in their own community).

So they caught that nut job in Texas and he can be a case study in this discussion
1) deported 4 times (open borders)
2 )somehow allowed ownership of an ar even though he is an illegal (no background checks?)
3) allowed to shoot said gun on a 1 acre property near neighbors (in NYS I think it’s about 5acres)
4) can shoot drunk (plainly stupid but apparently common in the area)
There is enough blame for both right and left to take ownership

@mentsch1 I’m all for increased policing, but even in places where there’s a heavy police presence, and a pro-police populace, there are still way more violent gun-related crimes than there needs to be.

The fact of the matter is that in the USA it’s super easy for a criminal to get his or her hands on a weapons. And an innocent person who wants to commit a crime will have zero problems getting a gun. Unless you want a full on Communist Russia situation where the police can just arrest you for anything, the simplest solution is to get rid of guns.

@Meno You’re right. “Simple” is a bad word to describe the solution. You know what would be a great, and simple, first step though? Saying that there is too much violent crime in the US and it’s caused by there being too many easy to acquire weapons. I think if everyone at least acknowledges that fact, then maybe we can start moving on a solution. Maybe people will think about voting for the guy who wants to rescind a ghost gun ban. Maybe people will cheer on their Congressman if he votes on a resolution tightening restrictions on where gun stores can be opened. Maybe people will stop and think next time they buy their fifth gun for home protection.

Because saying “The solution to too many guns is more guns” simply defies logic.

as someone who owns a gun for sport no amount of liberal tears will convince me that the government knows better

5 teenagers were shot in a 12 hour period NYC yesterday. The shooters were also teenagers. One factor discussed was the decision by the NY Legislature to raise the age of legal responsibility to 18. There is longer any consequence for a 16 or 17 year old for carrying a gun, and using it in the heat of an argument.