Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yserb
I strongly strongly recommend you speak with people from the gun community. You will find that a lot of your points just represent a simple misunderstanding. Police training in firearms is actually quite limited. Police accuracy and shooting is quite poor. If there is a home invasion. You are going to need a lot more than five rounds because you will be freaking out. If there is a home invasion with three or four invaders, you will definitely want to have more fire power. Magazines last nearly forever. The bad guys will have magazines capable of carrying lots of rounds. You should at least have the same. In terms of guns that require electronic identification to function there is no one serious about guns who considers that to be safe in any way. If there is a home invasion, what is the chance that it works? What if the battery is dead? have you ever tried to open your iPhone with your thumb when you’re sweating or when your thumb is otherwise wet? It doesn’t work. No one serious about self-defense would use a tool where he has no idea if it will be functional should the situation arise.
I strongly recommend taking at least a handgun training course from a good instructor. If you have the means, I strongly recommend you go to Gunsite in Paulden Arizona. You will have a completely different idea of your responsibility to protect your family and the tools necessary to be able to provide this critical need for your family.
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.
Next by definition, only law abiding citizens, obey laws. As I mentioned, the vast majority of gun deaths is suicide. Of the remaining, the vast majority is bad guys, including felons, who cannot legally purchase firearms. Statistics show this category of criminals, which comprises nearly all of the remaining gun deaths in our country, obtain their guns from Black market and from stealing them. You can pass any law that you like. It will not affect them by definition. They do not undergo background checks because they will fail. They steal their guns and they buy them on the black market. So what good is your background check? what good is your law that requires someone at home to lock up their guns? Those laws are meaningless to people who do not obey laws. You will only restrict law abiding citizens from having the ability to defend themselves.
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.
I am a shooter. Before we can have a reasonable discussion we need to agree on the facts. The facts are in America. There is something like 40 to 60,000 gun related deaths. Of those between 2/3 and 3/4 are suicide. Can violence in America is really a suicide problem much more than a homicide problem. Of the remainder of the deaths. The vast majority are known criminals, and gang violence Such as drug dealers shooting each other and similar. The number of non-criminals murdering innocent people is a very small portion of those numbers. So the first issue is when we are talking about violence in this country. We are really talking about suicide. Eight minority of gun deaths is gang violence, or non-criminals in known bad areas. Think Compton, southside of Chicago, and similar. If you were to take these urban areas out of the equation, places that everyone knows is dangerous, gun violence is actually very rare. Because the media is largely leftist they are anti-gun, and so publicize every mass shooting to try to advocate for gun control. in terms of mass shootings per capita we are not the leader. I think Norway is the leader and another surprising country or two. But because our media hates guns so much, they present this as a meaningful frequent occurrence. The reality is actual gun violence is largely limited to a small number of bad cities. Again think East St. Louis, Compton, southside of Chicago, and similar. If you do not live in those areas , it is extraordinarily unlikely you’ll ever experience gun violence.
For work, I work as a physician. There is no downside to donating. They sedate you. They stick a big needle in your pelvic bone and draw out the stem cells that way. I’ve never had it done personally unfortunately as what an amazing mitzvah that would be. But other than being sore for a bit, there should be no downside at all.
Midwest 2 – “Would you let your ten-year-old drive your car on the expressway? ”
HI again. No. Nor would I let a ten year old alone with a gun. I would let my ten year old drive on my lap in the neighborhood which I remember doing with my dad and which I’ve done with my kids. I don’t think anyone is advocating for a ten year old to go out shooting alone. Under adult supervision is another story. I spent time in Atlanta and there is a strong hunting culture in America. Overall I think it is a nice family tradition (though not for Jews of course).
Don’t forget we are talking about a constitutional right, in contrast to driving. A right to defend oneself by the best means possible, which for little Jewish people like us probably means a firearm. I am a little guy with little ability to defend myself against big guys. I don’t know kung fu and am not a knife fight expert. So if there is a chance my house might be invaded or over run, a firearm is the most effective way for me to defend myself and my family.
It’s probably getting to be Shabbos by you so have a good Shabbos!
Hi, Midwest. re: “Where does anyone get the whacky idea that requiring background checks, age limits, etc. is going to lead to the “government seizing all guns?”
The “common sense” restrictions of course would not have prevented any of the sensational shootings we see in the media the last few years. All the recommendations made here would not have prevented the previous shootings and will not prevent future shootings. They are for theater and of course are not meant for criminals. They are meant for the law abiding citizens who do not shoot people. And so the problem is not addressed.
The only way to prevent shootings would be to remove guns from the hands of citizens. A reasonable guess regarding the number of guns in the United States is somewhere in the large ballpark of 300 million. Most guns do not deteriorate to the extent they no longer are reliably functional. So in a country of 300 million guns, 99.999999 percent of which are used lawfully, an infinitessimally small percentage used illegally, how do we prevent guns from being used illegally? Only by seizure, unless I’m missing something. Most people will not comply. Thus the only way I see America removing guns from its citizens is house to house seizure. It will not be too many houses before one citizen will refuse.
Do you see another way government removes guns from its citizens? I don’t. My imagination may not be great enough though.
DaasYochid, all the recommendations people are making would not have affected any of the shootings the last few years. All new laws only affect law-abiding citizens. The shootings the last few years either have been performed by people who obtained their guns illegally, by people with no recorded history of mental illness, or – in the case of Parkland – by a person who was unstable but authorities did not follow up on it. All the recommendations made will only affect people like my mother – tiny Jewish women unable to defend themselves otherwise and so carry handguns. Not a single recommendation made would have affected any of the shootings we see over the years. This is all theater. It all sounds good superficially but would do nothing to address the issue.
Everyone keeps proposing we “do something,” but no one has explained how what they suggest would have stopped any bloodshed. The laws only affect law-abiding citizens and do nothing to affect those who would break the law.
As another commenter said – what we really need to do is to pass a law that you can only kill one person a day. Once the shooter killed on person, we need to tell him he’s used up his allotment and has to wait till tomorrow. I have an even better idea – we should make it illegal to murder someone. That way no one will be murdered. Again, we have to recognize that these laws only affect law-abiding citizens and will not alter the behavior of murderers or their ability to obtain firearms. There are few citizens who can obtain firearms in Europe. And yet somehow the Muslims seem to be able to commit mass murder in the grocery stores, newspapers, and theaters with firearms. Or with a truck. Or car. These laws are, frankly, silly. They are passed to make people feel good but affect nothing.
Hi. I’m actually surprised by the number of apparent shooters on a religious website. It seems to me that the people who are the most pro-gun are people who shoot and the people who are the most anti- are the people who just don’t have much experience with guns but address them in a more theoretic way. The question everyone must act before acting in any capacity about anything is – how will this action address the issue? Will it help or will it prevent the problem we are trying to address. We also need to recognize that any law change affects only law abiding citizens, not criminals. So all laws passed regarding this emotional subject will affect good guys, not bad guys. It is unlikely any proposed law will affect the shooters in recent history. So we must be honest and accept that this is all theater, designed to make us feel good and not designed to stop shootings.
If you are serious about stopping gun shootings, from FBI statistics, relatively few deaths come from rifles. Most come from handguns. So if you are serious about gun deaths you are talking about government seizure of all guns, not “assault rifles.” Of all deaths from guns, the vast majority, almost 3/4, are suicides. So we are not talking about those. The vast majority of the remainder are gang-on-gang or similar (criminal on criminal) shootings. So in terms of real, horrible, scary gun deaths, this is a tiny minority of the recorded gun deaths. If you are serious about stopping gun deaths, and as relatively few are of the sensational deaths in the recent news, we should look at what really causes death in America. Cars. Knives. Televisions (falling on people – actual FBI statistics). Hands. Feet. We should consider outlawing those too.
Regarding the following statements:
1. No more sales of assault-style weapons.
People have already addressed that assault weapons are fiction. The definition is rifles that have two or more features. Features include adjustable stock and pistol grip. Everyone knowledgeable in firearms agrees this does not alter lethality of the weapon and these features are purely cosmetic. So this does not address any current issue.
2. No more sales of high-capacity magazines
Magazine, like guns, are nearly forever. They don’t disintegrate. There are probably somewhere around 300 million guns in the country. Without the military or police doing house-to-house searches and home invasions they are not going away. Second, it takes under two seconds to switch out a magazine and place a new one. Restricting magazines therefore will only affect good guys, not bad guys. It will affect only those who obey the law, not someone with murder in his heart. And even if magically all the standard size magazines (not high capacity – standard size) went away, it still does not change that it takes under two seconds to change magazines and that will not alter how many people die.
3. No gun sales to anyone under 21
In CA at least, the law is you must be over 18 to purchase rifles and over 21 to purchase handguns. I think most of the recent shooters either have been over 21 or obtained their weapons illegally and so this really would not affect much. In addition, if you are over 18, have a job, are independent, etc., how can the government justify restricting your constitutional rights? Can you restrict free speech until you are 21? Unreasonable search and seizure?
They also called on lawmakers to pass legislation to make background checks universal on all public or private gun sales,
Would not have affected any recent shooter.
the creation of a national database of people banned from buying guns,
There are lots and lots of people who are just regular people on the national no-fly list. Prominent journalists. Ted Kennedy (when he was alive). It is easy to get on the list without reason and nearly impossible to get off. If this list is anything like the no fly list, there will be many people who lose their constitutional rights because of an incompetent government. And again, people knew the Parkland shooter was unstable but no one followed up on it. This would not have affected any of the recent shootings.
sale of guns to those under 21,
See above.
and a ban on assault-style weapons,
Just silly and from people who don’t understand firearms. See above. An unserious response.
high capacity magazines
See above. Not something a serious or logical person would consider.
and bump stocks .
“Bump stocks” is a technique to obtain rapid fire. There is no special stock necessary. Recently a company or companies came up with a special stock to make this easier. It is simply a way of holding a rifle to allow it to bump against you and use the reaction force to bounce the gun against the trigger. Again, for someone who knows about firearms, this is a silly argument. Bump stock is a technique, not a device. You can’t outlaw a technique.
Also don’t forget that the ADL is now just another left-wing organization, headed by former Obama administration.
I’m a Californian and my taxes are supposed to go up under this. With that said, CTLawyer, don’t you think it is unfair that state taxes are deductible from federal taxes? That is, if you live in a state that chooses high taxes, why should a state that chooses lower taxes have to subsidize your government’s profligate spending? If one state chooses to be more prudent or more conservative with its finances, why should they have to subsidize a spendthrift state like my own?
Next, over 2/3 of people claim the general deduction and do not itemize. For them their taxes will go down. For the wealthy – particularly in high tax states and despite what many liberals say – their taxes will go up.
I think ALL our taxes should go down. I think our governments’ expenditures are about 1/3 waste, 1/3 corruption, and 1/3 efficient use of taxpayer dollars. We do not have a revenue problem. Government revenues go up year after year. We have a spending problem. EVERYONE’S taxes should be lower. And our government should learn to provide essential services and waste less money.
Also regarding johnnie walker – blended scotches are
Mostly made from grain alcohol with aged Scotch whisky only a smaller portion. Johnnie walker green is a blended malt meaning it is made All from Scotch. Their others are ended whisky which means mostly grain alcohol. The grain alcohol is not aged in former wine barrels so I suspect blended would have less problems.Hi everyone.
Actually American Whisky (e.g. bourbon) is unfortunately potentially problematic.
Many of the American distilleries were founded by and are owned by Jews. I read a fascinating article. When they came over to this country they found that many industries were closed to them. So they opened distilleries. Many of the very Southern, non-Jewish sounding distilleries are actually owned by Jews but the names of the distilleries and whiskies sound southern and non-Jewish for marketing (of course!). It turns out many are family owned and do not sell for Pesach. So many American whiskies that should be kosher are in fact not permitted. Sad but true!
KeithInteresting. Thank you.
When I’m on a plane I go to the back and ask a flight attendant if I can take a few minutes to pray and please let me know if it’s a bad time I’ll do it elsewhere. They’ve always been very kind and eager to help. I believe you can daven Shemona Esrei seated if necessary. I had to look up if I could do it as a passenger in a car and found sources it is OK if necessary. I wear yarmulke and tzitzis out only on weekends, not for work. I go to the gun range, probably the only Jew there, always with yarmulke on and tzitzis out and everyone is very nice to me. I think most Americans are respectful toward people observing their religion, as long as we are not obnoxious about it.
(I am BT and not well educated so take it with a grain of salt.)Shlomo Hadad walks into his favorite bar in downtown Tel-Aviv only to find a horse serving drinks. The horse asks, “What are you staring at? Haven’t you ever seen a horse tending bar before?”
“It’s not that,” Shlomo responds. “I just never thought Itzik would sell the place.”
Reb yid What do you mean?
The following is from the posts here. I write my response below.
“The little I know, your Western society attitude in not in accordance with the Torah. A transgressor is not as much of a child of HKBH. We are his law enforcement officers, just in this country we can’t do it.
…
Little I know, remember Pinchas ben Elozar ben Aharon Ha’Kohen?
…
Yet Halacha l’maaisa today is that we now here in America are deputized to be a Pinchos in our times. Check the local copy of your Shulchan Aruch. The very same S”A that tells us that, today, we are to (physically if necessary) punish wayward Yidden who violate בין אדם למקום.
…
I don’t accept the premise of this statement. I think it is incumbent on parents to try and maintain a positive relationship with their child. At the same time, as managers of the home, the parents have a right to set rules and expectations for what happens under their roof. Having different beliefs does not make it ok for a child to defy rules or severely disrupt the home.“This is a kosher kitchen. Please do not bring that food in here.”
“This home is Shabbos observant. We expect everyone here to put cell phones away. It can be used later tonight after havdala.”
…
We all agree that hashem is our ultimate father.
When a petson does an avaira publicly or in Private , does hashem throw him to the dogs? Does hashem throw him out of the shul he once davenef in? Who are you to decide as a father to disown your son for being a ball avaira.
You as a father are a human just like your son . You too slip here and there in yiddishkiet .perhaps its only in private so no one sees you . But hashem sees you
Does he throw you to the dogs? Does he strike you dead? Are you better anf smarter then hashem who watches all you do behind closr doors? Think very hard before throwing your child out of your house. Just remember. What goes around comes around. Hashem works is very wonderous Ways”
——————
——————
–
—————–
Wow. I am BT. You guys have all had a million more hours than me in this stuff. I recognize my ignorance. My understanding is Moshiach has not yet come, and our Temple is still in ruins, NOT because someone ate treif or turned on a light on Shabbos but because of Sinas Chinam. And that Ahavas Chinam is necessary to bring him and build the Temple. My understanding is that, in the absence (because of our many sins) of Moshiach and a Temple and the Sanhedrin, there is no qualified authority to make any punishment as Pinchas visited upon Zimri, and that Pinchas’ action was lauded as it was appropriate only for him and only in that exact situation and that exact time and not to be generalized to anyone else (as long as we have no Moshiach and no Temple and certainly in the absence of a Sanhedrin).It is interesting those who are critical of Chabad – I am not Chabad but am Chabad-sympathetic – for how much they grow. Chabad seems centered on doing the ratzon of H-shem, recognizing that every mitzvah is a million diamonds, and that ahavas is central.
Are we not to emulate H-shem? In the 13 middos, Ahavas has to do with all of them. In how we are to emulate H-shem, my understanding is that ahavas or chesed is almost always the right answer, and you better be sure before you decide gevurah is the right answer because you may be or are likely wrong, and even if you are right you have to be very very careful with it, like it’s chemotherapy, which it is.
From a secular perspective, you can convince someone to act a certain way if they think you are looking out for them – if they think you love them. If you are just critical, it is very difficult to get someone to do what you want. If your goal is to bring someone OTD back on the derech, it won’t work without love. It just won’t. It doesn’t mean you give up Shabbos and kashrus. It means love them. If your goal is to punish or to feel good about yourself, that’s entirely different but you need to be honest that you are not really trying to bring someone back to H-shem.
For me, I find that when I unleash strictness, it quickly turns into anger or cruelty. For me, it is very dangerous and I do not have good control of it. When it comes to kindness, I think there is much less danger – in most cases – of using kindness too much. Of course “if you are kind when you should be cruel you will end up cruel when you should be kind.” But for me at least, in my life, in general, choosing kindness is most often the right thing and strictness is most often the wrong decision.
My understanding is life is a mirror. How we treat others is how HKBH treats us. If I recall correctly, Baal Shemtov said we get to choose our own punishment. We see another act how we acted and how we judge him is how we are judged. If we want to be judged with chesed after 120, we have to have judged others with chesed. If we treat others only with gevurah, our heavenly din will be through gevurah. I am certainly not righteous enough to be judged that way. I have done way too many aveiros and too few mitzvos, and even the mitzvos I do I’m not sure are worth anything. So I try my best to judge others through and act with chesed and fall all the time.
My two cents…
KeithI’m a BT and every day realize how ignorant I am. So take it with a grain of salt. I am pretty certain you know more about everything yiddishkeit than I do.
It seems to me we need to bring Moshiach. He has not yet come not because someone ate treif or watched TV on Shabbos. Or davened or studied without enough kavanah. It seems to me the Temple was destroyed by us because of sinas chinam and so without ahavas chinam we cannot bring Moshiach. So for me personally, an ignorant Yid who yearns to do H-shem’s will and looks forward to Moshiach coming every day, I try to make as much chesed as I can . “Your gashmius is my ruchnius.” I try to daven with kavanah and try to study daily, but I am pretty sure that H-shem doesn’t think that is where I will make my name. I’m pretty sure my path at least is through Ahavas Chesed. This is coming from someone who is trying to learn, but who recognizes he (me) is ignorant, but striving to become better.What do you think? What is your plan to bring Moshiach?
Hi. Off-topic to ZahavasDad: From a response you gave previously to me – but the thread is closed and I don’t know how to contact you otherwise…
“Unfortunatly many of those books are not welcome in some frum communities 1984 contains Prizus for example and Hucklberry finn contains Nivel Peh.”Nivel Peh is I think bad language. What is Prizus?
What is wrong with cowboy boots? They are very comfortable. And stylish.
I’m BT. My Hebrew is primitive. I can daven with it but cannot study original texts. My learning currently consists of learning Hilchos Shabbos and reading Meam Loez for weekly parshah (but often I don’t get all the way through.) My strength (I think) is in chesed, not Torah learning. I am obligated to learn Torah and enjoy what I learn, but I recognize some people at 120 will have built their name through Torah learning and others in other ways – Chesed, eg. The army needs some generals, some Army, some Navy, etc. If the Navy man deserts his post and decides he’d rather be an army man, and even wins the battle, he’ll be in jail for life. Because he deserted his post. Not everyone is supposed to learn all day. Maybe after Moshiach comes. But who is going to have money to give to tzedakah? Who is going to be an example to the outside world? There are a lot of paths to serve H-shem. Not everyone is for Kollel. Who is going to support the Kollel anyway? You need parnassah for that. And isn’t Zebulon honored more than Yissachar?
I’m old enough now though that I don’t really care what other people think of me – I just need to make sure I’m doing right, working hard, and checking in with my Rebbe once in a while to make sure I’m on the right path.
Who cares what other people think. Just make sure you’re good with HKBH.
My two cents.
Actually you have to be careful about bourbon. Many (most?) bourbon distilleries are owned by Jews and my understanding is most do not sell for Pesach. So a lot of bourbon is actually treif as it is owned by Jews over Pesach.