NeutiquamErro

The idea that those wishing to cause harm can just use knives or cars simply doesn’t stand up. There’s two crucial distinctions: Firstly, cars and knives are common and necessary everyday objects. You can require licenses and not sell knives to children, but there’s no reasonable way to stop people misusing them. The same cannot be said for guns, the sole purpose of which is it to kill.

Secondly, a country where criminals and terrorist use knives and cars instead of guns is far safer, to a huge degree. For example, the UK has a high Islamic terrorist threat, but the death toll is relatively low. There have been two notable suicide bomb attacks with large casualty counts, but that’s a seperate issue, as people make their own bombs, unlike guns. The death toll from attacks not using bombs is much lower than they would have been had guns been available. San Bernandino had a higher casualty toll than Woolwich, Borough Market & Westminster combined, not to mention many failed attempts. The difference is guns.

Thought I’d offer my belated two cents, a year on. I hope some of the orignal participants in this discussion can respond.

Mentsch1: I cannot see any hashkafic basis for this deterministic view that sensible safety measures are unnecessary since one is anyway destined to die at that time. By this reckoning, putting oneself in any manner of dangerous situations would be completely fine.

On the wider issue of gun ownership – I completely agree that the USA is almost certainly beyond the point of no return when it comes to private gun ownership. Guns are pretty easy to hide, don’t expire, and are pretty much everywhere. There’s no feasible way of changing that. But my question is whether people think that’s largely a positive thing, and that people should be allowed to own weapons due to ideological or practical reasons, or an unfortunate reality?

As a Brit, from a country where guns are rare and gun deaths even rarer, I fail to see why anyone would actively desire a situation like it currently is in the US.

Of course, what we’re talking about here, namely the wedding dinner, is essentially a glorified sheva brachos. It has no significance beyond that. So the copious amounts of snark directed at the question and questioner are unwarranted, nobody’s suggesting the new couple’s entrance is anything other than a pointless bit of pageantry. It would be nice to hear someone address the question directly and mention that their grandparents did it or suchlike. If people are aiming random digs at chassidim apropos of nothing, it’s hardly a good sign.

So it looks increasingly likely that Trump will take this step, and recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in the next 24 hours or so, although it seems as if he will not move the embassy there. I for one hope that he can be dissuaded from carrying this out, as frankly the only people who will welcome this move will be certain sections of the Israeli right. But as a nascent Jerusalemite, I have no wish for an unnecessary return to the increased dangers of recent years. I’m writing this literally on the border between East and West, and am relatively safe standing here. I have no interest in being needlessly endangered over a purely symbolic move. I’d be astonished if anybody considered this good news for the Jewish inhabitants of Yerusholayim. Best case scenario, there’s significant unrest, worst case, another Intifada.

And if the attacker had a gun, many more people would have died.

And my earlier point about coherent replies still stands. I’ve yet to hear one.

Health: I’ve never been accused of being a liberal fantasist before. I’m merely a conservative libertarian who isn’t wedded to ideology over plain common sense. And perhaps being bought up in a country where guns have no cultural significance or legal baggage has given me a different perspective. And I know this comes across as arrogant, but I’m once again left feeling as if I’m holding up the sensible end of this discussion on my own. I’m not suggesting that there’s no reasonable points to be made on the opposing side of the debate, merely that those arguments aren’t being coherently made. Or to put it more simply, I worry I’m just talking into the ether.

But, due to some unfathomable desire I have to continue this masochistic cycle, I’ll respond the the point you made. Guns did stop the Westminster massacre, and there wouldn’t have been any fewer fatalities had there been more guns around. Even had there been enough people in the vicinity with firearms, they would have not been able to stop the speeding car as it mowed down the first four victims, and the officer who was killed would not have survived had he been armed, he was taken by surprise. A nearby armed officer killed him. In an example of a reasonable balance, key sites like the Houses of Parliament are protected by armed officers, and armed response officers are common enough to react promptly and efficiently in the uncommon event of an attack.

And, although this is so painfully obvious it shouldn’t require saying, if there were more guns around in the UK, it wouldn’t have been a car ramming attack with 5 fatalities, but a mass shooting with far more casualties. Obviously. If you’re looking for an example that makes the case for legal gun ownership, an attack where guns would have made things immeasurably worse is a hilariously poor one to choose.

But once I’m again concerned I’ve been too verbose. So I’ll try keep things simple with the summary. Do you think a country, as a whole, is better and safer with widespread legal gun ownership? Because that sounds like what you’re implying, which sounds, frankly, ridiculous.

It’s like asking why we don’t ban knives, because they’re probably the most frequently used offensive weapon. Because knives are an integral facet of the way we live and conduct our business, from eating to manufacturing, as are cars. Guns are not of positive use to society at large. So just stop using this analogy.

I was enlightening anybody it may have concerned as to the nature of my facetiousness. If that helps.

Yeah, I was being facetious #PoesLaw

It’s assur to propse.

The whole concept of proposing comes from the goyim.

Health: I’m assuming when you say ‘Read up about England’ you’re referring to the fact that Britain has a very low level of gun violence. If your point is that only the criminals have guns, that’s simply not true. There are armed police, but they’re called upon when needed. There’s enough around to respond quickly in the event of an emergency, or for specific operations. And there are very few criminals with guns. It’s simply not worth it for them. Getting hold of one is more likely to get them arrested than most things, and even if they do get one, they’re extremely expensive, outdated and in poor condition. But more importantly, there’s just little cause for your average criminal to carry a gun. Criminals mainly carry guns to protect themselves against rival criminals, ot very rarely police or members of the public. If their enemies haven’t got guns, they don’t need guns either. So the gangs in London and elsewhere carry knives. The strict gun laws mean that even the few guns it might be possible to obtain are just not worth the trouble it’d take to get them. And when the police carry out a routine traffic stop, a stop-and-search, an arrest for a petty crime, they don’t have to worry whether the person they’re dealing with has a firearm, which makes everyone safer. And that’s without counting the fact that mass shootings are incredibly rare in England.

In the USA, there are already probably too many guns around to effectively police them anyway, so I’m not saying there’s comparisons to be made. I’m just saying that as far as guns are concerned, the UK is an example of the right way to do things. So if you’re bringing them as an example, I’m assuming it’s a positive one. Because suggesting otherwise would just be stupid.

Since Mensch made an effort to reply, I’ll respond. But since my question has not actually been answered in anything approaching a satisfactory manner, I’m not going to get into yet another discussion where only one side is interested in dialogue and the other one is going to write the same mostly incomprehensible stuff no matter what the actual point of contention is. I’m sorry, I know that comes over as more than a bit passive-aggressive, and it’s not directed at anyone in particular, I’ve been burnt before.

So, in very simple terms, I’d like to know why people would think a country with widespread gun ownership is better off than one with very few guns and strict gun control. This isn’t a matter of practicality as, I initially acknowledged.

If that question is simple to understand, please, as a favour to me, please answer it as best as you can. If you want further clarification, here it is:

Is it purely an ideology, that dictates that everyone should be allowed to possess any item, no matter of its purpose? Fair enough, I’m a libertarian too. But if you take that argument to it’s logical conclusion, there should be no limits whatsoever. Drugs, Apache helicopters, tanks, nuclear waste, the whole bang lot. I accept this as a worldview, I just want it to be expressed clearly and lucidly.

In my initial post, I immediately mentioned the Second Amendment, to which the response was if I was aware of the Second Amendment. Which sort of reinforces my sneaking suspicion that I’m not actually being conversed with, merely preached at. Anyway, the mere fact that it’s in the Constitution, which I happened to have studied in depth, doesn’t make it an ideology. I mean, it itself was an Amendment, so it’s not as if it’s beyond being, y’know, amended.

I never really have any time for the view that this is some kind of barrier against government intrusion, as in the rather unlikely event that the US Army attempts to subjugate its citizens, even semi-automatic rifles aren’t going to be much use against B-52s. Which brings us back to the above libertarian question, as to whether citizens should be allowed a full, nuclear-armed private army. In which, case, umm, fair enough.

So, bearing in mind that this isn’t about practicalities, but purely about ideologies, why should a government allow people to freely own what are purely implements of death? Cars serve other useful function, to address the most common and ridiculous strawman head-on. Eagerly awaiting the responses.

I’m sure if you’re bought up with the Second Amendment as part of you national culture this all makes a lot more sense. Because to a Brit, this is just confusing. A country without guns is far safer than a country with widespread gun ownership. I accept that the USA has almost certainly reached the point of no return with regard to firearms, as there are now more guns than people, and guns don’t have an expiry date. So any effort to impose retroactive gun control would be so difficult as to be impossible. Fair enough. And once you’ve reached the point where guns are freely available, there is an argument to be made for increasing legitimate gun ownership. If this is an issue of practicality, then there’s a lot of grey areas. As an American friend of mine pointed out, there is very little the US government can do to police the smuggling of weapons over the Mexican/USA border. None of us know how feasible gun control would hypothetically be, but we can agree that it would be very problematic.

But what confuses me is the ideological component. There are plenty of Americans, including yidden, who, if they were offered to press a button that would rid their countries of guns, would refuse to press it. Or to put it another way, even if it were possible to turn the USA’s situation into one similar to that of the UK, where guns are very rare and highly regulated, they wouldn’t want it. And I find it hard to fathom how somebody would reach that point of view.

I fully expect the regular deluge of strawmen, ‘Good people with guns’,’Impossible to enforce’, etc, etc. But I’m not talking about practicality. I’m talking about ideology. In the UK, guns are very difficult to get hold of. Very few police carry them, and very few criminals have them either. Even when criminals do manage to get hold of them, the difficulties in getting them into the country are so extensive, and the penalties so extreme, that they’re just too expensive and too risky for most criminals to bother with. Obviously, as an island, the UK has a geographical advantage in policing this. But the end result is, we haven’t had a mass shooting since the ban on hand guns, which was enacted in response to the Dunblaine massacre. If, purely hypothetically, it were possible to change the USA’s situation to one similar to the way it is in England, specifically with regard to guns, would you?

Awaiting your responses with genuine curiosity.

It’s not chiefly an issue of race, it’s an issue of culture. Men from certain cultures, in particular particular south Asian communities, feel that young white females are inferior, and as such they can treat them awfully despite what scruples they may feel as human beings. It isn’t really a matter for debate. That’s not to say don’t debate it, it’s just there’s pretty conclusive evidence. It’s a clear pattern across different towns and cities in the UK, that organised groups of men from particular cultures carry out a pattern of abuse against vulnerable white girls. The reluctance to accept that the culture these men originate from plays a part led to a failure to track down and prosecute these gangs.

As presumably the only member of the Coffee Room who has been in Kensington, London in the past 24 hours, I suppose I can try enlighten you. But I haven’t been to the knockoff American version.

It’s quite an upscale area, with some of the most expensive property prices anywhere in the world. And like many parts of London, there are also poorer areas, particularly from immigrant communities. The area has been in the news recently due to the Grenfell Tower tragedy, where a council tower block caught fire and, exacerbated by poor building standards, led to the death of over eighty people, mainly immigrants. I actually saw the tower last night, and the sight is truly shocking.

Without meaning to complicate matters here, as much as I agree that there is probably a huge dislike for Trump amongst the wider media, it’s hard to argue that much of the vitriol he gets isn’t deserved. When Trump actually fulfills his duties competently, and is still given a hard time, then this would be a fair comment to make. The fact that the ‘wrong’ people dislike him doesn’t make him a good Commander in Chief. I say that as somebody with no particular political affiliation, and certainly no love for his opponents. It just irritates me when people ignore his obvious failings just because they dislike his detractors more.

DaasYochid: Got it in one. This has been fun.

yekke2: But, continuing my train of thought, yes, I am arguing in semantics. It’s not as if 20 year olds are naturally more susceptible to alcohol, they are deemed too irresponsible to deal with it safely. If the law deems them not yet old enough to be responsible for their actions, to the extent that it will ban them from doing an otherwise legal activity, then the state should not consider them legally an adult. The definition of an adult should be the age at which one becomes considered fully responsible in all respects, with no exceptions. That’s what it should mean, and the law should reflect that.

Persuant to your further question, the nature of heroin is that people under its influence harm others, due to their altered mental state and its addictive nature. The same argument can be made about alcohol, but for societal reasons it is legal to consume. There is far less reason to ban marijuana, although there are studies showing it leads to psychosis in the long term.

And with regard to your final point, as I’ve said, I don’t think the state should consider adults responsible and mature in only some respects.

Yekke2:

Perhaps I should have made myself clearer. To my mind, the difference between being a child and an adult in legal terms is personal responsibility. The legal definition of adulthood should be the age at which the individual is in all respects deemed old enough to take full responsibility for their actions. This would extend to anything. For me, it is a fundamental dichotomy for the state to impose further age restrictions on people who have already reached adulthood. It isn’t just a label, it’s a legal concept. I’m not necessarily saying this is the case, only that it should be.

Now, in my opinion the role of the legal system is govern the boundaries where people’s actions have consequences on others around them. If this sounds simplistic or obvious, all governments overstep their mark by imposing restrictions that it is not within the essential remit of a democratic liberal system. So therefore, even from a libertarian standpoint, taking heroin or driving drunk would be illegal, as you’re placing others at risk, not just yourself. So too would does it make sense to require a certification to drive, as otherwise you’re placing others at risk. On occasion, there is a common sense case to be made for banning things that are harmful to society as a whole, such as possessing guns, even though a hardcore libertarian would feel this is outside the remit of governance. But all of these things are equally applied across society. Telling adults of a particular age that they are not permitted to drink, whilst allowing others, is unequal. A supposed scientific basis is not enough, there needs to be an ethical and legal case.

Drinking alcohol is a matter of responsibility. And it is wrong to tell somebody otherwise deemed fully responsible for themselves and their actions by the state, that they are not responsible enough in this narrow regard. If they feel 19 year olds truly aren’t responsible, and bring evidence from increased drink driving rates or the like, then they should be legally considered children, with commensurate voting and tax legislation.

I justify monitoring and restricting children thus: The state is responsible for the welfare and actions of children, hence legal guardianship, and juvenile courts. They are not deemed legally equipped to take responsibility for themselves, so the state does it for them. So having different stages at which children are permitted to take responsibility for certain behaviours, such as driving, is sensible. There is a fundamental difference between a 17 year old and a 7 year old, in that a 17 year old can generally be adjudged capable enough to drive. Both are children, and are unequipped to decide for themselves, so the state decides for them. But adults should all be equal under the law, in terms of responsibility and capability. So do deem some adults less capable than others on account of their age seems nonsensical. I would object to requiring 100 year olds to hand in their driving licenses, although they should have to prove they are capable of driving safely. That’s the key distinction. If something is deemed unsafe for a 20 year old, it should be similarly restricted for 40 year olds. Either that or change the arbitrary cutoff age at which one is deemed mature.

Drugs fall into a difference category because they have a wider negative affect on society as a whole, and are therefore illegal for every citizen. I believe that drugs which only affect the user should be legal, from a purely libertarian standpoint, although I don’t think that drug exists.

And yes, I believe the issue is a binary one. If one is to be deemed by the state and adult, then that person should no longer be bound by laws that discriminate by age. I simply believe that should be the definition of an adult. If that age is deemed to be 21, then so be it. But I don’t believe the state should be allowed to tell some of its subjects that they are not yet responsible enough for a particular activity. I’m fine with the law deciding that children over a certain age are generally mature enough to do things like drive or get married, but I’m not okay with the statutes doing the same for adults. To take this argument to its logical conclusion, if there were a scientific, peer-reviewed, double-blind study showing that people aged 40-46 are 32% more likely to be involved in an automobile accident, would there be a case from restricting the right to drive for people in that age bracket? I would argue certainly not, and ages 18-21 should be no different, unless we legally consider them children.

If Hillary Clinton was the President, then one of her supporters would be pointing out the exact same thing.

My point being, it is overwhelmingly likely that the performance of the Dow Jones would not have been markedly different under a different administration. The President has far less influence on the general performance of the economy, of which the Dow is an indicator, than people like to believe. And that is true even during a recession or crisis of some sort, where the President has more room to exert their influence and has more direct responsibility. In the relatively economically stable times of the past 6 months, I feel entirely comfortable in believing that Donald Trump has little, if not nothing, to do with this.

Polygamy.

Punctuation is your friend.

The main issue affecting UK mosdos is the insistence of Ofsted, the body charged with inspecting and evaluating educational establishments, on promoting ‘British values’, which particular emphasis on issues such as toeivah and modesty. This was sparked by a case in Birmingham, known as the Trojan Horse plot, where Muslim organisations attempted, and managed, to ‘Islamify’ certain state schools. They used the schools, which were publicly run but had many Muslim students, to promote fundamentalist and Salafist values. Some of the incidents that were reported were truly shocking, although they are too numerous to go through here. The result of this was a moral panic, and heavy scrutiny on faith schools. Ofsted announced new procedures, such as unannounced surprise inspections, and a focus on ‘values’ and ‘rights’.

Unsurprisingly, the frum schools were caught in the crossfire. The majority of the fresh surprise inspections were targeted at religious Jewish schools, despite there only being about two dozen frum schools in the entire country. Whilst these schools often receive public funding, they were not actual state schools, like those affected by the Trojan Horse plot, and are technically private schools. And these schools had mostly received excellent results previous to this, with almost all rated ‘Good’ to ‘Outstanding’. These were schools that generally provided an exemplary secular education, attaining very good, sometimes country-best, exam results, and also taught as part of the curriculum ‘British values’ such as civic responsibility, democracy and tolerance. But this was not considered, and the inspectors focused very heavily on specific issues such as ‘equality’ and toeivah. As a result, previously highly rated schools were downgraded to ‘Poor’ or ‘Special Measures’, which can lead to forced closure. For example, Vizhnitz Girls School failed three consecutive inspections for failing to teach their students about toeivah, this being the only stated reason for the poor rating. There were instances of inspectors far overstepping their bounds by directly telling very young children about certain issues related to ‘equality’. In fact, the reports from Ofsted failing these schools bring the ‘Equalities Act of 2010’ as the primary reason. This story is ongoing, and leaves frum schools in a very difficult position. There has been a backlash, as Ofsted is supposed to be an apolitical organisation, but it seems determined to enforce its liberal values on the frum education sector.

What other posters have mentioned is a separate, although tangentially connected, issue regarding unregistered yeshvos, generally chassidishe chedarim, and their status. This has been fueled in particular by some who have left the kehilla going to the media. This is far less widespread then the above issue regarding ‘values’, and is notable mainly for the headlines it has generated. Some of them have reregistered as ‘sunday schools’, and Yeshiva Tiferes Yaakov in Gateshead, amongst others, had to register its lower shiurim as a ‘school’ to avoid censure. But the two are not the same story, and should not be confused with each other.

Just a random side point. The quote in the excellent book The Big Short about Steve Eisman, the founder of Footsteps, is that ‘He couldn’t even give his money away without starting a fight’. Unfortunately, the worst part about this organisation is that it doesn’t just fulfil its stated aims to ‘help’ people who have left the community, it aims to actively persuade vulnerable people to leave the kehilla. It’s UK counterpart is just as bad, as it focuses heavily on hitting back at the community it’s left, causing problems with regards to religious schools, kashrus and chinuch, all matters that are particularly volatile right now in this country anyway. There were several articles in a major newspaper several weeks ago where one particular young OTD bochur gave an interview in which he basically slandered the entire community, with charges that lacked any semblance to reality. The paper in question repeated all his accusations as if they were gospel, refused to listen to counterarguments, an supported his statements with comments from a female Reform ‘rabbi’ that were too completely false. The angle they took was education, but they used it to tar the entire community with a particularly thick brush. A counterpoint organisation would have a very difficult job getting the necessary publicity to counter these accusations, but it woul be a very useful resource for the frum kehilla.

HTEA is sooo tiring.