Vegas Massacre: 59 Good Reasons to Outlaw Automatic Weapons

Home Coffeeroom Decaffeinated Coffee Controversial Topics Vegas Massacre: 59 Good Reasons to Outlaw Automatic Weapons

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 139 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1376598

    mw13
    Participant

    DEADLIEST IN US HISTORY: More Than 50 Dead, 406 Wounded In Massacre At Vegas Music Festival

    #1376644

    adocs
    Participant

    So if automatic weapons were outlawed, you would have no problem with regular handguns and rifles? (Please answer the question, yes or no, before you editorialize)

    #1376663

    bk613
    Participant

    Fully Automatic weapons have been outlawed by federal law for decades.

    #1376687

    yekke2
    Participant

    Outlawing weapons because of a massacre?

    That’s outrageous.

    That’s like outlawing the use of kitchen knives because of stabbing attacks.
    That’s like banning matches because of arsonists.
    That’s like banning unfiltered internet because some people can’t control themselves.

    #CRDSYAG

    #1376676

    akuperma
    Participant

    1. They already are illegal. Is it semi-automatic weapons you want to ban? Perhaps breech-loading weapons?

    2. One reason for private gun ownership is to allow self-defense against the government, and the government has fully automatic weapons (of you say the government is a bunch of saints you don’t need to protected against – perhaps you should the super-blues protesting at football games )

    #1376684

    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    Obviously, there will always be “weapons” (Trucks, improvised explosives, etc.) available to a deranged murderer or terrorist that can kill multiple persons but automatic and semi/automatic weapons provide a more lethal and efficient path. Of course, the Trumpkopf in chief will pandor to his NRA constituents and accuse anyone calling for any limits on gun control as “politicizing” this tragedy. Note, that his statement carefully avoided calling this a “terror event” since that might offend some of his followers.

    #1376950

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    Why not just make it illegal to kill people? Oh wait.

    #1377408

    iacisrmma
    Participant

    GH: If this was a lone person with no ideology or agenda..I also wouldn’t refer to it as terrorism.

    #1377527

    Health
    Participant

    Yidd 23 -“Why not just make it illegal to kill people? Oh wait.”

    Why not just make it illegal to purchase Automatic Weapons? Oh Wait!

    #1377529

    DovidBT
    Participant

    If a few people in the targeted crowd had been armed with automatic rifles, the shooter might have been stopped much more quickly.

    #1377540

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    Health, I don’t understand you.

    #1377556

    Health
    Participant

    Yidd 23 – See bk613’s post!

    #1377577

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    How is that relevant to my post?

    #1377596

    american_yerushalmi
    Participant

    The ban on automatic weapons is not curbing their use. One reason is because there is an easily obtainable “kit” that can turn many semi-automatics (which are legal) into automatics.
    The question of “feeling safe” etc. can be taken to absurd lengths nowadays. What if someone claims not to “feel safe” unless he has a tank in his driveway, or a rocket launcher mounted on his front porch, or an attack helicopter parked on his roof? Granted these are most likely not considered “arms” (“right to bear arms”), But that is subject to interpretation. (OK, maybe not a tank or a chopper.) In any case, you can be sure plenty of the militia crazies have some of those weapons at their compounds “just in case.”
    As long as the NRA and other gun-promoters keep on getting their way, this sort of thing is r”l likely to continue. If they’re even opposed tp more rigorous background checks to weed out people with mental problems, there’s not much chance of getting any significant changes in this situation. If the supposed right to bear arms — any kind that they want — outweighs society’s right be be free and secure from loonies with automatics, it’s hard to hope for change. Hashem yishmor.

    #1377674

    Sam2
    Participant

    DovidBT: That is a horrible example. In many cases, the victims of mass shootings may have been able to at least try to fight back if they were armed. But here, there was nothing to do. The attacker was firing from the 32nd floor, and the acoustics made it impossible for anyone but well-trained people to tell where it was coming from. Do you really want the crowd blindly firing assault weapons back at the hotel?

    #1377739

    DovidBT
    Participant

    Sam2: No, it’s a perfect example. Every round the shooter fired would have created a bright flash of light visible for a long distance. Apparently, he fired hundreds of rounds in a short period of time. A person in the crowd with a rifle, who is competant at using the weapon, should easily been able to fire back at the shooter. A few such people firing at him would have stopped him.

    #1377744

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “One reason for private gun ownership is to allow self-defense against the government, and the government has fully automatic weapons ”

    Yep thats why I have tanks grenades and grenade launchers. and OF course a nuclear arsenal. After all if the government goes rogue there is no way our small arms will stop them. (and of course the second amendment guaramntees my “right to bear arms” it doesnt say what kind)

    Oh and good news Abdul who is on the no fly list bought some weapons from me thankfully ( for him at least) the senate voted down a no-buy list.

    sleep tight.

    And whatever you do dont discuss Gun control! It isnt the time you need to wait at least week after a mass hooting. which of course means we will never discuss it.

    #1377887

    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    It’s funny how last week we were arguing about the first amendment and now we’re arguing about the second amendment and the people who were “defending “ the first are “attacking” the second and vice versa

    #1377898

    Health
    Participant

    Sam2 -“The attacker was firing from the 32nd floor, and the acoustics made it impossible for anyone but well-trained people to tell where it was coming from.”

    Let’s say you’re right, but what happened to the Los Vegas police force?!?
    If I was in charge – I’d have Sharp- shooters all over the place, with a gathering of 20,000 people!

    #1377905

    mentsch1
    Participant

    DovidBT
    I’m a gun owner who believes in control (just to establish my leanings)
    Your statement is ludicrous
    if 100 people in the audience had shot back, their chance of hitting him would be close to 0% and there would have been tremendous collateral damage. The hotel would have been pockmarked with bullets and numerous civilian casualties would have occurred. And he wouldn’t have cared nor stopped, he was planning on dying.

    #1377906

    mentsch1
    Participant

    The first response by ADOCS was the most intelligent
    because he (she?) understands that when liberals talk of control they talk in terms of steps. When they say “lets ban automatic weapons” they mean “lets start with this and then we will ban this next and then this next”
    If liberals would come out and say “we recognize the civilians right of protection in the second amendment , we will stipulate that we need to guarantee those rights, lets compromise” Then a lot more people would be willing to have this conversation with them . but we recognize the deceit implicit in their words.
    and also
    why is the second amendment the only one we need to compromise on? why not the first also? Is all speech really good? shouldn’t we ban some speech also?

    #1377937

    Curiosity
    Participant

    DovidBT. Have you seen the videos? No flash. And have you ever fired a rifle at a target 500 yards away? Have you ever fired an automatic weapon at night at a target 500 yards away without hitting anything around it that shouldn’t be hit? To say this is “easy” shows your only experience in the matter comes from video games. Shooting back towards the hotel would just create more collateral losses. I hope you’re just making a bad joke.

    #1377952

    akuperma
    Participant

    ubiquitin: If the government is so good and perfect and protective and benevolent, and the police are people one can always trust — then why are there so many protests by left wingers against the police and the government,and why do so many left winger make a point of saying how much they distrust and feat the the police. It ca’t be both ways: either BLM and their friends (which includes most of the Democratic party) are bunch of criminal and terrorists who belong in prison OR there is truely a need for citizens to have a right to own guns for self-defense.

    #1377854

    Curiosity
    Participant

    Since automatic weapons are already outlawed, perhaps a better alternative would be to require highrise buildings to have cheap sensors installed to detect broken windows, so that their security teams can more quickly locate a shooter or jumper. Also, maybe a better job can be done for organizing the evacuations of mass gatherings. This could be requested by municipalities when someone tries to pull a permit to hold a large gathering. The gun is simply the tool. The same or more carnage could have been accomplished much more simply with a pickup truck and a few bags of fertilizer turned into a big IED. The sad truth is that there was no good way to stop this attack. The perp had no criminal or psychiatric history. He wasn’t even on the radar screen. Those turning this into a gun issue are just standing on the graves of the victims to try and push their agenda down other Americans’ throats.

    #1377860

    adocs
    Participant

    Dovid BT-
    “ A person in the crowd with a rifle, who is competant at using the weapon, should easily been able to fire back at the shooter. A few such people firing at him would have stopped him.”

    While I have no problem with normal sane people owning a gun for possible self-defense, your suggestion seems to be a bad idea. The shooter was shooting and hitting people from over a quarter of a mile away (report said 1700 feet) The likelihood of any legal gunowners having something that powerful and accurate with them to shoot back at the shooter is probably quite low. And now you have, according to your suggestion, several shooters firing at the hotel which also is housing many potential innocent victims behind windows in the nearby rooms that will be hit in the return fire. And shooting over a panicked crowd with fired bullets falling to the ground (this can be very dangerous) over them.

    #1377947

    NeutiquamErro
    Participant

    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.

    #1377951

    mentsch1
    Participant

    DovidBT
    you don’t understand the physics of shooting. Bullets aren’t laser beams, you need to compensate for distance (ie gravity) with elevation. In other words you hit things by shooting in an arc (with the arc being steeper at the end). Hitting something within a window frame is almost impossible because the bullet will hit the window frame in the final moments (as it passes DOWN at the end of the arc)
    This is why snipers shoot from tables within a room rather then standing at the window.
    Even someone “competent with a rifle” would have had a 0% chance, considering this and other variables.
    This is why I am also pro gun control
    Because it takes seichel to know when not to use your gun. Unless this is taught and mandated as part of owning a gun, it leads to potential for damage. Look at the statistics of children shooting themselves. Look at the perceptions that watching too many movies make (that all you need is a scope and rifle and suddenly you will hit everything without having to worry about collateral damage)

    #1378040

    mentsch1
    Participant

    N Erro
    No strawman
    simply a question
    You do realize its the second amendment of our constitution right?
    Now if we are talking fantasy then sure, I agree, I would love to press a button and give up my guns to live in a utopian society. But there are no utopian societies and there is a constitutional right of gun ownership. So unless we change the founding constitution of our country, the question is fantasy. And as I said before, why stop at the second amendment when the first also causes tremendous harm?

    #1378135

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Akuperma
    “If the government is so good and perfect and protective and benevolent, and the police are people one can always trust”

    Im not sure if this was menat to be adressed to me. It isnt somethign IVe said nor implied nor belie

    ” then why are there so many protests by left wingers against the police and the government,and why do so many left winger make a point of saying how much they distrust and feat the the police.”

    Wait so you are suggesting that instead of protesting, they should just shoot back? Otherwise I dont understand the flow of your first 2 statments
    You seem to be saying that if the police isnt perfect (which I grant it certianly is not) We should arm ourselves and fight with them? you cant think of another approach?

    ” It ca’t be both ways: either BLM and their friends (which includes most of the Democratic party) are bunch of criminal and terrorists who belong in prison “OR there is truely a need for citizens to have a right to own guns for self-defense.”

    so much wrong here
    first of all dont you view BLM as criminal and terrorists AND you see mto beleive “there is truely a need for citizens to have a right to own guns for self-defense” Doesnt this violate your rule?

    Secondly I dont follow wh yboth cant be true. systemic racism in the polcie department is a problem, but there as a whole the govermenmt is good and with peacful protests cna be changed.

    Third Why are they criminakls or terrorists? PErhaops they are wrong if their is no systmeic racism, but what makes thejm criminlas or terrorists? your entire premise is silly

    Finnaly
    If yo u “One reason for private gun ownership is to allow self-defense against the government, and the government has fully automatic weapons”
    2 (related questions)
    1) How are we going to stop the governemnts tanks with rifles?
    2) Why dont I have a right to own nucleur weapons ?

    #1378126

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Mencth1
    ” “lets ban automatic weapons” they mean “lets start with this and then we will ban this next and then this next” If liberals would come out and say “we recognize the civilians right of protection in the second amendment , we will stipulate that we need to guarantee those rights, lets compromise…”Then a lot more people would be willing to have this conversation with them . but we recognize the deceit implicit in their words.”

    that is the silliest thing in the world. so you are arguing that there are p[eople who agree that peopel are needlesly dieing but it is worth it, to stick it to the liberals who arent being forthcoming about their agenda?
    Perhaops you think this way, but it is haerd to imagine many that do.


    why is the second amendment the only one we need to compromise on? why not the first also? Is all speech really good? shouldn’t we ban some speech also?”

    We do ! Look up Schenck v. United States whcih was a unynous decision limiting free speech whn it would cause detah such as shouting Fire in a movie theater
    Secondly. The second Amendment EXplicitly says “A well regulated Militia,” nobody intended a wild west free for all with mass shootings being a normal part of life.

    #1378145

    jdf007
    Participant

    With automatic weapons being outlawed a long time ago, and with murder, actual and attempted being outlawed a long long time ago, and terrorism being illegal… what is the point of this thread? Other than using a guy who was insane about being anti-trump, and possibly that’s what this thread is about too?

    #1378165

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Metsch

    Just becasue it is in the constitution doesnt make it real

    you do know the constitution counts Slaves as 3/5th of a person. that isnt real. Yes it was ammeded as it should be. So even if th constititon did grant gun wonership even in a non-regulated way (it doesnt) that still doesnt make it halacha leMoshe Misinai. If you think it is a good you think private unrestricted gun ownership is a good idea expalin why. but this idea that becasue it is in the cosntitution doesnt at all answer NE’s question

    #1378220

    mentsch1
    Participant

    Ubiq
    I think you are proving the point rather then negating it
    The founding fathers created the second amendment, not for hunting, not even for personal protection but for the purpose of keeping government in check. Which is obvious, because after all, the founding fathers went to war to throw off their government. Now I happen to thinking that our founding fathers were immoral and got people killed for no reason. The British government was not as oppressive as the american history books would have us believe. (nod to NE and the British Empire which had been very good to the american colonies)
    That said this dis-ingeniousness from Liberals is typical on the subject. The purpose of a mandated militia/gun ownership in the constitution is obvious. The twisting to push a narrative is also obvious. For a conversation to have a validity there needs to be an acknowledgement to both sides having a point. The liberal POV is that any republican who feels entitled to own a gun is evil. That is hardly an acknowledgement to the legitimacy of ownership. Namely the constitutional right due to governmental checks and balances (not a jewish value but a legality that would need addressing, which will only happen if people feel their POV is being heard) and the right to protection (a jewish value) and the belief of personal responsibility (guns don’t kill, people do-also a jewish value)

    #1378261

    mentsch1
    Participant

    Ubiq and NE
    Lets also point out the obvious hashkafah here
    Since Liberal narrative on this subject somehow always revolves around the point that conservatives are evil.
    After all, Ubiq wants to compare slavery (an obviously immoral law) to gun ownership
    On a halachic level
    My owning guns does not make me responsible for Paddocks rampage, It’s not even a grama of a grama
    on a philosophical level, Ani Mamin bemuna shelema in the hashgocho of a RBSO
    which means that all those people would have died at that exact same time, no matter the circumstances. The gun was the vehicle of their death, but if there was no gun then there would have been a car bomb etc. which brings us to the liberal point, If you are a liberal , and also a jew, how do you square this hashkofic viewpoint of yours. A gun is an obviously inert object, there is nothing inherently immoral about it, yet you somehow think that it, and not people or G-d, are responsible for death (I know NE, its a strawman)

    #1378284

    apushatayid
    Participant

    40,200 reasons to outlaw motor vehicles.

    #1378296

    rabbiofberlin
    Participant

    mentsch1_your last comment defies logic. So, according to you, all six million kedoshim who were murdered in the Holocaust were just victims who would have died anyway. Happy to see how you rehabilitated Hitler yemach shemo vezichro.

    #1378300

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Metch1
    “but for the purpose of keeping government in check.”

    that isnt the way it was understood for the first 2 centuries of its existence.

    “mandated militia/gun ownership ”
    which is it?

    “For a conversation to have a validity there needs to be an acknowledgement to both sides having a point”
    I agree both sides have a point. I think guns are awesome. But Im willing to give it up if it will help society.

    “Ubiq wants to compare slavery (an obviously immoral law) to gun ownership”
    Thats not what Isaid, I pointed out just because it is in the constitution odesnt give it moral validity

    “on a philosophical level, Ani Mamin bemuna shelema in the hashgocho of a RBSO”
    So give up your guns and you will be just as protected without them.

    #1378362

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “40,200 reasons to outlaw motor vehicles.”

    If guns were nearly as regulated as cars I’d be fine with that.

    License t o operate one
    all of them are registered
    All come equipped with various safety devices
    Insurance required
    Limits to where/ when can be used
    cant be used while under influence of drugs/alchol
    Doctors can have license revoked

    etc etc

    We dont even need all these regulations.

    #1378403

    mentsch1
    Participant

    I have already stated my opinion that I believe in gun control regulation and training to avoid stupidity/injury

    Rabbiofberlin
    I don’t understand your comment at all. If your point is that without Hitler those millions would still be alive, I would call that kefirah. Because it certainly sounds like you are saying that hitler was more powerful and able to circumvent God

    #1378404

    mw13
    Participant

    Does anybody really believe that a semi-automatic, or that apparently legal gizmo that turns a semi-automatic into a full-fledged automatic, is really necessary for hunting or self-defense? How about the 47 guns that this guy apparently owned? Any legitimate use for this stuff?

    Can’t we admit that we as a society have gotten carried away with this?

    Curiosity:
    The sad truth is that there was no good way to stop this attack.

    Outlawing guns wouldn’t have helped because… ? (Not suggesting we should outlaw all guns, which is anyways probably impossible without a constitutional amendment, just trying to understand your point.)

    Those turning this into a gun issue are just standing on the graves of the victims to try and push their agenda down other Americans’ throats.

    This is by far the most prevalent reaction to suggesting more gun control in response to a gun-caused tragedy: “Stop politicizing the tragedy, just mourn it”. And I really just don’t get it. I mean, is suggesting that we fight terrorist in response to terrorism also politicizing terrorism? Should we just mourn and do nothing? Is suggesting a possible way to discourage drunk-driving in response to a drunk-driving tragedy politicizing the tragedy?

    Isn’t the logical reaction to a tragedy to both mourn the tragedy, and try to make sure this type of thing doesn’t happen again?

    ubiq:
    If guns were nearly as regulated as cars I’d be fine with that.

    That would be a good start.

    #1378405

    mentsch1
    Participant

    Uniq
    Again with the disingenuous statements. It’s only recently that the second amendment has been linked to hunting I’m an attempt to make anything but bolt action rifles outlawed.
    Every student of history knows our fathers wanted to protect the values they held dear. One of which is being able to overthrow an oppressive regime (which as I’ve already mentioned, is what they claimed they were doing)

    #1378414

    apushatayid
    Participant

    “If guns were nearly as regulated as cars I’d be fine with that.”

    The gun used in vegas is already illegal to own. What regulation would you like added to”illegal to own”.

    #1378408

    mentsch1
    Participant

    Berlin
    Hitler was a tool of the RBSO. The same way paroh and Nebuchadnezzar were. This doesn’t absolve them of responsibility (as one one who has learnt Chumash knows the question of paroh, bechira and punishment are discussed at length)
    Guns are a tool of the RBSO the same way car bombs and lorries are for mowing down pedestrians. The death sentence comes from G-d, the one who brings about the death is responsible. I would think this is hashkafa 101, do you disagree ?

    #1378370

    NeutiquamErro
    Participant

    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.

    #1378439

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Mencth
    ” It’s only recently that the second amendment has been linked to hunting ”

    Um no Heller was the first court case to define the second amendment as appling to the everyday joe.
    Until then it was debated with most interpreted it as referring only to a “well regulated militia” though the supreme court never decided.

    Guess what year Heller was decided ?

    “. I would think this is hashkafa 101, do you disagree ?”

    So I ask yo uagian, why do you need guns? Obviosuly not for self defense nor to stop a rnegade governemtn nor even for hunting. Please dont tell me you think your gun can stop the will of the RBSO?

    BTW
    “bechira and punishment are discussed at length”
    Yes though yo u dont seem to recall the discussion. The Ramban understands that the hardening his heart gave Pharoh back his bechira and he could have chosen to let us go. The Rambam holds that the hardening was part of the onesh for inital aveiros that he CHOSE to do and could have chosen not to.

    APY
    “What regulation would you like added to”illegal to own”..”
    Heres an easy one. Have all guns registered. (like in Israel) if a person buys more than 5, 10 15 20 (!!!!!) guns particularly in a short period it should trigger some sort of alert. We dont have to ban them neccesarily but maybe have someone take a quick looksie to see what he has planned.

    #1378480

    yekke2
    Participant

    Mentch:
    Do you think we should do away with prisons, and let all the murderers and abusers roam the streets with impunity? After all, no one can do anything against the Will of Hashem; what have we to lose?

    #1378526

    mentsch1
    Participant

    NE
    I’m not the best person to discuss this with bc I’m not married to gun ownership. I am also mostly libertarian. Bc after all, lets examine the most recent attempt to “solve” this. The NYS safe law passed after sandy hook. Outlawed the sale of all military style guns AND demanded registration of existing guns. According to a Forbes article they probably got about 5% compliance and by their estimate 1 million guns went unregistered. Meaning that overnight in an attempt to stop a potential issue (though as any gun owner can tell you the legal weapons are just as lethal, all they did was ban the cool looking guns) they created a big issue. Overnight up to 1 million legal gun owners became felons. so an emotional reaction to play well politically with uninformed liberals, created a huge problem. You can argue they should have complied. I can argue it was a stupid law that addressed an issue cosmetically. Bottom line, our government made law abiding citizens felons by simple non compliance. The greatest violation of civil liberties in recent history (where is the ACLU?)
    Why wasn’t there compliance, bc people understand that registration is the first step in confiscation , despite the disingenuous statements from the left

    #1378523

    mentsch1
    Participant

    yekke and others
    There are obviously inyanim of hishtadlus here
    The obvious question on my philosophy that I was expecting someone to ask is why not leave my gun or knife out so my 3 year old can play with it. The answer is hishtadlus. There is also a concept that engaging in risky behavior nullifies protection from Hashem (second perek chagiga)
    yekke, also you run into the obvious problem of 1 of those seven nohadite laws, so clearly Hashem wants hishtadlus
    Ubiq
    I own guns and use them strictly for fun (have you ever tried shooting, it’s better and cheaper then therapy). I happen to not keep them at home bc I feel that having a gun takes a person to a place of saying koach vetzem yudi, and therefore not relying on Hashem. However if my neighborhood was dangerous , then I believe it would become an issue of hishtadlus to own one.
    NE
    I actually apologize, bc I posted after only reading half your post, then regretted my answer. Don’t have time now, but one point. I read an article in the 90’s by a liberal democrat who was anti-gun. Then he lived through the rodney king riots and came to the conclusion that anti-gun is a nice philosophy until law and order breaks down, then we are on our own. Gun ownership is entrenched bc we started as an unregulated country (indians, outlaws etc) and every one was on their own. Sure I agree, Utopian society would be better(and I would give up my guns in a heartbeat for that society) but the other side would argue but what happens when the cops aren’t there for me . And this happens quite often. Stories (not in the main stream press) of using weapons to save yourself happen quite often. I know 2 people personally with such stories.
    Which gets us back to main question
    stripping away the emotion, this is a health policy decision (my field) and I will compare halachically and hashkaficaaly to the anti vax crowd if i have time

    #1378532

    NeutiquamErro
    Participant

    Okay, with all due respect, I’m now convinced I’m being preached at.

    I have gone out of my way to explain that my issue is with ideology, not practicality. So why is the response I got so concerned with a particular law in New York? I’m going to ask the question one more time: If it were possible for the government to enforce a successful gun control act, to create a situation similar to that in the UK, why shouldn’t they? Let’s assume it’s not’s possible, so let’s please not talk about feasibility. Just if it were possible, what ideological basis is there for not doing so?

    #1378540

    mentsch1
    Participant

    Ubiq
    To clarify
    all guns are technically registered, forms are filled out and filed with the authorities. Yes there are loopholes in certain states and reselling, and I agree we should require registration, and mental health checks etc.
    But the NYS safe law registration was actually instituted to facilitate confiscation. By requiring a new database for cool military weapons and ALSO requiring re-registration every 5 years and no transfer even within a family you have confiscation. If a father registers it and dies, it can not be passed to a son. Govt checks death records and then comes and confiscates the weapon.
    You can argue who needs these military style weapons on the street?!
    I can argue, all semi auto weapons are just as lethal. Google NYS compliant ar 15 and you will see how the cosmetic issues of the law are easily circumvented.
    Bottom line, an attempt to ban these military weapons is either (a) an attempt to ban all semi auto weapons (b) just uninformed, since the cosmetic issues are easily dealt with or both

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 139 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending